Note: Philip Zelikow was the gatekeeper on the 9-11 Commission. He decided the direction of the investigation. He decided who was to provide testimony and what from their testimony would be included (or excluded) from the report
Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after." The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after." Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.
In an address at the U.S. Naval Academy, President Clinton announced on May 22, 1998, that we must approach the new terrorist challenges of the 21st century "with the same rigor and determination we applied to the toughest security challenges of this century."
Thomas Barnett while at the Naval War College in Newport RI, received the assignment in May of 1998 for the Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project.
That project evolved into the New Rulesets Project:
"I like to describe the brief in this presentation as the product of about a six-year conversation with Art Cebrowski in addition to a long mentoring relationship I’ve had or enjoyed with Hank Gaffney at the Center for Naval Analyses and a similar relationship with retired four-star admiral Bud Flanagan recently of Cantor Fitzgerald. The way I like to describe the conversation with Art is to note that we came to the war college at roughly the same time - summer 1998. He had a list of things he wanted us to study. At the top of that list obviously: net-centric warfare. At that point more glimmer in his eye than the dogma it has become around Washington. At the bottom of that list was a very odd subject - the potential for the year 2000 problem to serve as a security situation around the planet. As the most recent hire and the professor with the least standing, I was given that project. It turned out to be the most fascinating project I’d ever done. It was a grand exploration of how we think about instability and crisis in this interconnected world. And that is really how Art Cebrowski really saw it. He saw it as a heuristic opportunity - an opportunity for teaching-learning because he knew there’d be unprecedented discussions between the defense dept and the rest of the U.S. government, between the government and the private sector and between America and the world. So we created a project and we called it the Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project.
New Rulesets is about "Visions of Governance in the Twenty-First Century"
Market Based Governance is a totalitarian system by definition. Corporations are totalitarian. They use NGO's to implement policy of the Comintern to hide the fact that the orders are coming from the top down.
This is the nexus between the Information Technology industry and 9/11 and "New Rulesets" Zelikow and Winokur
And.... lest you have any doubts:
Constructing the Demand Driven Workforce
