-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/588/in1.htm
}}}>Begin
30 May - 5 June 2002
Issue No.588
International
Current issue
Previous issue
Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
Recommend this page
See none, hear none, speak none
A debate is brewing in the US about the revelations that the administration was
warned prior to 11 September of an impending terrorist attack. In Washington,
Mohamed El-Sayed Said assesses the debate and engages two security experts on
its implications
The process of self- assessment and criticism currently underway in the United
States has the potential to destroy the artificial consensus on the narrative of the
events of 11 September. Observers have repeatedly commented that mainstream
interpretations of the events are startlingly homogeneous in light of the openness of
the US's political system and the sophistication of its media. Mainstream
discussions, too, tend to sideline matters that worry outsiders most about the attacks
and their implications.
By outside observers, I mean those people who are denied the central stage in any
public and politically significant debate on the factors contributing to and resulting
from the responses to the 11 September attacks. Non-Americans, one such group of
"outsiders", on the whole and regardless of how they view conspiracy theories, find
that the official narrative and the US's response leave much to be desired.
Interestingly, revisionist interpretations and dissenting views concerning how the US
should have acted barely make it into mainstream discussions.
Nonetheless, the present rift carries within it the potential to devastate the American
political and institutional system. And while no one can predict the direct political
outcomes, particularly on the present administration, one can certainly not rule out
the possibility of a voters' backlash against the administration's critics.
It all began when CBS and The New York Times reported during the second week of
May that the administration had received warnings about the possibility of a terrorist
attack as much as eight months prior to 11 September. The subtext of these reports
was, of course, that the administration could have prevented the attacks. This line
was roundly rejected by both sides of the debate, which, instead, focused on
institutional shortcomings. However, there is no doubt that the way the themes of the
debate are taken up by the media and the general public will do much to fuel the
imagination of proponents of conspiracy theories in the Arab world.
The story about the warnings the administration had received shows a failure on
three levels. The first level regards the quality of information obtained by US
intelligence agencies that was relevant to the plot by Bin Laden's group. The second
pertains to the dissemination of information through the state apparatus and to the
administration. According to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the
relevant reports and information failed to reach the president and his top advisers. At
the third level was the state and administration's response to the available
information, such that the response did not prompt the adoption of adequate
measures to prevent the perpetrators from carrying out their plan.
The ensuing debate tackled three aspects of these failures. First and foremost in the
debate is the issue of institutional gaps and a lack of coordination among security
and intelligence agencies. Indeed, a major security expert said that dozens of
security agencies at the state and federal levels work in isolation from each other. It
has also been suggested that the agencies were, at various times, at odds or
competing with one another.
The very premise that the administration had failed to act upon information which
had been piling up before 11 September is as close as the debate came to
questioning the president's competence.
The third aspect relates to the functioning of American democracy and transparency
after 11 September, namely, the president's decision not to inform the public about
the reports.
The American political mainstream seemed to be divided into two camps over this
matter. One camp -- primarily made up of Democrats, along with a few Republicans -
- maintains that there was indeed ample information upon which top administration
officials failed to act and that the administration is now trying to cover up its
incompetence by silencing those who want to explore the matter.
The other camp rejects the notion that the information that reached the
administration merited the adoption of emergency measures. This argument explicitly
concedes the failure of intelligence by pointing a finger at the deficiencies in the
US's
security institutions. However, proponents of this view adamantly refuse to concede
that this issue includes matters of political responsibility. Silence on reports for
eight
months is seen as only natural given that these reports are national security secrets
that are not expected to be shared with the public. Moreover, the administration and
Republican zealots, with President Bush in the lead, went on the offensive by
accusing Democrats of attempting to capitalise on the existence of the reports.
The parameters of the debate are extremely narrow. November's Congressional
elections, undoubtedly, have much to do with attempts to contain the discussions.
Consequently, both sides of the debate are closely watching the public's reaction to
the security revelations. Much more importantly, and given the ambiguities of public
opinion at this moment, both sides are restricted by the limitations imposed by the
general ideology of patriotism and its accompanying cognitive frameworks which
came to be used to explain the events of 11 September.
Some, however, have taken great pains in trying to alert the public to other narratives
or, at least, other versions of the same narrative. Al-Ahram Weekly has interviewed
two American scholars who are security experts, but who see the 11 September
through dissenting prisms.
Wayne Madsen is a former communications security specialist for the National
Security Agency and Joseph Gerson is the director of the peace and economic
security programme at the American Friends Service Committee, a multi-faith
organisation established by Quakers working for social justice.
Karzai, Khalizad and ONOCAL
Wayne Madsen, I am a little bewildered by the reports on early warnings about
terrorist attacks on the US. There is a strange sense of detachment to these, as
though the American security system had not had any dealings with the Al-Qa'eda
people. Should we be asking when the US's long-established connections and
interactions with the Taliban and Arab Afghans were ruptured, when we know that
they continued even under Bill Clinton's administration?
No, the relationship between the Bush administration and the Taliban increased in
intensity compared with that between Clinton and these groups. Bush's National
Security Council Special Envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad was a consultant for
UNOCAL [an oil consortium operating in the Caspian Sea] which dealt with Mullah
Omar and Hamid Karzai. Omar received cash in violation of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act. Karzai was also a UNOCAL consultant.
The latest revelations seem to provide a new impetus for conspiracy theories popular
in our region. To what extent do the revelations on prior warnings corroborate one or
more of these theories?
It does appear that some people had various levels of advanced warnings about a
terrorist attack. I do not subscribe to the notion that Mohamed Atta and his team
were not responsible, however. There are some possible discrepancies in the
identities of all the hijackers. The passport alleged to belong to Atta that was found
in
pristine condition on a New York street after supposedly surviving 1,800 degrees
heat and catastrophic collapse turned out to be a novelty passport issued by the
'Conche Republic' in Key West, Florida.
How, then, would you explain the failure to act on the warnings? Is it only a matter of
incompetence?
Incompetence and arrogance. Arrogance stemming from the fact that US intelligence
discounted intelligence and law enforcement reports from France, Jordan, Morocco,
Egypt, Germany, Cayman Islands, Kazakhstan, Israel, Russia, Canada and India that
pointed to an impending attack.
Why in your view doesn't the US simply initiate a real and transparent judicial
process for the purpose of providing clear evidence of responsibility on the attacks?
The Bush people do not want an independent investigation because of all the other
factors that would be looked into -- the Taliban pipeline deals, the spiriting out of
the
US of the Bin Laden family members by air when all US air traffic was grounded that
was organised by Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, the failure of the US air force to
respond to the hijackings, etc.
What consequences do you believe the latest reports will have on the political
situation in this country? Do you expect that a scandal will develop and weaken this
seemingly invincible administration?
Yes, the Bush presidency, which was questionable anyway, is now fair game for the
Democrats and Republicans like John McCain [a Republican who sought the
presidential candidate nomination]. Bush's ability as a leader is now on trial.
How would you characterise in cultural terms the administration's reaction to the 11
September attacks?
The US's reaction was highly nationalistic and racist -- it fits Bush's style and that
of
people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others. Only Colin Powell stands out
as more statesmanlike.
How do you think all of this impacts on the 'go after Iraq' scenario?
The Sharon assault on the West Bank has scuttled this -- there is no coalition and
there will not be one as long as the Likud is in power in Israel.
Five dimensions to the matter
Joseph Gerson, how would you assess the significance of the latest revelations on
intelligence failures?
Clearly there were some intelligence failures. Unfortunately, given where the
Democrats are, what we are likely to see come out of this is more unified intelligence
agencies instead of dealing with Bush's global military crusade. So long as we have
a policy of full-spectrum dominance, we are going to have attacks from any number
of sources.
Your answer invites a political rather than a technical discussion. What do you think,
then, is the essence of the matter?
If we leave aside the issue of transparency, there are five dimensions to the matter.
First, is the real target of present US foreign and military policy. Over the long-run,
Washington sees China, not Al-Qa'eda or Islamic fundamentalism, as its primary
strategic concern. Since Reagan's 'discriminate deterrent' doctrine, a priority of US
strategic doctrine has been to prevent the emergence of a global or regional rival.
While the Bush administration may place greater emphasis on military containment
than did the Clinton administration, both have viewed China as a rising economic,
military and diplomatic power that has the potential to become a powerful rival and a
threat. The goal of containing and intimidating China -- not non- existent missile
threats from 'rogue' nations and 'the axis of evil' -- is the driving force behind the
Bush administration's race to develop what is called 'missile defences' and to deploy
them around China's periphery and in space. Seeking to kill two birds with one stone,
Bush's 'war on terrorism' in south-east Asia is more than it appears to be. In
addition,
in some cases, to the justifiable pursuit of Al Qa'eda-related Islamists, the Bush
administration's crusade is providing the impetus to 'diversify' deployments of US
military forces across the region.
Second, there are certain other continuities: repression of secular nationalism
leading occupied and besieged people to rely on religious values, traditional values
and a resort to terrorism as means of resistance. There is also Washington's
commitment to ensure that neither its enemies nor its allies gain access to Middle
East oil.
A third aspect is that parallel to the Pentagon's 'full-spectrum dominance' doctrine,
the present conditions allow assaults inside the US on constitutionally guaranteed
civil liberties in ways that are reminiscent of the Palmer raids, McCarthyism, etc.
[The
Palmer raids entailed deportations of Russian and German immigrants in the
aftermath of the 1917 Russian revolution.]
Fourth, not unlike the elder Bush's 'new world order', this Bush administration seeks
'a whole new world': US global domination based ultimately on its nuclear and high-
tech arsenals. The post-9/11 trauma and government- and media-inspired 'United
We Stand' patriotism have provided the Bush administration with the political and
diplomatic cover to withdraw from the ABM treaty, to increase the military budget to
$400 billion -- more than the world's 25 next largest military spenders- combined.
The fifth dimension relates specifically to the Middle East. Since the Bush
administration declared the 11 September attacks an act of war and charted military
responses to those unspeakable crimes, I have been struck by the many ways the
so-called war on terrorism is modelled after Israel's failed campaign of military
conquest, subjugation and occupation. The Sharon government's savaging of
Palestinian communities and brutalisation of the Palestinian people is creating a new
generation who seek revenge for their suffering and humiliation.
� Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
