|
|
"The Road to 9/11,"
by Peter Dale Scott. University of California Press, 2007, 423 pages.
Prelude to Disaster by Jon Harrison
Two events in the 20th century transformed the American way of life. The first was the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the economic depression that followed it. This led to the election of Franklin Roosevelt and the tremendous expansion of federal interference in both the economy and the day-to-day lives of individual Americans. Despite some rollback on the tax front under Ronald Reagan, and on the regulatory front under Reagan and others, the power of Washington continues to loom large over every state, community, business, and citizen. There seems little hope of our ever returning to the balanced federalism that existed before 1933.
| |
Jon Harrison lives and writes in Vermont.
|
|
The second event was the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which led to the creation of the national security state. The National Security Act of 1947 gave statutory existence to the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. In the following year, peacetime conscription was introduced. In 1950, the National Security Council issued NSC-68 (written by Paul Nitze), an alarmist document that may justly be called the blueprint for the military-industrial complex. Approved by President Truman shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, NSC-68 began the process of militarizing American society. If we have not quite become another Prussia as a result, we are today far from the republic that existed until the mid-20th century, with its relatively small defense establishment and overseas commitments.
Despite the end of the draft in 1973, and the temporary paring of defense spending that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the military-industrial complex lives on, warping our politics, our economy, and our engagement with the rest of the world. One is sometimes tempted to wonder whether the current terrorist threat is the creation of nefarious forces here at home, designed to keep the national security state in being.
One would be wrong to believe that, or rather to believe that it was done deliberately. Some of the so-called "truthers" maintain that the U.S. government (or alternatively, the Israelis) carried out the 9/11 plot, or at least stood by and allowed it to come to fruition. These people are conspiracists, nothing more. No real evidence exists for their feverish formulations. Nevertheless, that the U.S. government had a hand in the creation of al Qaeda and Islamic extremism generally is by no means a far-fetched idea. This is one of the many provocative themes that run through Peter Dale Scott's latest book, "The Road to 9/11" (subtitled "Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America").
Before delving deeper into Scott's thesis, I will say a few words about the man himself. Born in Canada, he served in the Canadian diplomatic service before taking up a teaching post at Berkeley in 1961. He remained there until retirement. Now nearing 80, and a professor emeritus, he has the intellectual energy of a man half his age. He is also a poet of some repute, though I confess I have not read his poetical works.
Scott is a man of the Left. In a remarkable preface to the book, he contrasts the America of 1961 with the America of today, maintaining that we as a nation have lost our way. Libertarians will perhaps bristle at some of his conclusions. It may be possible to refute him on some particulars, but I fear the broad picture he paints is all too accurate.
|
|
Brzezinski, through his support for the Afghan mujahedin, set in motion a process that eventually led to the 9/11 attacks.
|
|
I found particularly resonant his comparison of present-day America, awash in unneeded consumer products and mindless diversions, to the simpler life he and his wife discovered in Thailand, where they recently spent some 18 months. Similarly, my wife and I came to rural Vermont to find a less cluttered life — a slower pace without the material obsessions of the suburban world we left behind. Whether most libertarians will identify with this critique of materialism, I couldn't say.
But this is not a book about political economy or cultural malaise in the United States. Rather, it tells of the bitter fruits of empire — the price we have paid for the continued existence of the national security state. The book's focus is on the period from the partial breakdown of the Cold War consensus in 1968 to the present day, when we are suffering both at home and abroad from the consequences of al Qaeda's successful attack on the Twin Towers.
This is not a standard narrative such as academics have been producing since the 19th century — that is, a presentation of generally agreed upon facts that are analyzed according to the author's ideological predilections. Rather, it is an attempt to reveal the
deep politics*
of the period — the stories that never make the newspapers (or are misreported), the facts that are somehow left out of the standard academic works.
Let me stress that we are not here entering the world of conspiracy mongering. This book, like all of Scott's prose works, is meticulously researched and sourced. His formulations are grounded in the evidence. His conclusions may be disputed, but not on evidentiary grounds. In short, the scholarship is excellent.
Libertarians and some leftists can perhaps agree that the increased size and power of the state have provided cabals both inside and outside of government with the means to pursue their own ends, often (though not invariably) at the expense of the commonweal. Scott sets out to expose these cabals in action, and to my mind, he sheds much light on them.
We see an American establishment conflicted first in its approach to conducting the Cold War (at least in its later stages), and then to the sharing out of the spoils of victory. A willingness to maneuver around public opinion and the law itself is a shared characteristic of virtually all the major players. Among Scott's more startling revelations are:
- That in 1971 Lewis Powell, the future Supreme Court justice, composed a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, outlining a program for the survival of the free-enterprise system in the United States. After 1968, the establishment apparently believed that the system was in dire peril. This failure of nerve created an atmosphere that allowed the Pentagon to undertake serious planning for the imposition, if necessary, of martial law.
- That Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, through his support for the Afghan mujahedin, set in motion a process that eventually led to the 9/11 attacks (an assertion supported by the British defense publication "Jane's," hardly a left-wing rag).
- That Brzezinski, David Rockefeller, and Henry Kissinger were able to secure the deposed Shah of Iran's entry into the United States, despite the opposition of President Carter.
- That in 1980 William Casey, Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign manager and future CIA director, intrigued to prevent the preelection release of the U.S. hostages in Iran, thus assuring that Carter would not pull off an "October Surprise" that might have carried him to victory. The events of 1980 closely resembled those of 1968, when Republicans and Democrats intrigued either to prevent or to promote negotiations to end the Vietnam War.
- That in the mid-1980s Vice President George H.W. Bush, Rep. Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld (then out of government) worked with Oliver North on plans to suspend the Constitution and intern thousands of U.S. citizens in the event of a "national emergency."
- That Ali Abdelsaoud Mohamed, while a member of the U.S. Army's special forces, trained al Qaeda members in hijacking techniques (including how to smuggle box cutters onto airplanes), and later helped plan both the 1993 World Trade Center and the 1998 East African embassy bombings. Mohamed was also a U.S. intelligence asset, even while he was planning attacks on U.S. citizens. Despite his role in thousands of American deaths, he has continued to receive special treatment from the U.S. government. Some of these facts were suppressed by the 9/11 Commission, for reasons as yet unknown (though the desire to avoid political embarrassment seems, to me at least, likely).
- That Vice President Cheney has consistently lied about his role on September 11, 2001,
particularly during the crucial time period from 9:00 to 10:30 a.m.
|
|
This book tells of the bitter fruits of empire — the price we have paid for the continued existence of the national security state.
|
|
Not a pretty picture, is it? And not one, assuredly, that will be found in future textbooks or conventional histories of the period (or for that matter, in popular works such as the movie "Charlie Wilson's War"). One is repelled by the Byzantine quality of it all. One almost understands how some people's minds can be warped into thinking that U.S. leaders are capable of murder, even of their fellow citizens. For the actions taken by our leaders are so often contrary to what a normal American would perceive as the national interest that bizarre conspiracies almost seem necessary to explain them. On the other hand, perhaps we are merely witnessing the fruits of greed and stupidity. Occam's Razor teaches us that this is the most likely explanation.
Yet — it is known that during the Cold War the U.S. government, or parts of it, supported terrorism and the killing of civilians in places like Italy and Central America, in order to advance American interests. Even the killing of U.S. citizens was contemplated, though it appears no such plans were ever implemented. (I refer here only to the deliberate murder of American citizens at the behest of the U.S. government, as outlined in the Operation Northwoods documents from 1962. Some American leftists — Black Panther Fred Hampton, for example — died under questionable circumstances at the hands of state and local law enforcement, backed by the FBI. The deaths that occurred at Ruby Ridge and Waco, despite federal involvement, cannot be said to involve the deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians. The key word as regards these latter cases is "deliberate.")
Should we then consider, after all, the possibility that our own government may have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 plot, and allowed it to go forward? Scott does not make this quantum leap, but he insists that many important questions about 9/11 remain unanswered; that a cover-up (the reasons for which we can only speculate about) occurred. His arguments in this regard are persuasive.
The book also provides interesting sidelights on past scandals, such as Watergate and the activities of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), neither of which has been fully plumbed to this day, despite the efforts of capable scholars and journalists.
Almost no one comes off well in this book. Even Patrick Fitzgerald, often seen as a future attorney general in the United States, is revealed to have feet made partly of clay. This is not the result of a hypercritical attitude on the part of the author. Rather, it is simply (sad to say) a reflection of how America functions on a political level today.
One of Scott's ideas that I find little basis for is his conception that a major cause of the problems highlighted in his book is the growing disparity of wealth in America. To my mind, the immense and continuing growth of governmental power is what sets the stage for battles over resources and policies between competing interests, and leads to imperial ventures like the war in Iraq. A major reduction in the size of government would mean, ipso facto, that there would be that much less for cabals to fight over. Given fewer resources, the American government's capacity to make mischief around the world would be greatly reduced.
In his introduction to the book, Scott says:
This increasing articulation and institutionalization of secret power corresponds to an increasing subordination of public power to the private realm. Many Americans have become inured to the fact that major policy decisions, ranging from defense strategies to the initiation of preemptive war, are no longer formulated by the public state. Rather, these decisions are now imposed on it from the outside.
Quite so. But how do we fix this problem? By leveling incomes? By increasing taxes on the rich, or on corporations? The problem will not be solved by legislation. Only if we reduce dramatically the means that lie open to those who wish to subordinate "public power to the private realm" can we hope to put an end to the mischief. If there are no vast wheels of public power for the evildoers to grasp, then their capacity to harm us (not to mention the rest of the world) is greatly diminished.
|
|
We are not here entering the world of conspiracy mongering. Scott's conclusions may be disputed, but not on evidentiary grounds.
|
|
This is not an easy book. One must make a commitment to see it through. There is a wealth of information that will be new to many readers. The prose, however, is precise and clear. Scott is a very fine stylist. I found no errors of any significance (Scott places the Palmer raids in 1918; they actually occurred in 1919).
Scott's hope is that in time we will see a Velvet Revolution here in America. Drawing on the examples of the American Civil Rights movement, Solidarity in Poland, and the end of apartheid in South Africa, he foresees a similar "soft victory" over the "Vulcans" who presently rule us.
In an email exchange a few months ago, I urged upon Scott a pet idea of my own: that an alliance of libertarians, traditional conservatives, and what I call "sound progressives" is needed to combat the Bush-Cheney foreign policy, as well as the domestic agenda of the evangelical Right. He replied that he saw promise in this conception. He went on to say the following: "These efforts will not succeed at first. But to many people independently these contacts seem necessary for the sake of the Republic. I keep saying that if the Poles could oust their Soviet occupiers, the American people should be able to prevail over the military-industrial complex."
I didn't bother to point out that on its own (that is, without America behind it), Solidarity would have been squashed like a bug. In response, I merely said to Scott, "I don't believe you will see a Velvet Revolution here. Too much bread and circuses for that."
To this he made no reply.
|
|
* |
"Deep politics" is Scott's own neologism. For discussion, see his "Deep
Politics and the Death of JFK" (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1993) 6–10. In the work under review, he contrasts the "deep state"
to the "public state" in almost Manichean terms.
|
BACK
| |
|
