Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
quickstrategy
Published Letters: 397
A few commenters here so far are trying to say that these "analysts" are motivated by duty, idealism, or some sort of loyalty to a Commander in Chief. That would be honorable, wouldn't it?
Note that the quote you pasted was from the 'supply side', not a statement by the Brass Hacks (Paul Dirks ... was that you?) themselves. (But note also the schemers were uniformed officers in the Press Operations div doing the civilians bidding)
I think that positing (questionably) honorable motives is a healthy exercise. We sometimes do the good-guys-bad-guys thing to excess, when it's either a red herring or isn't necessary in order to show what happened or to understand how things can go catastrophically wrong. I keep thinking of Arendt's 'Eichmann' article, reading all this (though we are not at the point yet where any of the generals can use the excuses Eichmann might have proferred). Not to say there *aren't* bad guys here, just that the frame is, IMHO, misleading.
It's the mechanisms that matter, not the motivations. Probably, some of them thought they were doing the right thing, or didn't give it much thought at all. Maybe they thought they were following a 'higher law'. or maybe they thought there was nothing to it. Others were more interested in making a buck. The latter will all claim the former. We'll never actually know. It doesn't much matter why they did what they did, or what we think about their motivations. Actions and outcomes, the capture and cooptation of our institutions, and damage thereof.
Please forgive my cynicism, and please quit calling it a "war". You military folks should know better.
It's not a war? Why not? What would you call it (serious questions, not flames)?
three military contractors in 2005 for foreign propaganda generation (one of which, SAIC, was headed by Gen. Dowling until 7/05)
A correction - SAIC has a long, colorful and controversial history, but one which does not include having Gen. Downing at the helm. It was headed by its founder until 2003, when the new CEO, Ken Dahlberg was named.
Also, from Wikipedia:
The company has had as part of its management and on its Board of Directors many well known public servants, including Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense in the Nixon administration; William Perry, Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton; John Deutsch, President Clinton's CIA Director; Admiral Bobby Ray Inman who served in various capacities in the NSA and CIA for the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations; and David Kay who led the search for weapons of mass destruction for the U.N. following the 1991 Gulf War and for the Bush Administration following the 2003 Iraq invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_International_Corporation
The point you're suggesting, that the 'products' of companies like SAIC, TLG and SyColeman (and let's not leave out BoozAllen and other govt contractors whom we don't think of as 'defense' contractors) would end up being 'repurposed' for illegal domestic use is one that bears watching, IMHO. Consultants float between orgs and projects, and take their templates with them (even though technically the contracts are 'work for hire' and the intellectual property belongs to the client).
My guess, however, is that this MAP didn't need any of those things, and that there's no money trail to follow. Why raise eyebrows with an illegal domestic-use program and contract when you don't have to?
I know, I'm reading through this stuff now, shaking my head. I think I'm going to start drinking early today ...
Seriously: All this clarifies a couple things. Barstow's piece includes some excellent quotes from MAs who knew, if belatedly, that they were being had. They went along because they didn't want to go up against the attack machine, or for whatever reason (they failed, in other words, to live up to the standards they were taught and the ones the unwitting public believed them to be exhibiting), but at least went on the record later about it (probably after being confronted with emails and memos and a timeline by Barstow), as any good reporter would count on. Hersh taps exactly this kind of discomfort all the time.
But there are also people who actually believe all this stuff, have insane ideas they want to turn into realities, and/or have deep contempt for the citizens they allegedly serve (see Allard's op-ed). Barstow was very generous (though I think he took the correct line) in dealing with them. None of this group were duped or deceived by the Pentagon: they sold out their principles willingly, ideologically. They've obviously been quite at home the last few years, even in the face of Rumsfeld's bullying, and the creeping threat to the integrity (and prerogatives) of the institution where they spent their professional lives.
Which takes me back to my original comment on your first post. I'm furious, and take this personally. There's no small number of other ex-military people who will feel the same, and who are likely allies in whatever we want to do about this. I've been out almost twenty years, and have other interests, accomplishments and commitments ... someone more recently closer to the kill-zone is bound to be even angrier than I am.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
