fake terror

"John Yoo ... served in the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003."

Another tool would [be to] have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within Al Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications.

Renewing the Patriot Act and staying the course at Guantanamo Bay remain important tools for gaining the intelligence that can prevent another Sept. 11. But we should realize that these measures remain fundamentally defensive. In order to prevail, we must develop an offensive strategy that focuses less on controlling territory or cities, none of which Al Qaeda possesses, and more on new ways to disrupt and destroy networks.

1) fake terrorist organisations: heaping irony upon irony.

there is a certain extent to which al qaeda is a fake terrorist organisation, built up by the western media as a bogeyman. it's not really an organisation, so much as an idea and a banner. like critical mass, it's a grassroots movement. also remember that it was the u.s government under reagan that basically funded the contruction of al qaeda and the taliban in the first place. [up until the year 2000, the year prior to the u.s invasion of afghanistan, supposedly to topple the taliban government, all of that government's salaries were paid for by the u.s government]

that they're prepared to discuss making a fake one underlies the notion of them already having done so, and reflects interestingly on the prospect of complicity in domestic terrorism discussed below.

of course the united states government and military are themselves the biggest and most powerful (and consequently the most violent) of all terrorist organisations already.

2) al qaeda don't hold territories or cities

this is a very important point and clearly true. but american strength is based on the military outlook of world war 2, mighty armies facing off against each other. the world isn't like that any more. yet still the spending continues.

this is the biggest gap in the propaganda front really. the disjunction between what they say they're doing "the war on terror" and what they're actually doing, invading a country to steal its oil.

in terms of the "war on terror" invading afghanistan and iraq is tactically ridiculous. the u.s government would be in no doubt that this is likely to escalate the terror war. this seems insane if one believes the stated objectives, to reduce terrorism.

but of course that's not the actual objective. the actual objective is to flex muscles, expend ammunition, gain a foothold and most importantly steal the valuable oil necessary for the ongoing smooth funtioning of the military-industrial machine.

that this exascerbates international terrorism is just a bonus for the government which enables them to diminish the power of people to complain.


elsewhere in the article john woo calls for a revoking of "the 1970s-era presidential order banning assassination". israel is the avant garde in this respect, taking out crippled hamas leaders by firing missiles at their cars from helicopter gunships. no arrest, no trial, just pre-emptive state-sponsored assasination in the clear light of day.

sure it's a shame if a girl happens to be playing in the street nearby, but all is fair in love and war.

basically such calls are a further justification for unilateralism. america has long ignored international law, (as noam chomsky discusses here) and is here signalling its intention to do so more and more flagrantly.