| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 5:23 am Post subject: The Import of the 9/11 Commission |
| March 29, 2004
The Import of the 9/11 Commission
The Hearings Concentrate on Side Issues, But Provide Dangerous Harbingers for the Future
By BILL CHRISTISON
former CIA analyst
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, chaired by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and better known as the 9/11 Commission, entertained news junkies across America with two full days of hearings last week. The ex-governor, chosen in part for his low visibility when a replacement had to be found for the controversial Henry Kissinger, did a creditable enough job as the entertainment MC. He and his mixed crew of good and not-so-good ex-officials, politicians, and perpetual staff aides spread before us not one but several partisan versions of how well or how badly the intelligence and foreign-policymaking arms of a Democratic and then a Republican administration performed over the past decade.
For students of politics and the internal workings of governments and bureaucracies, the exercise undoubtedly provided a few useful historical insights. The commission's final report, when issued in the summer of 2004, may even contain helpful recommendations for reorganizing governmental intelligence and foreign-policymaking mechanisms -- helpful, that is, to the leaders of the world's only nation-state that presently seeks military domination over the entire globe.
To the remaining citizens of the U.S. and the world, however, it was at best one more Roman circus distracting us from what should be our main goal: PERSUADING WASHINGTON TO SCRAP ITS FOREIGN AND MILITARY POLICIES THAT FOSTER U.S. GLOBAL DOMINATION AND AN AGGRESSIVE ISRAELI-U.S. PARTNERSHIP IN DOMINATING THE MIDDLE EAST. These are the dangerous policies that both Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's administrations, with only minor differences of emphasis, have pressed on an unwilling world. Earlier administrations had similar goals, but serious policy steps toward fulfilling those goals became much more feasible -- or at least seemed to U.S. leaders to be more feasible -- after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. These policy steps also fitted nicely with the needs of the principal financial backers of both major U.S. political parties for more aggressive U.S. policies that would encourage a continuation and expansion of their own profits.
The website of the 9/11 Commission states that it is "an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002," and that it is "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."
The final sentence just quoted would allow the Commission, if it wished, to recommend changes in U.S. policies that generate ever more hatred against America and thereby perpetuate terrorism. On the other hand, the Commission may narrowly interpret the phrase "designed to guard against future attacks" to mean it should recommend only organizational and tactical actions intended to intensify and make more effective U.S. implementation of the so-called "war on terror," and also reduce the chances of future terrorist surprises embarrassing to the U.S.
The latter course is the one the 9/11 Commission will almost certainly take, since neither of our major political parties wants significant changes in U.S. foreign and military policies. With John Kerry as the presumptive Democratic candidate, the only policy changes that he is likely to favor in these fields will be in matters of tone, such as listening more courteously to allies, and less obvious displays of trigger-happiness. He might, in addition, slow down the outrageously expensive and wasteful anti-ballistic missile program, but he would not stop it. His bread too is buttered by the same financiers that underwrite Bush.
The members of the 9/11 Commission, both Republicans and Democrats, are in the same club. Nothing in the hearings of March 23-24 suggests that any member will cut the leash that ties him or her to the military-industrial establishment. Note also that the charter of the Commission limits its role to "the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks," so it will definitely pass no judgments on, for instance, the later establishment of a Pentagon intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, entirely outside the intelligence community with the specific purpose of providing distortions and lies to encourage the American people to support the invasion of Iraq.
The highlight of the hearings, of course, was the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and the simultaneous publication of Clarke's book, both of which demonstrated fairly conclusively that the Bush administration had not, in its first eight months, given a very high priority to developing a coherent counterterrorism policy. Clarke provoked an orgy of activity from the wounded Bushies designed to discredit him, but he produced no smoking gun to prove real negligence on Bush's part beyond a generalized unwillingness to copy any Clinton policy on any subject. The affair has mildly damaged Bush's image as a decisive leader, but the injury is nowhere near fatal to his reelection campaign. Furthermore, Clarke himself espouses such one-sided and utterly uncompromising views against terrorism that he is unlikely to provide much support in coming months to those of us who want to change U.S. foreign policies.
So Clarke is also a distraction and part of the Roman circus. It is doubtful that he will draw more than a few votes away from Bush next November, unless his revelations, which by themselves are not of crashing importance, induce someone else to come forward with a real smoking gun. For example, if anyone produced truly strong evidence that the FBI report of an al-Qaida member learning to fly but not to take off or land an airliner had in fact been provided to the White House before September 11, that would change many peoples' calculations about where responsibility for the 9/11 fiasco lies. Another recent story, appearing on Salon.com, is also worth watching. A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the 9/11 Commission that the FBI had detailed information prior to September 11 that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted. Again, if anyone provides evidence that such a report was passed to the White House before 9/11, this too could change a lot of political calculations in Washington. At the moment, the evidence is simply not there to conclude that either of these reports will seriously damage the Bush administration.
The March 23-24 hearings, however, do provide a few dangerous harbingers for the future that may be of secondary importance in the short run but become more important as time passes.
Further Expansions of Intelligence and Covert Actions Planned
That the world is likely to be subjected to a further upsurge of U.S. intelligence activities and covert actions will not be news to many of us, but it still is noteworthy. This trend has been developing for the last four years or so. The testimony and the written submission of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet show most clearly the continuities of the two administrations, since Tenet served both under Clinton and under Bush. Under both, terrorism (as defined by the U.S.) and military actions initiated by the U.S. have resulted in a major expansion of U.S. intelligence services, particularly in the areas of personnel and career opportunities in both the analytical and the covert action and collection components of the CIA. More is to come.
If you accept as valid the views that terrorism against the U.S. and its allies is entirely the fault of those whom the U.S. labels enemies, and that military actions initiated by the U.S. are entirely defensive and therefore valid, then you will see nothing wrong with the massive expansion of the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies (or for that matter the expansion of our overt military services). But if you are skeptical of these views, then you should also understand that most people of the world will regard this surging growth of U.S. intelligence activities as immoral and as representing a truly absurd and crazy excess in the American political system that should be opposed by every thoughtful person.
Most Americans do not realize the extremely negative effect that a global expansion of CIA activities, particularly covert actions, has on other peoples. It seems almost impossible for the U.S. to avoid bragging about strengthening its intelligence capabilities while at the same time coyly claiming that it cannot reveal the details for reasons of security. It is just one more form of arrogance that the U.S. displays, and it simply intensifies global hatred of the U.S. The covertness of what the CIA does makes the blowback worse. The use of covert action by the U.S. should be reduced, not expanded. Any instances of it that are uncovered become a cause of more terrorism. The U.S. literally encourages this. Governments around the world can easily obtain and study every unclassified briefing that Tenet gives, and newspapers, TV, and radio in other nations revel in spreading and embellishing stories about what the CIA says it is doing.
The unclassified oral briefing that Tenet gave on March 24 was a summary of a lengthy written statement given to every Commission member. The entire statement was immediately available on the CIA website. It is a blueprint for vastly increased covert activities. The global dominators running Washington these days probably think it is a great idea to show the rest of the world how easy it is for the U.S. to increase its covert capabilities against other nations and sub-national groups, and how futile it is for others to try to stand up to the U.S. But the other side of it is the hatred this produces -- always more hatred.
In the written statement, Tenet starts out by poor-mouthing his way through the "peace dividend" years after the Soviet Union fell apart. The document states that "during the 1990s our intelligence community funding declined in real terms, reducing our buying power by tens of billions of dollars over the decade. We lost nearly one in four of our positions. . . . By the mid-1990s recruitment of new CIA analysts and case officers had come to a virtual halt. NSA was hiring no new technologists during the greatest information technology change in our lifetimes. . . . With the al-Qaida threat growing more ominous and with our resources devoted to countering it clearly inadequate, we began taking money and people away from other critical areas to improve our efforts against terrorism. Despite the resource reductions, . . . we managed to triple intelligence-wide funding for counterterrorism from fiscal year 1990 to 1999." After the earlier statements, this tripling of the money for counterterrorism is a real eye-opener, meant to suggest that Tenet is a genius of a manager for doing so much with so few resources.
The paper points out that FY 1999 was the first year during the decade of the nineties in which the intelligence community received a "significant infusion of new money," and that other supplemental infusions followed in subsequent years. Tenet then writes, "In CIA alone, I count the equivalent of 700 officers working counterterrorism in August 2001 at both headquarters and in the field." He adds, however, "Nonetheless, it will take many more years to recover the capabilities we lost during the resource decline of the 1990s." Later in the paper, he talks about the need for better integration between the intelligence community in Washington and state and local officials. For this purpose, he says, "Large, sustained budget infusions will be required separate from our other resource needs."
From this shopping list, readers throughout the world can see that the U.S. intelligence community assumes it soon will have a great deal more money to spend than it has now. Will these same readers be cowed by all this, or will their antagonisms against the U.S. behemoth simply grow stronger? As intelligence and covert actions become
increasingly important as an identifiable, separate, and growing arm of U.S. global policies, should not questions be raised by Americans about the ignoble image of the U.S. this trend presents to the world? Do we lack so much confidence in our own overt policies -- our alleged support for democracy, for example -- that we have to rely increasingly on covert actions? To repeat the obvious, these questions will become more rather than less important unless we change our foreign and military policies in major ways. Starting right now.
Assassinations
The Israeli military has been assassinating Palestinians accused of terrorism, or of organizing and directing terrorism, for some years. The U.S. government has approved these assassinations, or at most has issued exceedingly mild criticisms on some occasions. But when it comes to proposals for assassinations that might be committed by the CIA, the differing views in the government that have come to light so far in the 9/11 hearings are remarkable. The reason for the differences goes back at least to 1976, when President Gerald Ford issued an executive order decreeing that "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." That period immediately after the Vietnam War saw an upsurge of harsh criticism of the CIA for its covert actions from the 1950s through the early 1970s. This writer knows of no evidence that Ford's executive order has ever been formally rescinded.
But times change, of course, and by the late 1990s the Clinton administration was quite openly calling for the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, although not publicly using the word assassination. The Bush administration has continued these calls and has freely talked about wanting bin Laden "dead or alive." The unclassified version of the 9/11 Commission's staff report, however, contains considerable evidence of conflict. The excerpts below are drastically abbreviated. The entire document makes fascinating reading and can be found on the internet.
"Many CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, have criticized policy-makers for not giving the CIA [the proper] authorities to conduct effective operations against bin Laden. . . .
"[With respect to] President Clinton, NSC staff and CIA officials differ starkly here. Senior NSC staff members told us they believe the president's intent was clear: He wanted bin Laden dead. . . .
"As former National Security Adviser Berger explained, if we wanted to kill bin Laden with cruise missiles, why would we not want to kill him with covert action? . . .
"[But] every CIA official interviewed on this topic by the Commission, from DCI Tenet to the official who actually briefed the agents in the field, told us they had heard a different message.
"What the United States would let the military do is quite different, Tenet said, from the rules that govern covert action by the CIA. CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden. . . .
"They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation. Quote, We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him, end of quote, a former chief of the bin Laden station said. [Elsewhere, the document reveals that the CIA's Directorate of Operations established what was dubbed a "station" in Washington to handle the pursuit of bin Laden. CIA "stations" are usually established in foreign capitals to deal with operations in those countries.]
". . . To further cloud the picture, two senior CIA officers told us they would have been morally and practically opposed to getting CIA into what might look like an assassination. One of them, a former counterterrorism center chief, said that he would have refused an order to directly kill bin Laden.
"Where [both sides] agree is that no one at CIA, including Tenet and Pavitt, ever complained to the White House that the authorities were restrictive or unclear. Berger told us, quote: If there was ever any confusion, it was never conveyed to me or the president by the DCI or anybody else, end of quote . . .
"But absent a more dependable government strategy, CIA senior management [did not push for more specific instructions] . . . through both the late Clinton and early Bush administrations."
What seems to be happening here is that in the years before September 11, neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration was willing to put in writing an explicit assassination order to the CIA, and CIA leaders, remembering that the Agency had been badly and deservedly burned in a similar situation almost thirty years earlier, dragged their heels and possibly avoided even trying to carry out an assassination that both administrations wanted. It is fairly clear that Tenet thought the U.S. military might have no such compunctions; he simply did not want to steer the CIA into such a morass on his watch. But it is also fairly clear that he did not choose openly to confront either administration on the issue -- at least not before September 11. His position now, in the aftermath of September 11, may or may not be different. We simply have no information. The best guess is that he would prefer to avoid the issue as long as possible, and if the military under Donald Rumsfeld wants to solve the problem for him, copying the Israeli military, he probably would not mind.
Pressures are almost inevitably mounting within the Bush administration in support of more assassinations The peace movements of the U.S. and the world ought to be out there with all the strength they can muster, opposing assassinations everywhere. They are always extralegal and immoral, and the perpetrators are always the prosecution, defense, judge, and jury all rolled into one. Furthermore, as a practical matter, one assassination often encourages others, and any leader who supports an assassination had better watch his own rear. Needless to say, assassinations would be yet another kind of action seen as displaying the arrogance of Americans toward other peoples, and one more entry in the catalog of reasons for hating the United States.
Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950 and worked on the analysis side of the Agency for over 28 years. In the 1970s he served as a National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser of the Director of Central Intelligence) for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. Before his retirement in 1979, he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. He can be reached at: christison@counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.com/christison03302004.html | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:53 am Post subject: September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction |
| Subj: September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction
Date: 4/3/04 5:33:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Friends,
September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction
I am including this piece by Doug Giebel only for its comments about the possibility that Bush administration insiders had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorism but deliberately allowed it to happen. It is a very cogent argument.
Giebel writes:
"Prior to 9/11, it seems plausible the Bush team in fact expected an attack, either at a U.S. installation overseas or on home ground. The air inside the Beltway was rife with warnings from many reliable sources. To believe no such attack could be on the horizon was to believe in the Tooth Fairy, and these Republicans are realists. There is no Santa Claus because THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected an attack, wherever it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults on the World Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq."
In short, US authorities did not have to have foreknowledge of the specifics of the impending attack. Rather, they simply wanted to allow any type to attack, which could be used to provide a pretext for war against Iraq. Thus, they deliberately ignored warnings about terrorism. However, there would be no reason for them to expect the great devastation that did occur, the probability of which was very low.
Giebel continues that "the Bush White House did not foresee the expected ‘event’ (in this case, 9/11) would exceed their expectations, giving them a sensational and emotional excuse for taking on Saddam Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush Administration rejoiced (as bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell and the Pentagon burned; they simply took advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, with no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it became necessary to delay invading Iraq until action against bin Laden and the Taliban had satisfied the national desire for revenge."
Some individuals with considerable expertise, such as German intelligence expert Andreas von Bülow, have argued that the US government (and/or Israel) actually staged the entire attack. But if this were the case it would seem that the conspirators would have made it appear that it was committed by Iraqi agents. Since this was not the case, it would seem that the Al Qaeda terrorists were real. And it seems that Israel was aware of these terrorists. We know that some Mossad agents lived on the same street in Florida as Mohammed Atta and that other Mossad agents filmed the burning Trade Towers from across the Hudson. These occurrences would definitely seem to be other than pure coincidence. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm
It seems reasonable to assume that if the Mossad were keeping surveillance on the Islamic terrorists, Bush administration insiders were aware of this. (Naturally, President Bush would be totally unaware of what was going on.)
Does this theory attribute an impossible evil cynicism to the Bush administration insiders? Giebel writes: "Is it cynical to imply the Bush Administration had so little interest in the loss of human life it would tolerate a modest loss to terrorists in return for the capture of Iraq? Not according to the evidence. The Bush Administration has shown little interest in the loss of non-military lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government avoids ‘body counts’ of ‘collateral damage.’ Similarly, there have been no major reservations about putting U.S. troops in harm's way; and the current plan to permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our troops in Iraq will result in more losses for years to come. To the Bush team, such losses are acceptable."
Given the numerous lies the Bush neocons have put out regarding the non-existent WMD and the non-existent Saddam-Al Qaeda ties, it is apparent that they believe that the ends justify the means.
__________________________
http://www.counterpunch.com/giebel03292004.html
March 29, 2004
Candide in the Wilderness
How Bush Administration Policy Was Made
By DOUG GIEBEL
In this best of all possible political worlds, might and money triumph over adversity. Until the dramatically expected appearance of Richard Clarke, Lady Luck was blowing almost daily on the dice of George W. Bush and the Bushvolk. How did they work their magic? Was the table rigged? Short of climbing into the skulls of Bush Administration brainiacs, it is possible to speculate as follows.
Not "All" About Oil
It is no secret. Some neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration pined for the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein well before George W. Bush began his first bid for the White House. The goal: to appropriate Iraq as a major foothold for U.S. military power and influence in the heart of the Middle East. In the years following the first Gulf War, Iraq had succumbed to inspections, sanctions and military strikes. There was virtually no chance Saddam Hussein would or could attack the United States. The problem: How to convince U.S. politicians and the public that an invasion of Iraq was an acceptable course to follow.
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence the Bush Administration war-seekers planned the terrorist crimes of 9/11; nor does it seem likely that those involved in carrying out the attacks knew (a) of the plans to take out Saddam Hussein's government; (b) how the administration would react to their September Surprise.
In the weeks before September 11, 2001, the Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group ignored advice from Clinton Administration insiders. Instead, as Clarke, O'Neill and the record show, they had their sights on Saddam's Iraq. Warnings of impending terrorism in briefings given by members of the Clinton Administration to the incumbent Republicans were dismissed or ignored because the new kids on the block had a cocksure sense of their own self worth. They knew Iraq was where they were going. They weren't quite certain how to get there.
Prior to 9;/11, it seems plausible the Bush team in fact expected an attack, either at a U.S. installation overseas or on home ground. The air inside the Beltway was rife with warnings from many reliable sources. To believe no such attack could be on the horizon was to believe in the Tooth Fairy, and these Republicans are realists. There is no Santa Claus because THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected an attack, wherever it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults on the World Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq.
Lady Luck arrived unexpectedly for both George W. Bush and Usama bin Laden. Just as the terrorists could not have foreseen the complete collapse of the World Trade Center, so the Bush White House did not foresee the expected "event" (in this case, 9/11) would exceed their expectations, giving them a sensational and emotional excuse for taking on Saddam Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush Administration rejoiced (as bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell and the Pentagon burned; they simply took advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, with no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it became necessary to delay invading Iraq until action against bin Laden and the Taliban had satisfied the national desire for revenge.
Is it cynical to imply the Bush Administration had so little interest in the loss of human life it would tolerate a modest loss to terrorists in return for the capture of Iraq? Not according to the evidence. The Bush Administration has shown little interest in the loss of non-military lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government avoids "body counts" of "collateral damage." Similarly, there have been no major reservations about putting U.S. troops in harm's way; and the current plan to permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our troops in Iraq will result in more losses for years to come. To the Bush team, such losses are acceptable. On October 17, 2003,Rep. Tom Delay expressed the administration view, declaring, "We'll pay any price and bear any burden to advance the cause of human liberty. After the shock and of awe of major combat the price and burden of human hope shift from the battlefield to the town hall and the town market. And that hope Mr. Chairman cannot come in the form of a promissory note. It's our fight and now it's our job."
Later, when asked if the war was worth the lives of 564 U.S. soldiers killed, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Oh, my goodness, yes. There's just no question ...25 million people in Iraq are free." (March 14, 2004)
My suggested scenario explains why the administration did not seem especially concerned about an impending event of terrorism and why alarms sounded by people in the field were ignored or under-valued. It also renders more clearly the possible reasons why President Bush would object to setting up the 9/11 Commission and why the commission has been stonewalled. Successful strategists take advantage when the unexpected arrives unexpectedly.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Pre-invasion, their statements to the contrary, Bush Administration leaders knew there were few or no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In revving up the siren to wail that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD capable of killing "thousands" and "millions" of human beings, administration officials knew its fear-inducing claims were patently untrue.
Whatever their failings, those who led us into war may be risk-takers, but they are not foolhardy. The everyday behavior of President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others with membership in The Project for the New American Century demonstrates their collective interest in remaining in power through the re-election of George W. Bush and beyond. In politics, very little happens that is not calculated with at least one hand on the pulse of public opinion. Being there: that's what politics is all about.
In this context, the often-cited Wolfowitz statement in Vanity Fair makes sense. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for invading Iraq]." Still hurting from the criminal acts of 9/11, Americans would be more easily persuaded of Saddam Hussein's evil designs if he were portrayed as posing the most alarming threat possible: his possession of weapons of mass destruction to be used against U.S. cities and other targets. As we know, the argument, although quite absurd, carried the day. (Why "absurd"? Because Saddam's nation had been under sanctions, military overflights and attacks for a dozen years. Iraq had no air force and no navy capable of reaching the United States. The best our neo-con fear-mongers could muster was the specter of unmanned drone aircraft that were in reality incapable of flying from Iraq to the <U.S.A>.)
How much damage were Bushvolk willing to risk? Facing the potential use by Hussein's forces of tons of supposedly highly-lethal weapons of mass destruction would have meant taking extraordinary risks with the lives of U.S. and "coalition" troops. Invading forces met by such formidable opposition would likely have resulted in a nightmarish slaughter of the "liberators" and stain the Bush record for all time. Would these otherwise-circumspect political creatures really take that chance? Logically: no, they would not. And they didn't.
No WMD were used against coalition forces during the invasion, and they have not surfaced to be used against those forces during the occupation. Why not? Common sense would lead one to believe that if the weapons really existed and posed a threat so immediate that invasion was necessary, Saddam Hussein would have used those weapons in a heartbeat to repel invasion and to wipe out the occupiers.
Another major "clue" to the WMD mystery can be addressed by recalling the Pentagon's unusual strategy to "embed" reporters with the invading troops. According to some estimates, approximately 2,700 "embedded" reporters worked the march to Baghdad and beyond, a staggering number, especially if there were any real fear of encountering weapons of mass destruction. Embedded journalists were perhaps even more likely to be killed or injured than the troops engaged in actual combat. Their reports of battlefield casualties from WMD related-causes would have horrified the nation and the world. It seems certain this army of reporters would never have been invited along for the ride if invasion had not been viewed by Pentagon brass and others as the relative "cakewalk" it turned out to be.
Note also that on February 7, Australia's newspaper The Age reported, "Australian troops fighting in Iraq were told in an official briefing days before entering the country that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours." The news must have relieved anxiety for Aussie troops. Surely if Australia knew, the U.S. knew. This reinforces retired State Department weapons expert Greg Thielmann's statement to 60 Minutes that Saddam posed no real threat, not even to his immediate neighbors.
After considering those years of bombings, sanctions and intelligence gathering, the Bush Administration was quite certain an invasion of Iraq would be successful and would immeasurably enhance its prospects for a second four-year stint in the White House. At home, a "war budget" would block funding of social programs disfavored by the White House. The semi-secret plan to build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq would move forward following the selection of a "democratically-elected" group to govern Iraq according to U.S. needs and wishes. Today: Iraq. Tomorrow: The Middle East and beyond.
The unaccomplished mission went forward; Iraq was invaded as planned and desired.
Weapons of mass destruction had everything (and nothing) to do with it.
Protecting Iraq
On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune ran a short article by foreign correspondent Christine Spolar in which she revealed the U.S. military is building "an enhanced system" of fourteen (14) "enduring bases" that are "designed to last for years.
Experts were correct to believe the U.S. should have employed a much larger military force when invading Iraq, especially for maintaining civil order once the occupation began. On the other hand, chaos has the advantage of demonstrating to occupation critics the need for a permanent U.S. military presence. It remains to be seen whether, under U.S. control, an effective Iraqi army and police force can ever be established. Although Iraq poses no real danger to the United States as a nation, a simmering Iraq gives the Bush Pentagon an excuse for maintaining a significant number of U.S. military bases on Iraqi soil. Better safe, they might argue, than sorry.
Two redundant questions regarding a "rebuilt" Iraqi military:
1. Will an Iraqi air force be re-established capable of repelling threats from outside the country?
2. Will the Iraqi military be independent and provided with military hardware (tanks, missiles, etc.) capable not only of repelling attacks from foreign entities and also capable of launching an invasion of neighboring nations?
Consider. In May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We'll have as many forces in the country as is necessary to see that there is a secure environment.'' Nearly one year later Rumsfeld ruminated, "[M]y personal view is that the Iraqis are going to be better able to provide for their own security, more likely to make progress with respect to their economic and--and--and essential service side of the equation if, in fact, there's an Iraqi face on the government and that they have a voice and some important role in governing their country."
The Iraqi military will not be revived to the extent it could pose a "danger" or an "imminent threat" to anyone outside its borders. In all matters foreign and domestic, there will be an "Iraqi face" and they will have "some important role" in the nation's affairs.
Interviewed on ABC's This Week program, Secretary of State Powell said, "We will continue to have 100,000 troops there, helping them with their security as their own security forces show greater ability to protect the population. We'll also have a very large embassy." (March 14, 2004)
In February 2004, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seconded Rumsfeld, stating it is unlikely an Iraqi government will ask the U.S. to leave Iraq. Then Myers added, "And our help's going to be needed for some time. If nothing else, think about the external threats to Iraq. Certainly, the new Iraqi army's not going to be up to that in terms of size, or their training."
These revealing statements set forth Iraq's future, the performance of which will be stage managed by the United States, not for a year but, in Gen. Jay Garner's words, "the next few decades. (Congress Daily, February 6, 2004)
If Iraq is threatened from outside, the U.S. will come to the rescue with our military might including continued use of National Guard and Reserves. Should those forces dwindle, re-introduction of the military draft will follow. By means of this political strategy, employment figures at home will be boosted, giving President Bush a means of claiming an improved economy as new workers are hired to fill the shoes of those sent east in combat boots.
Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure will drag on for years. The contracts granted to U.S. corporations will continue as long as our semi-privatized military and our palatial embassy remain in Iraq. Delaying and prolonging reconstruction has advantages. Men sitting endlessly in line to fill their cars' gas tanks will not be making mischief somewhere else. Families who must wait hours for electricity to come on are tied to their homes by necessity. Water is necessary for life. Its absence weakens the healthy and debilitates those who are ill. Unpurified water may cause sickness among those who are not immune to impurities. Negatively rationing water leads to restricted activity and cloudy mental processes. Our model here: the old Hollywood westerns: He who controls the energy and water supplies controls the territory.
The cowboys are in charge. To borrow from President Bush, we will be in Iraq "As long as it takes." Whether a compliant press will ever ask President Bush and John Kerry for their views on this issue seems doubtful. The cost of building and maintaining at least 100,000 troops on ground in Iraq is unknown, as are estimates of the number of lives that may (surely will) be lost over a period of (say) fifty years. Will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren be wounded or murdered in Baghdad? Perhaps these matters are not to be discussed in polite patriotic society. Is "Bring the Troops Home" already a lost cause?
How does the Bush Administration respond to the question of lives lost as a result of our good-will efforts to remake Iraq in our own image? Neo-con Bush booster William Kristol, Chairman of the Project for the New American Century, gave what might be the answer when he told the Diane Rehm Show, "I am very comfortable defending the morality of the current situation." Kristol's comfortable position is cold comfort to those who must serve in harms way and those who suffer loss as the war of occupation drags on for decades, draining money and blood from Americans.
The Bush Administration was quite aware no weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to our invading and occupying forces. The Big Lie was bigger than most folks realized. Contrary to critics who believe the administration has no "plan" for post-invasion Iraq, the plan is obvious to any willing to examine what has happened, what is happening and what is being said. The years those neo-conservatives spent dreaming of their golden opportunity to appropriate Iraq were not spent in idleness. The puzzle fits.
Oh, and one more thing . . .
Oil.
Doug Giebel is a writer and analyst who lives in Big Sandy, Montana. His essay "When Professors Cheat" is soon to be published by Mellen Press. He welcomes comments at dougcatz@ttc-cmc.net.
Weekend Edition Features for March 20 / 21, 2004 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 3:43 pm Post subject: Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission? |
| http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/index.php?articleid=2209
March 31, 2004
Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?
by Paul Sperry
In finally accepting the 9/11 Commission's request for public testimony under oath from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the White House was not the one that flinched. It was the 9/11 Commission.
The fine print of the deal takes the chance of the commission taking sworn public testimony from any other White House official – including Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush himself or Vice President Dick Cheney – completely off the table. It also precludes the panel from having the option of calling Rice, who's made media statements contradicting evidence and sworn statements by other officials, back to testify.
It's a one-shot deal. And it stinks.
Even under oath, Rice can dodge tough questions by claiming her answers would jeopardize national security or the war on terror. "I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but again, that's a classified area, and I just can't get into it," she could say. Or she could come down with Washington amnesia – "I have no recollection of that." And she and everyone else in the White House could skate. The commission has no recourse at that point.
Other compromises are curious. Why did the panel, which has subpoena power and could compel Rice to testify, originally bow to White House demands not to even tape-record the statements they were "allowed" to take from her in private? Why will it let Bush tag-team with Cheney in a joint Q&A in the White House without oaths or even tape recorders? Why has it agreed to let just four panel officials lay eyes on a key intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 attacks?
Why is the commission bending over backwards to please the White House when it's supposed to be fiercely independent and bipartisan, made up of five Republicans and five Democrats?
The answer may lie in the little-known fact that the White House has a friend on the inside. And not just any friend, either.
His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.
He also carries with him a downright obnoxious conflict-of-interest odor, one that somehow went undetected by the lawyers who vetted him for one of the most important investigative positions in U.S. history.
There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel. Here are just a few of them:
Philip D. Zelikow
He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.
A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."
The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.
Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel – The National Commission on Federal Election Reform – with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)
After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.
Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.
A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.
Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.
Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.
The two-page memo in question mentions "al-Qaida" and "hijackings," that much we know. What we don't know is if it gets any more specific about the threat. And the White House won't let us find out. It refuses to declassify any of the August memo (or any of the other briefings Bush got before 9/11, for that matter), and it won't even let most commissioners review it.
Bush and his top security adviser insist they have nothing to hide.
Rice pal Zelikow, for his part, says he's recused himself from any part of the probe that deals with the roughly one-month period after the election when he worked with Rice on the transition, as if any potential conflicts he might have would end there. Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg doesn't understand the fuss over Zelikow. "He has not served in the Bush administration," he argues more technically than convincingly.
The fuss, Mr. Felzenberg, is that 9/11 relatives like the wife of the late Ronald Breitweiser want to know they are getting an honest investigation into what their government did to protect their loved ones from a foreign-ordered attack on American soil.
But the way key pre-9/11 documents and sworn testimony from top officials are being denied the public, it looks like the fix is in.
To be sure, Zelikow could be a remarkably objective fellow and not let his close ties to the Bush administration influence his final report in any way.
But with the commission still refusing to subpoena the documents and caving to White House ground rules on testimony, the stench of political bias has become too strong, and Zelikow should nonetheless step down, immediately, for the sake of the families, many of whom are demanding his resignation. And the commission should vote to further extend its deadline while it finds a more politically detached replacement for him and redoubles its efforts to deliver the "full and complete" and "independent" investigation it originally promised the country. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
