The False Exposé (Part 2)

Jeremy Scahill's book on Blackwater came to mind while reading the Dinges work on Condor. It represents a common type of criticism but still lands safely within the Establishment circle or consensus.

The authors are seemingly justified by the fact that they will endure harsh criticism by institutional loyalists, patriots and political partisans. They will seem like they're attacking the institution, and may even think they are, when in reality they're not. Any historian will tell you that no large-scale long-term organisation, famous or powerful family, nation etc. can function without scandals. It's just not possible. But then when the scandals come about, how are they reckoned? How are they interpreted?

Scahill certainly cannot be described as Establishment but he's rather entrenched in activist Left-wing and its commitment to identity politics. We all have our commitments and social narratives. That's no less true with Christians, even those of the Two Kingdom variety.

And yet Scahill represents what could be called activism within the consensus. He's very critical of Blackwater and the Bush-Cheney cabal but ultimately unwilling to question the nature, substance, basis and assumptions of the system which produced them. Additionally a sense of safe journalistic responsibility and commitment to a certain type and understanding of 'facts' limits his ability to predicate or postulate outside the consensus. Ultimately it's an exercise in frustration, both for the reader and probably for Scahill too.

I would argue that Blackwater was (and to some degree still is) much more than just a company. It's part of the Praetorian structure, an agent and facet within the Deep State. Some might remember in late December 2009 there was a rather devastating attack within Afghanistan. Camp Chapman was struck by a suicide bomber who was in fact a double agent for the Pakistani Taliban and al Qaeda. It was a big deal at the time because the CIA death toll was so high. A version of the attack was presented in the film Zero Dark Thirty which of course warrants another discussion... for another day.

I remember at the time the news coverage was pretty intense. Obama had just agreed to a 'surge' in Afghanistan and yet the attack was giving many a reason to hesitate regarding US policy. It's amazing but a decade later, things haven't changed much.

But in that substantial death toll of intelligence officers were at least two Blackwater (Xe) employees. Blackwater isn't just about training forces, providing security for government officials or doing some private contracting work. The organisation was (and arguably is) integrated with and within the deepest levels of US intelligence. In fact it almost singlehandedly represents the re-tooling that took place under George W Bush wherein the CIA was partially restructured and a new hierarchy developed which also included a new roles for JSOC, the mercenary complex and private intelligence contractors.

Blackwater, Erik Prince (and the somewhat new corporate/paramilitary model) they represent were in the thick of all this. The meeting at Camp Chapman was about as 'deep' as one could get. Low or even mid-level contractors and mercenaries aren't going to be 'in' on an important meeting with a double agent who has infiltrated al Qaeda. Of course the bomber turned out to be a triple agent and was only pretending to be cooperating with US intelligence.

Later the Obama administration would attempt to put some distance between official functions and Blackwater but as time would reveal, Prince was never really wholly outside or alienated. His subsequent career has taken some strange and interesting turns and some have suggested that he's all but turned traitor. From working for the Trump team as a liaison with Middle Eastern figures to his recent contracts in China some believe he's gone rogue and is no longer loyal to the United States.

I personally believe he's still working for the Deep State which in no way precludes that he's also out making a great deal of money. There's no contradiction there. Iran-Contra at the very least taught us that.

But Scahill's work, while somewhat informative is never able to penetrate and ask the real questions that would help the reader understand what Blackwater is and what it represents. Instead we're presented with a pseudo-left critique of the organisation, one that largely supports the US system and its military, as well as many of the assumptions of US militarism, but takes issue with Blackwater and certain figures within Bush era Neo-conservatism and the policies they represent. Critiquing Neo-Conservatives does not necessarily mean that the assumptions of US power and imperialism are being questioned and I think an argument can be made to this end when one considers the Left's posture vis-à-vis Ukraine, Libya, Syria and the part they've played in the anti-Russia campaign. This angle becomes abundantly clear when Scahill is viewed in connection with organisations like Democracy Now! and The Intercept wherein critical aspects of the middle class are defended, social privilege as a concept is endorsed (and sought on the basis of identity politics) and so-called 'human rights' imperialism is embraced. It's a type of nationalism, not the all but overtly fascist varieties found on the Right, but it still represents a view that is ultimately reformist in its approach... a far cry from exposé driven confrontational journalism.

Scahill is not trying to take down the system but instead wants to reform it and effectively appropriate and re-task it. This tendency is also seen in the works of people like Naomi Klein and James Risen who have joined Scahill at The Intercept.

Klein in particular is quite hostile to Julian Assange who despite his personality issues represents a genuine attempt to expose and thus take down the system. This is why he is viewed as such a dangerous threat by the Western Establishment. Wikileaks isn't interested in filters, reforms or attempts to appropriate and re-task the power. Assange and his allies want to expose the inner workings of an evil system and see it destroyed.*

Klein wants to reform the system and can be quite critical of certain of its aspects and yet when pressed is clearly not interested in taking down the system as a whole. She wants to reform, re-task and appropriate it in the same vein as Scahill, Amy Goodman and others.

If there's an element of naiveté in Klein's view and work, it's in a failure to view the Western Establishment (dominated by the US Empire) in its holistic totality and to understand that the exploitative and destructive globalist economy goes hand in hand with Wall Street and the Pentagon. You can't viably reform aspects of this system, you can't fix the parts without dealing with the whole. This is fundamental to understanding the pseudo-socialist and implausible positions of figures like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the nascent Ocasio-Cortez.

This larger reality is why reform is all too often impossible. The politics and practicalities become unattainable and few are able to really take in the big picture and thus are quickly sidetracked. Often figures (like Klein) zero in on certain aspects of it and are able to deliver a fairly devastating critique and yet still miss the big picture. It's surprising that someone who could make The Shock Doctrine could remain a believer in the idea that the West somehow still stands for human rights, democracy and represents a system that can be fixed.

Similarly James Risen who has even suffered government persecution as a journalist nevertheless still possesses a basic faith in the intelligence services and the Wall Street dominated system. On the one hand he is to be commended for his struggles but on the other hand... to what end? For in the end he is still an advocate and apologist for the system and seems to only wish to reform it.

Others like David Fromkin can be quite critical of historical precedent. His 1989 A Peace to End All Peace made for compelling reading and convincingly demonstrated the erroneous judgment and thinking of the WWI period and how egregious leadership and decisions would set the stage for the modern catastrophe that is Middle Eastern politics.

However, Fromkin then turns around and in 1999 effectively endorses US action in the Balkans after the end of the Cold War. Some might raise an eyebrow at this assertion and say he's being critical of US/NATO policy and the premise of 'humanitarian intervention' but a closer examination reveals he's sounding warnings and is critical of certain postures, tactics and expectations but at the same time he decidedly supports the operations and even more importantly supports the assumptions that undergird the official narrative. Fromkin as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is exactly the type of author we would expect to produce a false exposé and he doesn't disappoint. The criticisms are still located within the consensus. His writings represent a case of intramural debate, not historical exposé.

Annie Jacobsen exhibits another type of false exposé in that she's not deeply connected, at least as far as I can tell. A graduate of an Ivy League school and journalist for the LA Times she's come close to winning a Pulitzer. She's in the Establishment orbit, or rather has the potential to be and yet she's clearly pushed the envelope in some of her works.

Her rather spectacular claims regarding Area 51 struck many as outlandish and might have even damaged her reputation. And yet she seems unwilling to 'cross the line' and venture into the realm of 'alternative' media, adversarial journalism and/or revisionist historical writing. Her book on Operation Paperclip was informative but ultimately safe.

Like Posner she writes a popular mainstream style history that will raise the eyebrows of the uninformed and yet ultimately reveals almost nothing that wasn't already known or hasn't already been asserted by others. Her work on Paperclip was mostly helpful in fleshing out some of the details but given that she won't follow through on many of the leads and all too often stays on safe 'official' ground, one is left wondering just how much was really fleshed out, how much remains buried and is now unlikely to be explored. I will continue to read her works but I'm afraid in the final analysis I find them to be somewhat disappointing. The term that comes to mind once again is that of staggering credulity. For someone to probe these corridors of history and to not end up being completely sceptical of official government pronouncements leaves one to wonder about the author.

Other types of exposé can be produced outside the realms of journalism and historical investigation. Ken Starr's famous investigative probe of the Clintons was presented as a type of exposé and yet as I've written elsewhere his report actually functions as something of a bait-and-switch cover-up.

On the one hand the investigation could be deemed a failure. After years of investigation Starr couldn't come up with anything to take down the Clintons and so in seeming desperation acts on a tip that effectively reoriented the whole investigation in the direction of Monica Lewinsky.

Was there dirt on the Clintons? Could they have been charged with crimes and brought down? I do not doubt it for a moment and yet like the Mueller investigation of Trump these threads are not easily pulled. The whole fabric can unravel and in the case of both Trump and the Clintons their dealings, even their illegal dealings are all too often wedded to individuals and institutions that if fully exposed would potentially lead to a chain reaction. It often amazes me at how connected people are in the higher echelons of power. The proverbial tangled web quickly becomes far-reaching and if fully exposed would destroy what remains of public trust. This should have happened decades ago as the information is more or less out there but most of the public is too distracted and too invested to really care, let alone respond or react.

Investigators like Starr and Mueller really have a twin task. They're not real investigators but political operatives with a mandate. However they also must conduct their 'investigations' in such a way that the rotten inner workings of the Establishment order are not exposed to the light of day. They are both investigators and guardians or more properly they are Praetorian investigators working not for the sake of truth but to complete a mission.

In the end they attempt to bring about a political result and to do so they generate a great deal of noise, create some carnage and use a lot of smoke and mirrors... but interestingly the very impetus of their mandate ends up being left behind and obscured.

As recently as 2017 the media provided the public with another display of false exposé in the release of JFK documents from the National Archive. Philip Shenon a New York Times and Politico reporter seems to be making a career in the false exposé business writing about some of the big topics like the 9/11 and Warren Commissions. Like a good Establishment exposé writer he admits there was some funny business and some things that were hidden... but in the end, the official stories still stand.

And of course for all the hype about the JFK document release, the vast majority of the documents remain classified and hidden away. That's a Trump promise that was completely broken but not one that anyone has bothered to revisit.

Shenon's comments during his August 2017 appearance on NPR's Fresh Air are of a nature that leads me to believe he's a complete fraud. Either a fraud or incompetent because even the amateur and casual student of the JFK assassination would be able to challenge and pick apart the statements he presents as uncontroversial and uncontestable. His statements about Oswald, Ruby and the Magic Bullet are at times beyond ridiculous.

Shenon trots out the tired narrative that was repeated after 9/11. The agencies were too timid and poorly managed and there was a lack of coordination. They should have been able to stop the plot but failed to 'connect the dots' in time. And thus (by implication) what's really needed is for these agencies to grow and be strengthened to do their job better. It is yet another instance of the 'Keystone Cops' critique, meant to demand more funds and robust reforms. The author's purpose is not to expose corruption but to call for greater investment and fortification of the institution.

Some have tried to present similar narratives with regard to the Oklahoma City Bombing implying that Timothy McVeigh slipped his surveillance and thus the government covered up aspects of the case in order to escape public and political rage. It certainly is a possibility. The official narrative presented in the news documentaries and in the false exposé American Terrorist fail to properly deal with the history and have selectively (and suspiciously) ignored large swathes of the McVeigh story, particularly with regard to Elohim City and Andreas Straßmeir. They may or may not be connected to the April 1995 attack but the fact that Michel and Herbeck summarily dismissed such theories and seem to accept McVeigh's denials prima facie strikes one as odd.

This is not to imply that the authors are covering for White supremacists, rather the suggestion is that their official history is covering up other vital aspects of the case in order to protect or stay in the good graces of the United States government. As far as what agencies, who or why... despite the many theories it is still unclear to me. In the case of McVeigh the false exposé chroniclers have chosen to avoid the Keystone Cop angle employed by Shenon.

Shenon seems to suggest this lack of coordination is a pattern with regard to these national tragedies and yet I think a much stronger case can be made for an alternative but it's an alternative that requires an abandonment of the basic assumptions required by those who wish to operate within (and profit from) the consensus. To tell the real story means being blacklisted and apart from figures like Seymour Hersh, Robert Parry, Max Blumenthal and Chris Hedges there are few willing to take that step.

Shenon's interview is still interesting but that's in spite of his attempt to spin the story. Actually what he reveals is even more evidence to suggest that J Edgar Hoover played a large and essential role in the cover-up and in managing the Warren Commission. He admits there were cover-ups but interestingly the cover-ups are always about hiding incompetence or other connections. They have nothing to do with genuine nefarious activities. He presents his work as investigative and exposé journalism but like so many others the end result is a rubber stamp on the official narrative.

*As a Christian my response to Wikileaks is mixed. On the one hand Providence has ordained the present system, the powers that be. It's evil but serves a purpose and when one begins to grasp the full import of a world turned loose, the system, even the existing corrupt and wicked system is probably better than the alternative.

The danger of course is that we become dormant and lax and begin to think in the terms and parameters of the system and slowly begin to accept its assumptions. This can become a cloak for great evil and indeed this has already taken place within large even vast sections of Evangelicalism and professed Biblical Christianity.

I cannot join with Wikileaks in its task and goals but at the same time I can glean from the light it shines. Certainly if a trove of CIA secrets fell into my lap I wouldn't hesitate to pass them on. The notions of legality and illegality really begin to break down when one interacts with such entities as the Pentagon, CIA and FBI. And though Wikileaks breaks 'laws', there's a real value and worth in such exposures. The truth can be better known and the lies, even the lies of Evangelicals and other Sacralists are exposed... lies I'm particularly interested in. It destroys any kind of faith in the world system and for that I am very thankful.

To see powerful figures taken down by these leaks... that's hardly something to weep about. Assange is being persecuted for truth telling and I hope he escapes the clutches of the United States government. And yet he had to know that there would be a heavy price to pay. Snowden is (or was) a bit more naive in what he attempted to do. And yet we can be grateful indeed and in his case I'm personally glad he has escaped the clutches of the United States and I hope that he's able to continue being a voice for truth. His motives for releasing the data to The Guardian and Washington Post as opposed to Wikileaks were well intentioned and effective at the time. But I think the situation has changed and those organisations have moved even more fully under the shadow of the Establishment.

Continue reading part 3 (final)