Questions for Priest and Arkin at the Washington Post about Top Secret America

by Kelly Gerling

Dana Priest and William Arkin revealed the first of a three-part article about the secret new fourth branch of the US government—the national security state. The article is called Top Secret America.

They asked for questions at the Post, and I submitted some. I doubt they will deal with them, but here is what I asked:

Preamble: Newsflash!!! Attacks have motives. More fists thrown in bar fights cause more fists to be thrown. American violence, domination and disrespect, yield, (gasp!!!) anti-American violence, anti-domination retaliation, and disrespect in response. Thus attacks. Like 9/11. And Madrid. And London. And in Iraq. And in Bali. And in Pakistan. And in Afghanistan. Violence exists in cycles. AQ does not attack Sweden. Why? OBL referred to a beginning of grievances 80 years earlier. Ah, what happened 80 years before that comment? (Hint: Sykes-Picot) Any child knows these things. Are you too well-educated to know these things?

Question: When and how are you going to deal with the elusive obvious issue: motive? And the legitimacy, legality and morality of US Mideast policies?

(Hint: AZ was asked why AQ doesn’t pursue peaceful methods of achieving its objectives. Answer: they would have to sign a treaty that would mean nothing to . . . us, meaning the US.)

I can quote the stated motives of OBL, AZ, the London bombers. So can you, if you look them up.

When will you reveal in this series that which is NOT being explored; that which is so obvious it is elusive; that which is the skyscraper under the carpet: the legitimacy of the US policies that cause the motives of the attackers?

I hope you are not so idiotic to miss something this obvious.

“Bin Laden’s overarching aim is to get the United States out of the Persian Gulf.” This was said by George Tenet, CIA director, to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1999.

Is the US military in the Persian Gulf legitimate? Legal? Moral? Does it pass the Golden Rule test? Would we want the Chinese or Indian, or Martian military forces in San Francisco, LA and NY harbors? Or their bases on US soil?

If the answer to these questions is “no,” and the answer is no if you poll Americans, then the attacks are deterrent attacks by Muslims in defense.

Change point of view: Would we resist, violently if necessary to such impositions and violations of our sovereignty? Yes. We. Would. Of course.

And then the elusive obvious emerges (Ask Michael Scheur): the institutional responses to the 9/11 attacks—institutional, military and diplomatic disrespect of Muslims abroad and at home, with torture, drone strikes, invasions, occupations, and air strikes against wedding parties—provoke more of the very attacks those “security” responses are promising to defend us against.

When. Will. You. Deal. With. This???

Kelly Gerling

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *