FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Only Major Policy Changes Can Help Washington Now

by BILL CHRISTISON

former CIA analyst

By November, the Roman circus of this U.S. election year may rival the old Barnum-and-Bailey “Greatest Show on Earth.”

A couple of acts in the great show have recently been getting new publicity in the nation’s capital. Both the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission (already part of the circus) have talked about establishing a National Intelligence Director and possibly even organizing a new Domestic Intelligence Agency, in what is quite clearly an attempt to distract the attention of voters from more important foreign and domestic policy issues. Actually implementing either of these proposals would in fact be a waste of time and money. Of course, in the absence of other deficiencies, wastefulness alone would not stop either the Republicans or the Democrats if they felt a little waste could improve the distractive potential of the circus.

In the last few years, the U.S. government has already increased its annual spending on intelligence matters from something under $30 billion to nearly $40 billion. Setting up two new agencies — one to support a national intelligence czar, and another for domestic intelligence — would increase the already absurd number of bureaucracies in the so-called intelligence community from 15 to 17 and would raise spending levels even higher. People are already falling over each other in this mess of agencies. In addition to CIA stations in most embassies around the world, the FBI now has its own facilities in many of the same embassies. It is a safe bet that fewer people and agencies are needed, not more.

Most Americans do not realize it, but the massive intrusions of both our intelligence and our military operations around the world are seen by other peoples as a mockery of our supposed ideals of democracy and freedom. Inside the U.S., establishing a separate domestic agency for intelligence would inevitably reduce still further the degree of real democracy, freedom, and privacy available to citizens.

Why do citizens of the United States even consider allowing these things to happen? The answer seems be that most Americans do not care much about either the foreign or the domestic policies of their own government, unless those policies directly and immediately hurt them or their families. Most have so far simply acquiesced in Bush’s view that the only good responses outside our borders to September 11 are warfare and covert actions wherever the administration decides they are necessary. Similarly, most have also acquiesced — as long as they personally are not seriously inconvenienced — in the view that repressive actions against civil liberties are necessary here at home to keep “evil” people from crossing our borders and carrying out further acts of terror.

But neither present nor future military and covert adventures abroad, nor expanded internal security measures at home, will prevent future terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. Specifically in the area of intelligence, it is utterly impossible that unlimited funding and any conceivable reorganizing of the U.S. intelligence establishment will give advance warning of all or even 90 percent of future terrorism against us. We have already reached spending levels that go well beyond the law of diminishing returns. My own estimate is this: the intelligence community today probably has a 65-percent chance of learning in advance about any specific terrorist act before it happens, but even a doubling of spending on intelligence from $40 billion to $80 billion a year would probably increase that 65-percent chance to no more than 75 percent. In too many cases, intelligence never gets better than that, no matter how great the effort. Anyone who believes the contrary is living on arrogance or stupidity.

There is another development in the intelligence arena that may add to the distractions of the 2004 election. In the past month or so, several reports have been received of special U.S. units in Iraq having received shipments of unknown types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These U.S. units have allegedly hidden the weapons in various locations, where they can then be “found” at some future date and announced to the world in a major PR coup for Bush. These reports have come from Iranian sources, and they may in fact be provocations from Iranian intelligence, intended to discourage the administration from indulging in such fraudulence.

On the other hand, Bush himself, in his prime-time news conference on April 13, talked at some length and quite repetitiously in one of his responses about “how deceptive the Iraqis had been . . . deceptive at hiding things. We knew they were hiding things.” Was it a little odd for the President to be talking this way at such a late stage in the Iraqi WMD game? Was it just one more puerile and meaningless response at the press conference, or is it conceivable that Bush was preparing his audience for a later “I told you so” statement — a statement he knew he would be able to make fairly soon? If any WMD do turn up, arguments over their legitimacy could exhaust (and distract) the media and the defectively thinking faithful of both parties for a long time. Bush could easily come out the winner, unless the evidence that he was lying was incontrovertible.

* * *

Just as in Roman times the fights among gladiators and other spectacles did not really matter, none of the issues discussed above really matters either. Not one contributes meaningfully to solving the problems of war, terrorism, hatred, and injustice that plague the world. To work on such problems — undeniably the important ones — we first have to recognize that the U.S. itself perpetrates most of the warfare and injustice that in turn provokes most of the hatred and terrorism, and therefore that it needs to change its own foreign and military policies. So far, the Bush administration has refused to recognize any of this, and in just the past few weeks has caused the hatred against us to grow further, by widening the conflict in Iraq and forging a closer Bush-Sharon partnership that makes a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict less likely than ever.

The following truths should be branded into the brain of every U.S. elected or appointed official possessing any influence over future U.S. foreign and military policies: a majority of the world’s people believe that the chief culprit in the world today–that is, the chief pursuer of unjust, aggressive foreign and military policies–is the United states itself, and particularly the Bush administration. Beyond the very near future (no more than one or two years from now), this situation will almost certainly make the present U.S. position in the world untenable.

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.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
Charles R. Larson
A Review of Mary Roach’s “Grunt”
David Yearsley
Stuck in Houston on the Cusp of the Apocalypse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail