The Nature of
the Deep State and the Post-War Era
I could spend 2 years, write 1000 pages, breakdown and
footnote everything and make my case. Apart from a few observations and
explicitly Christian commentary my narrative regarding the Deep State wouldn't
be unique. I don't have the time or resources for such projects so instead I
offer an account based on my years of study, investigation and reflection. What
I hope to do is develop a background narrative leading up to the various
divisions within the Deep State power structures that command the contemporary
US Empire. Due to events of the past decade I believe they are presently in a
state of crisis which has produced a great deal of instability and even
volatility.
Understanding something of the different factions, how they
view things and how they got to where they are will afford those who wish to
consider these questions some additional data and perhaps an ability to better
understand the issues of the day. The fall of Trump's NSA, one Michael Flynn is
I would argue brought into greater clarity when these issues are put forth for
consideration.
This multi-part essay will prove tedious for some. If you
wish to skip the background, the concluding essay (Part 5) provides a summary
and locates the contemporary conflict.
What is the Deep State? It's not easily defined but we'll
start with: A loosely affiliated body of individuals operating through various
institutions which seeks to exert influence and control over the government and
its policies.
Virtually all governments have exhibited this tendency. There
are always court intrigues, favourites and conspiracies. The Deep State has
taken on a particular character in modern times because this fundamentally
anti-democratic tendency has been compelled to function within the wrappings or
veneer of democracy. Ideas, language, forms and institutions have to be
respected even while they are subverted, manipulated and despised. Perhaps it
is this very hypocrisy which continues to fascinate.
For years people have used the term with particular regard to
the Byzantine politics of the Turkish Republic and point specifically to the
power exerted by the military and intelligence services. They have an occasion
openly played their hand through intervention and more than once have
overthrown the existing government.
The US Deep State is also difficult to define with any
certainty. The best indicator is to borrow from CS Lewis, the idea of 'Inner
Rings' or what we might refer to as Circles of Influence and Power. There are
various circles, organisations and institutions within which are smaller and
smaller circles or rings. The circles which are made up of various government,
military, intelligence and corporate agencies, forums, clubs, think-tanks
etc... overlap at places. There are powerful figures who belong to many of
these groupings simultaneously. These people represent real power even if (at
times) they don't hold key or top positions. They don't need to.
There are monied interests, investors and officials within
the corporate and banking sectors. They often have government, military or
intelligence service connections. There are architects, shaping the grand
vision, exerting influence and then there are the actors or operatives. The
lines are hardly crisp and clear. The latter category I think of in terms of
the people actually holding various senior but often 'deputy' positions within
cabinet-level bureaucracies, figures that may float in and out of government,
hold positions on various boards and are often part of international
organisations. They are sometimes current or ex-military officials,
politicians, banking and corporate heads, defense contractors, lawyers,
academics, diplomats and even figures tied to the underworld.
Many people understand this or have some notion of it and yet
I think it's a mistake to view them as monolithic or unified. Figures rise and
fall within these circles. Some aggressively climb the ladder (as it were) into
the inner circles. Some are forced out. Some wield tremendous power within
limited spheres, others wield a broad influence over a expansive array of
sectors and spheres.
If you haven't read a lot then I can appeal to whether or not
you have ever watched The Godfather films. If you have, you'll have some
understanding of how it works. Outwardly these are polished people that have a
great concern for appearance and decorum. I'm not speaking only of the Mafiosi.
There are others who float in and out of the story. They will meet and be
cordial. They form alliances and will betray one another. They are involved in
both legitimate and illegitimate activities. Sometimes what can only be
described as civil war breaks out.
Remember much of what they're doing is (like the Mafia)
secret and illegal. That's the nature of the Deep State. Legitimate and
criminal interests are blended, mixed and work symbiotically.
I offer now a Suggested
Narrative, one that due to its generalisation is necessarily reductionist
and therefore to some degree false and yet perhaps not wholly so. What I will
say can certainly be dissected, picked apart and criticised. These are my
largely non-verifiable opinions based on years of reading, listening, observing
and discussing.
After World War II, a new American dominated order took over.
By the 1950s, Europe was in the process of recovery. The European
Establishment, which includes Deep State elements as all Establishments do, was
getting back on its feet and while dependent and beholden to the United States,
its power centres and agenda were beginning to assert themselves. New alliances
and a new vision began to take shape. Don't ever assume a unified group
controls all things at all times. They certainly try to, but I think they
rarely succeed. The Cold War was in many ways a farce but this synthetic aspect
was by no means absolute. There was a real danger of nuclear war. How to deal
with the threat was clearly approached in various and very different ways, by
the people in power and the Deep State players played a very large part, both
openly and behind the scenes.
In terms of diplomacy and geopolitics it's clear there was an
early division within the Establishment. One faction advocated Containment of the Soviet Union. This
was a mechanism of Soft Empire,
American dominated Western influence exerted through alliances and the creation
of a powerful bloc that was willing to engage in limited warfare and diplomatic
intrigue to stop the spread of Communism. Of course it took on a life of its
own and any state that didn't acquiesce to American interests was labeled as
pro-Soviet and subject to intelligence services harassment, American funded
rebellion, or direct overthrow.
Another faction was even more extreme and advocated Rollback, a nationalist aggression
toward not just halting world communism but actively pursuing its destruction.
The danger of course was nuclear war and for this reason many Establishment
figures harshly rejected this approach. Should the conflict be viewed in terms
of a long struggle or was it necessary to bring the struggle to a head? Figures
like Curtis LeMay pushed for nuclear war early on while the United States had
the advantage. They viewed it as inevitable and for them it was essential that
it be fought before the United States lost its tremendous edge. Despite public
perceptions the Soviet arsenal was miniscule throughout the 1950s.
Finally there was the viewpoint of Detente which believed in trying to form a relationship with the
Soviets, end the hostility and brinksmanship and with an even longer view,
slowly transform that state and society.
While the Cold War has ended, these factions and the impulses
that motivated them live on and their descendants even now struggle for
control.
In terms of economics, the entire Western Establishment is
committed to capitalism but in various forms. Some are diehard free market
advocates. Others understand that open markets can only operate on one level
within society. Inevitably they lead to monopolies which become strategic and
are wed to power itself. During the era of total war all of society becomes
combatants and elements within military consideration. During an era of
technological warfare it is necessary to develop an industrial sector, a
military-industrial complex which exists on a permanent basis. This economic
factor becomes clearly strategic and the banking sector which sustains it and
the finance and cash based economy becomes ever more critical.
Within these various geopolitical and economic spheres and
sociological approaches there are those who advocate the market, others push
for more regulation. Some believe in a libertarian approach to society, others
believe in a generalised capitalism but view stability as paramount and thus
advocate social redistribution programmes in order to maintain an order and
consensus to society.
Some believe in hard nationalism and unilateralism, others
view this as unnecessarily risky, foolish, pre-modern and unsustainable and
believe wielding the tiller of a great multilateral endeavour is the way to
exert power in the modern world.
There are genuine differences within the Establishment but in
the first couple of decades after World War II, they were either largely in
agreement or so dominated by certain interests that they were able to hold on
to something of a consensus.
It was clear that by the late 1960s the Containment faction
had won out with regard to geopolitics and diplomacy.
But then several things happened and cracks began to develop.
The frustration, failures and madness of Vietnam led to the collapse of the
Containment approach. Both Detente and Rollback were reinvigorated and these
factions would essentially go to war.
Continue reading part 2
Continue reading part 2