
	
	
	by Prof Peter Dale Scott
	
	Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 4 No 2
	
	January 24, 2011
	from 
	JapanFocus Website
 
	
	 
	
		
			| 
			Peter Dale Scott, a former 
			Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of 
			California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road 
			to 9/11, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of 
			War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, 
			the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. Peter 
			Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on 
			Globalization (CRG).His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is
			
			here.
 | 
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
		
			
			I know the capacity that is there to 
			make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this 
			agency [the 
			National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess 
			this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, 
			so that we never cross over that abyss. 
			
			 
			
			That is the abyss from which 
			there is no return."
			
			Senator Frank Church (1975)
		
	
	
	 
	
	In recent years I have become more and more 
	concerned with the interactions between three important and alarming trends 
	in recent American history. 
	
		
			- 
			
			The first is America's increasing 
			
			militarization, and above all its inclination, even obsession, to involve 
	itself in needless and pernicious wars.  
- 
			
			The second, closely related, is the 
	progressive shrinking of public politics and the rule of law as they are 
	subordinated, even domestically, to the requirements of covert U.S. 
	operations abroad. 
- 
			
			The third, also closely related, is the important and increasingly 
	deleterious impact on American history and the global extension of American 
	power, of what I have called deep events.  
	
	These events, like the JFK 
	assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 
	9/11, which repeatedly involve 
	law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in 
	ongoing covert processes, have consequences that enlarge covert government, 
	and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in media and 
	internal government records.
	
	One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, has been the involvement in 
	all three deep events of personnel involved in America's highest-level 
	emergency planning, known since the 1980s as 
	Continuity of Government (COG) 
	planning, or more colloquially as "the Doomsday Project." 
	
	 
	
	The implementation of 
	COG plans on 9/11, or what 
	I call Doomsday Power, was the culmination of three decades of such 
	planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic 
	United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes 
	designed for domination abroad.
	
	Writing about these deep events as they occurred over the decades, I have 
	been interested in the interrelations among them. It is now possible to show 
	how each was related both to those preceding it, and those which followed.
	
	I would like in this essay to go further and propose a framework to analyze 
	the on-going forces underlying all of the most important deep events, and 
	how they have contributed to the political ascendance of what used to be 
	called the military-industrial complex. I hope to describe certain 
	impersonal governing laws that determine the socio-dynamics of all 
	large-scale societies (often called empires) that deploy their surplus of 
	power to expand beyond their own borders and force their will on other 
	peoples. 
	
	 
	
	This process of expansion generates predictable 
	trends of behavior in the institutions of all such societies, and also in 
	the individuals competing for advancement in those institutions. 
	
	 
	
	In America it has converted the 
	military-industrial complex from a threat at the margins of the established 
	civil order, to a pervasive force dominating that order.
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	President 
	
	
	Eisenhower in 
	
	his 
	farewell address in 1961 warned that,
	
	"We must guard against the 
	unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military 
	Industrial Complex."
 
	
	 
	
	With this framework I hope to persuade readers 
	that in some respects our recent history is simpler than it appears on the 
	surface and in the media. 
	
	 
	
	Our society, by its very economic successes and 
	consequent expansion, has been breeding impersonal forces both outside and 
	within itself that are changing it from a bottom-up elective democracy into 
	a top-down empire. And among these forces are those that produce deep 
	events.
	
	I am far from alone in seeing this degradation of America's policies and 
	political processes. 
	
	 
	
	A similar pattern, reflecting the degradation of 
	earlier empires, was described at length by the late Chalmers Johnson:
	
		
		The evidence is building up that in the 
		decade following the end of the Cold War, the United States largely 
		abandoned a reliance on diplomacy, economic aid, international law, and 
		multilateral institutions in carrying out its foreign policies and 
		resorted much of the time to bluster, military force, and financial 
		manipulation.
	
	
	But my analysis goes beyond that of Johnson, 
	Kevin Phillips, Andrew Bacevich, and other analysts, in proposing that three 
	major deep events - Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11 - were not just part of this 
	degradation of American democracy, but played a significant role in shaping 
	it.
	
	As author Michael Lind has observed, there have for a long time been two 
	prevailing and different political cultures in America, underlying political 
	differences in the American public, and even dividing different sectors of 
	the American government. 
	
		
			- 
			
			One culture is predominantly egalitarian and 
	democratic, working for the legal consolidation of human rights both at home 
	and abroad.  
- 
			
			The other, less recognized but with deep historical roots, 
	prioritizes and teaches the use of repressive violence against both domestic 
	and Third World populations to maintain "order." 
	
	To some extent these two mindsets are found in all societies. 
	
	 
	
	They 
	correspond to two opposing modes of power and governance that were defined 
	by Hannah Arendt as "persuasion through arguments" versus "coercion 
	by force." 
	
	 
	
	Arendt, following Thucydides, traced 
	these to the common Greek way of handling domestic affairs, which was,
	
		
		"persuasion (πείθειν) as well as the common 
		way of handling foreign affairs, which was force and violence (βία)."
		
		
		 
	
	
	
	
	Hannah Arendt
 
	
	 
	
	Writing amid the protests and riots of the 
	1960s, Arendt feared that traditional authority was at risk, threatened (in 
	her eyes) by the contemporary "loss of tradition and of religion." 
	
	 
	
	A half century later, I would argue that a far 
	greater danger to social equilibrium comes now from those on the right who 
	invoke authority in the name of tradition and religion. With America's huge 
	expansion into the enterprise of covertly dominating and exploiting the rest 
	of the world, the open processes of persuasion, which have been America's 
	traditional ideal for handling domestic affairs, have increasingly tilted 
	towards top-down violence.
	
	This tilt towards violent or repressive power is defended rhetorically as a 
	means to preserve social stability, but in fact it threatens it. 
	
	 
	
	As Kevin Phillips and others have 
	demonstrated, empires built on violent or repressive power tend to rise and 
	then fall, often with surprising rapidity. Underlying the discussion in this 
	essay is the thesis that repressive power is unstable, creating dialectical 
	forces both within and outside its system. 
	
	 
	
	Externally, repressive power helps create its 
	own enemies, as happened with Britain (in India), France (in Indochina) and 
	the Netherlands (in Indonesia).
 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	The Socio-dynamics of 
	Repressive Power in Large-scale Societies
	
	But more dangerous and destabilizing has been the conversion of those 
	empires themselves, into hubristic mechanisms of war. 
	
	 
	
	The fall of Periclean Athens, which inspired 
	Thucydides' reflections, is a case in point. Thucydides described how Athens 
	was undone by the overreaching greed (pleonexia) of its unnecessary Sicilian 
	expedition, a folly presaging America's follies in Vietnam and Iraq. 
	Thucydides attributed the rise of this folly in the rapid change in Athens 
	after the death of Pericles, and in particular to the rise of a rapacious 
	oligarchy. 
	
	 
	
	Paul Kennedy, Kevin Phillips, and Chalmers 
	Johnson have described the recreation of this process in the Roman, Spanish, 
	Portuguese, Dutch, and British empires. Its recurrence again in recent 
	American history corroborates that there is a self-propelling dynamic of 
	power that becomes repressive.
	
	It is useful to be reminded of the historical division between two cultures 
	in America, which both underlay and predated the Civil War. 
	
	 
	
	But these two cultures have evolved and been 
	reinforced by many factors. 
	
	 
	
	For example urbanization in America's South and 
	West worked for most of the 20th century to meld the two cultures, but after 
	about 1980 the increasing disparity of wealth in America tended to separate 
	them to an extent recalling the Gilded Age of the 19th century.
	
	More importantly, postwar U.S. history has seen the institutions of domestic 
	self-government steadily displaced by an array of new institutions, like the 
	CIA and Pentagon, adapted first to the repressive dominance and control of 
	foreign populations abroad, and now increasingly dominant domestically. The 
	manipulative ethos of this repressive bureaucracy promotes and corrupts 
	those who, in order to be promoted, internalize the culture of repressive 
	dominance into a mindset.
	
	The egalitarian mindset is widely shared among Americans. 
	
	 
	
	But Washington today is securely in the hands of 
	the global repressive dominance mindset, and a deepening of the 
	military-industrial complex into what in my most recent book I call the 
	American war machine. This transformation of America represents a major 
	change in our society. 
	
	 
	
	When Eisenhower warned against the 
	military-industrial complex in 1961 it was still a minority element in our 
	political economy. Today it finances and dominates both parties, and indeed 
	is now also financing threats to both parties from the right, as well as 
	dominating our international policy. 
	
	 
	
	As a result, liberal Republicans are as scarce 
	in the Republican Party today as Goldwater Republicans were scarce in that 
	party back in 1960.
	
	That change has been achieved partly by money, but partly as a result of 
	deep events like,
	
		
			- 
			
			the JFK assassination 
- 
			
			the Watergate break-in 
- 
			
			9/11 
	
	As 
	a rule, each of these deep events is attributed by our government and media 
	to marginal outsiders, like Lee Harvey Oswald, or the nineteen alleged plane 
	hijackers.
	I have long been skeptical of these "lone nut" explanations, but recently my 
	skepticism has advanced to another level. 
	 
	
	My research over four decades 
	points to the conclusion that each of these deep events:
	
		
			- 
			
			was carried out, at least in part, by 
			individuals in and out of government who shared and sought to 
			promote this repressive mindset
 
 
- 
			
			enhanced the power of the repressive 
			mindset within the U.S. government
 
 
- 
			
			formed another stage in a continuous 
			narrative whose result has been a transformation of America, into a 
			social system dominated from above, rather than governed from below 
	
	Please note that I am talking about the result 
	of this continuous narrative, not about its purpose.
	
	 
	
	In saying that these 
	deep events have contributed collectively to a major change in American 
	society, I am not attributing them all to a single manipulative "secret 
	team." 
	
	 
	
	Rather I see them as flowing from the workings 
	of repressive power itself, which (as history has shown many times) 
	transforms both societies with surplus power and also the individuals 
	exercising that surplus power.
	
	We are conditioned to think that the open institutions of American 
	governance could not possibly provide a milieu for plots like 9/11 against 
	public order. 
	
	 
	
	But since World War Two covert U.S. agencies 
	like the CIA have helped create an alternative world where power is 
	exercised with minimal oversight, often at odds with public agencies' 
	proclaimed policy objectives of law and order, and often in conjunction with 
	lawless and even criminal foreign and domestic elements.
	
	The expansion of this covert world has occurred principally in Asia. There 
	covert U.S. decisions were made to build up drug-financed armies in Burma, 
	Thailand, and Laos, in a series of aggressive actions that by the 1960s 
	involved America in a hot Indochina War.
	
	 
	
	This war, like the related wars that ensued 
	later in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, was initiated by America for a mix 
	of geostrategic and economic reasons, above all the desire to establish a 
	dominant U.S. presence an important region of petroleum reserves.
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	
	Air America at Sam 
	Thong, Laos, 1961
 
	
	 
	
	The country most deeply affected by the 
	succession of Asian Wars has been America itself. Its expansive forces, 
	backed by powerful interest groups, are now out of control, as our managers, 
	like other empire managers before them, have,
	
		
		"come to believe that there is nowhere 
		within their domain - in our case, nowhere on earth - in which their 
		presence is not crucial." 7
	
	
	To illustrate this, loss of control, let us look 
	for a moment at a milieu which I believe to have been an important factor in 
	all of America's major domestic deep events: 
	
		
		
		the CIA's ongoing interactions 
	with the global drug connection.
	
	
	
 
	
	 
	
	Unaccountable Power - 
	The CIA and the Return of the Global Drug Connection
	
	Since World War Two the CIA has made systematic use of drug trafficking 
	forces to increase its covert influence - first in Thailand and Burma, then 
	in Laos and Vietnam, and most recently in Afghanistan.8 
	
	 
	
	With America's expansion overseas, we have seen 
	more and more covert programs and agencies, all using drug traffickers to 
	different and opposing ends.
	
	In 2004 Time and USA Today ran major stories about two of the chief Afghan 
	drug traffickers, Haji Juma Khan and Haji Bashir Noorzai, alleging that each 
	was supporting al-Qaeda, and that Khan in particular,
	
		
		"has helped al-Qaeda establish a smuggling 
		network that is peddling Afghan heroin to buyers across the Middle East, 
		Asia and Europe." 9 
	
	
	Later it was revealed that both 
	traffickers were simultaneously CIA assets, and that Khan in particular was 
	"paid a large amount of cash by the United States," even while he was 
	reportedly helping al-Qaeda to establish smuggling networks.10
	
	There is no longer anything surprising in the news that large U.S. payments 
	were made to a drug trafficker who was himself funding the Taliban and 
	al-Qaeda. 
	
	 
	
	The arrangement is no more bizarre than the CIA's performance 
	during the U.S. "war on drugs" in Venezuela in the 1990s, when the CIA first 
	set up an anti-drug unit in Venezuela, and then helped its chief, Gen. Ramon Guillén Davila, smuggle at least one ton of pure cocaine into Miami 
	International Airport.11
	
	It would be easy to conclude from these reports that the CIA and Pentagon 
	intentionally use drugs to help finance the enemy networks that justify 
	their overseas operations. Yet I doubt that such a cynical Machiavellian 
	objective is ever consciously voiced by those responsible in Washington.
	
	More likely, it is an inevitable consequence of the U.S. repressive style of 
	conducting covert operations. Great emphasis is put on recruiting covert 
	assets; and in unstable areas with weak governance, drug traffickers with 
	their own ample funds and repressive networks are the most obvious 
	candidates for recruitment by the CIA. 
	
	 
	
	The traffickers in turn are happy to 
	become U.S. assets, because this status affords them at least a temporary 
	immunity from U.S. prosecution.12
	
	In a nutshell: 
	
		
		I am describing a development that is not so much 
	intentional, as a consequence of repressive dynamics. 
	
	
	A related example 
	would be the CIA's recurring use of double agents, again for the reason just 
	suggested. 
	
	 
	
	In the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, the chief 
	planner was a double agent, Ali Mohammed, who surveyed the Embassy and 
	reported to Osama bin Laden in 1993, just months after the FBI had ordered 
	the Canadian RCMP to release him from detention.13 
	
	 
	
	In the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008, the 
	scene was initially surveyed for the attackers by a DEA double agent, David 
	Headley (alias Daood Sayed Gilani) whom,
	
		
		"U.S. authorities sent… to work for them in 
		Pakistan… despite a warning that he sympathized with radical Islamic 
		groups." 14
		
		 
	
	
	
	
	
	David Headley in court
 
	
	 
	
	The central point is that expansion beyond a 
	nation's borders engenders a pattern of repressive power with predictable 
	results - results that transcend the conscious intentions of anyone within 
	that repressive power system. 
	
	 
	
	Newly formed and ill-supervised agencies spawn 
	contradictory policies abroad, the net effect of which is usually both 
	expansive and deleterious - not just to the targeted nation but also to 
	America.
	
	This is especially true of covert agencies, whose practice of secrecy means 
	that controversial policies proliferate without either coordination or 
	review. Asia in particular has been since 1945 the chief area where the CIA 
	has ignored or overridden the policy directives of the State Department. 
	
	 
	
	As 
	I document in American War Machine, CIA interventions in Asia, especially 
	those that escalated into the Laotian, Vietnam, and Afghan wars, fostered an 
	ongoing global CIA drug connection, or what I have called elsewhere a dark 
	quadrant of unaccountable power.
	
	This drug connection, richly endowed with huge resources and its own 
	resources of illegal violence, has a major stake in both American 
	interventions and above all unwinnable wars to aggravate the conditions of 
	regional lawlessness that are needed for drug trafficking. Thus it makes 
	perfect sense that the global drug connection has, as I believe, been an 
	ongoing factor in the creation of an overseas American empire that most U.S. 
	citizens never asked for. 
	
	 
	
	More specifically, the dark quadrant has 
	contributed to all the major deep events - including Dallas, Watergate, and 
	9/11, that have helped militarize America and overshadow its public 
	institutions.
 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	Doomsday Power and the 
	Military Occupation of America
	
	I have said that, underlying the surface of America's major deep events, 
	there has been a pattern of conflict between two mindsets - that of openness 
	and that of repressive dominance - dating back to the Civil War and the 
	Indian wars of the mid-nineteenth century (and before that to the American 
	Revolution).15 
	
	 
	
	But it would be wrong to conclude from this 
	on-going pattern of conflict that there is nothing new in our current 
	situation. On the contrary, America is in the midst of a new crisis arising 
	from this very old antagonism. 
	
	Since World War Two, secrecy has been used to accumulate new covert 
	bureaucratic powers under the guise of emergency planning for disasters, 
	planning known inside and outside the government as the "Doomsday Project." 
	
	
	 
	
	Known more recently (and misleadingly) as "Continuity of Government" (COG) 
	planning, the Doomsday Project, under the guiding hands in the 1980s of 
	Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others, 
	became the vehicle 
	on 9/11 for a significant change of government. 
	
	 
	
	This package of extreme 
	repressive power accumulated under the guise of the Doomsday Project can be 
	referred to as Doomsday Power. In concrete terms, the repressive power 
	developed to control the rest of the world is now, to an unprecedented 
	extent, treating America itself as an occupied territory. 
	
	What I mean by "doomsday power" is the package of repressive mechanisms 
	(which I have discussed elsewhere under their official name of "continuity 
	of government" or COG plans), that was prepared over two decades by the 
	elite COG planning group, and then implemented beginning on 9/11. 
	
	 
	
	The 
	package includes,
	
		
			- 
			
			warrantless surveillance 
- 
			
			warrantless detention, 
	(including unprecedented abridgments of the right to habeas corpus) 
- 
			
			unprecedented steps towards the militarization of domestic security 
	enforcement and shrinking of the posse comitatus acts 
	
	One recent development of Doomsday power, for example, has been the 
	deployment since 2008 of a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team to be stationed 
	permanently in the United States. 
	
	 
	
	A major part of its dedicated assignment 
	is to be,
	
		
		"called upon to help with civil unrest and 
		crowd control."16 
	
	
	Many people seem to be unaware that Americans, 
	together with this Brigade, have lived since 2002 under a U.S. Army Command 
	called NORTHCOM.17 
	
	 
	
	Yet if nothing is done to change the present course of 
	events, historians may come some day to compare the stationing of this 
	brigade in 2008 CE to the date, in 49 BCE, when Caesar, along with his 
	legion, crossed the Rubicon.
	
	And I believe that the forces that have worked for decades to create 
	Doomsday power have, like the global drug connection, been involved in every 
	one of the deep events, from Dallas to 9/11, that have helped bring us here.
 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	Notes
	
		
		1 Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and 
		Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt, 2000), 217. Cf. 
		Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End 
		of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan/Henry Holt, 2004). 
		
		2 Michael Lind, Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover 
		of American Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 143.
		
		3 Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political 
		Thought (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 93. Adapting Arendt's 
		distinction, Jonathan Schell made a Gandhian case in support of 
		nonviolent persuasive or community power as a means of challenging 
		top-down violent power and thus reforming the world. I developed this 
		case myself in The Road to 9/11 (Jonathan Schell, The Unconquerable 
		World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People [New York: 
		Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2003], 227-31; Peter Dale Scott, Road to 
		9/11, 249-66, 269).
		
		4 Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the 
		American Rich (New York: Broadway Books, 2002), 171-200.
		
		5 Carl A. Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, philosopher, and 
		mathematician king (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 207: 
		"In Diodotus' speech in the Mytilenian debate, wealth is particularly 
		identified as producing arrogant "overreaching" (pleonexia –iii.45.4). 
		Thus pleonexia seems to be associated with the abuse of power by either 
		a tyrant or a wealthy oligarchy." 
		
		6 Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: 
		Random House, 1987); Phillips, Wealth and Democracy; Johnson, The 
		Sorrows of Empire.
		
		7 Johnson, Blowback, 221.
		
		8 Scott, American War Machine, 63-142, 239-53. The Karzai regime in 
		Afghanistan is only the latest of CIA client governments to struggle to 
		maintain itself with support from drug traffickers. Cf. 
		
		Peter Dale 
		Scott, "Can the US Pacify the Drug-Addicted War in Afghanistan? Opium, 
		the CIA and the Karzai Administration", The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan 
		Focus, April 5, 2010; 
		
		Ryan Grim, "Karzai Releasing Scores Of Drug 
		Traffickers In Afghanistan, WikiLeaks Cables Show," Huffington Post, 
		December 31, 2010.
		
		9 Tim McGurk, Time, August 2, 2004; cf. USA Today, October 26, 2004.
		
		10 James Risen, New York Times, December 11, 2010. Both traffickers were 
		ultimately arrested by DEA officials: Noorzai in 2005, and Khan in 2008. 
		The U.S. probably came to prefer Khan over Noorzai, because he was more 
		closely allied to Abdul Wali Karzai, another drug trafficker and CIA 
		asset, as well as a central figure in the power apparatus of his brother 
		Hamid Karzai, the U.S. client president of Afghanistan.
		
		11 Time, November 29, 1993; Scott, American War Machine, 14-15; Tim 
		Weiner, New York Times, November 23, 1996.
		
		12 It is too early to report the ultimate fate of Noorzai and Khan after 
		their arrest and indictment by the United States. But it is clear that 
		Guillén Davila's arrest and indictment never led to conviction or 
		imprisonment. On the contrary, he appears to have continued to enjoy CIA 
		favor in Venezuela. (Scott, American War Conspiracy, 14-15).
		
		13 Scott, Road to 9/11, 152-58. 
		
		14 "D.E.A. Deployed Mumbai Plotter Despite Warning," New York Times, 
		November 8, 2009; cf. Scott, American War Machine, 246-47. In another 
		essay I will develop the thesis that what I call surplus repressive 
		power - power developed exclusively by one society for the repressive 
		dominance of others -- is doomed, in this and other ways, to encourage 
		the proliferation of its enemies. My point here is a more modest and 
		general one. Maybe save the sentence for the later work?
		
		15 Cf. Peter Dale Scott, "Atrocity and its Discontents: U.S. 
		Double-Mindedness About Massacre," in Adam Jones, ed. Genocide, War 
		Crimes and the West: Ending the Culture of Impunity (London: Zed Press, 
		2004). 
		
		16 "Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1," Army Times, September 30, 
		2008.
		
		17 Scott, Road to 9/11, 241-42.