by Mark Dunlea
This September is the 25th anniversary of 9/11, a horrific event that inflamed the war mentality of our political leaders. It expanded attacks on civil liberties and Muslims that are getting even stronger under the Trump 2 presidency.
The war machine – which continues to sputter in our repeated military misadventures, currently with Iran – has prospered post 9/11, appropriating much of the government’s spending, with this year’s proposed budget topping an obscene $1.5 trillion. This massive spending mightily benefits war profiteers and politicians, while depriving Americans of essential spending on health care, housing, education, the environment, etc.
There remain many unanswered questions about 9/11. Nor were the broader policy issues leading to 9/11 examined, involving the US’ role in the Middle East, our support for a coup in Afghanistan to weaken the Soviet Union, and our support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians.
The Commission charged with the 9/11 investigation was made up of individuals tied to the defense industry. Their job was to protect – to cover up for – the US intelligence community, even though the Commission had to acknowledge that bureaucratic infighting and incompetency were major factors in allowing 9/11 to occur. While the Commission castigated the intelligence community for their lack of cooperation (e.g., the FBI and CIA), it focused on recommending bureaucratic reshuffling rather than holding them accountable by bringing criminally negligent charges.
Glossed over were accusations, including by a former FBI Director, that the leadership of both major parties (e.g., Presidents) sought to protect the Saudis in terrorist investigations. Bin Laden was someone with whom the CIA had worked closely in Afghanistan in the 80s in the orchestrated civil war. While all air travel was grounded in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration gave special permission to key Saudi figures in the US to fly home without questioning them about what they might know or have done.
By happenstance, I wrote what I believe was the first novel about 9/11. I was writing Madame President: The Unauthorized Biography of the First Green Party President (order at https://bit.ly/45jlcbm). The idea was to use a fictional narrative to educate the public about the Party’s philosophy and program. On the evening of September 10, naively thinking I was close to the finish line with the novel, I met with my next-door neighbor to discuss how the Green president would respond to a terrorist attack. We settled on a plot with Iraq and Saddam Hussein killing 8 Americans. When the planes slammed into the World Trade Center and elsewhere the next morning, I pivoted to how President Rachel Moreno would respond to 9/11. Even though her only son had been killed at the WTC, she treated 9/11 as a criminal matter, not a declaration of war against the Muslim World and domestic dissent with a green light for the neocons.
I thus followed the 9/11developments closely, cutting and saving news articles. It was amazing to me how the narrative would often change dramatically in a short period of time, amid collective amnesia about the contradictions and reversals, starting with the role of bin Laden.
For the first decade or so, I would write an op ed on the 9/11 anniversary highlighting the many unanswered questions about 9/11. The biggest ones relate to the potential role that the Saudis and the rogueish Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) may have played in supporting the 9/11 attackers, including financially.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
Thomas Kean, the former Governor of New Jersey who was the Republican co-chair of the Commission, subsequently revealed that his main regret was failing to prosecute Pentagon generals for lying to the Commission. They denied that NORAD was conducting a training exercise on 9/11 that involved faked hijacked airplanes. This caused tremendous confusion for air controllers. That it was a lie is clear; Vanity Fair even published a transcript of the frantic calls to NORAD on 9/11 by air controllers about the fake airplanes on their radar. The question is why did the Pentagon lie?
The likelihood of success of the 9/11 hijackers was certainly enhanced by NORAD’s exercise. Was it just a coincidence or did someone leak the details of the exercise to them? One would start by questioning actors in the Middle East who allegedly are allies with the US, but who also play shady games with groups engaged in terrorism and violence. (The ISI and Saudis are the most likely.)
Another so-called coincidence was that two of the hijacked airliners originated at the Boston Logan airport which reportedly had among the worst security in the country. That would be helpful information for the hijackers in their planning.
Mainstream media, including CNN, reported that the Pakistani ISI wired $100,000 to the lead 9/11 hijacker shortly before the attack, though there has not been an official confirmation. Was this just the monthly tribute by the ISI to Al Qaeda or was it evidence of ISI engagement? The agent who reportedly wired the money was later implicated in the 2002 murder of Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl, , who was investigating the links between the ISI and al Qaeda. This coincidence was highlighted in the 2007 A Mighty Heart movie starring Angelina Jolie.
The Commission failed to examine how the hijackers might have gotten access to such inside security information. The Commission also claimed it was unable to determine who funded 9/11, contending that since Al Qaeda was so well funded (starting with the Saudis paying protection tribute), the attacks were little more than petty cash. It is now believed that while bin Laden provided guidance to the attack, he did not fund it.
The Commission’s report on the recruitment of the 9/11 hijackers reads like a bad SNL sketch, involving college students approaching someone on a train since he had facial hair and asking if he knew how to get involved in terrorism in Chechnya against the Soviets. The individual turned out to be a central Al Qaeda operative who redirected the students to go meet bin Laden in Afghanistan.
The Neoconservatives who dominated the defense and foreign policies of Bush Jr’s administration had openly called for another Pearl Harbor to justify an attack on Iraq (admittedly a nasty regime which the US had long supported) to seize their oil. (Trump being more surgical in Venezuela.) The Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to use the grief over 9/11 to launch the invasion they had long hungered for.
9/11 was a classic example of blowback, something the commissions studiously avoided acknowledging. Coined by the CIA in the 1950s, it refers to the unintended, negative, and often hidden consequences of a country’s covert, Machiavellian, often illegal actions abroad. The US’ meddling in Afghanistan in the late 70s, started under Carter and continued by Reagan, created the conditions for the emergence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Nor was the alleged role of the CIA in working with the ISI to bring the Taliban to power examined.
Another example of blowback is the US role in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 over the issue of oil, replacing it with a dictatorial monarchy. That coup – one of many orchestrated by the US – has resulted in decades of conflict between the two nations and major suffering for many Iranians.
So why is it important to still provide answers to the 9/11 twenty-five years after it happened?
One, the war on terror launched after 9/11 continues to have a fundamental impact on our foreign policy abroad and civil liberties and anti-immigration fervor at home. Much of the response manipulated by elected officials, corporate media, and the military-industrial-congressional complex was based on incorrect, misleading, false, or unacknowledged information. 9/11 was the pretext for vastly expanding domestic surveillance by the government, which has gone into overdrive with the Trump administration and the expansion of AI and data centers.
Second, our foreign policy in the Middle East continues to conflict with the best interests of the average American and the residents of those countries. While the genocide in Gaza has finally begun to erode the long-standing blank check given by both parties to Israel, the oil wealth of the Saudi and other Gulf kingdoms leads the US to turn a blind eye to much of their unsavory behavior. Compared to domestic policy, the Democrats and Republicans have long agreed to support the demands of the oligarchs and military-industrial-congressional complex abroad while offering up smokescreens and platitudes to hide the real reasons for our foreign policy misdeeds from the American public.
As Google AI notes, “Governments often use deception, threat inflation, and strategic myths in foreign policy to manufacture public consent, justify military interventions, and deter adversaries.”
We need an honest assessment of our actions in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, the practice of lying, so common in foreign policy, has now been adopted in domestic action by Trump and his cohorts. George Orwell’s 1984 – “a place where governments or groups use massive spying, strict lies, and fake history to control what people think and do” – accurately describes the Trump administration. It is critical to keep fighting against the growth of totalitarianism at home and abroad.
9/11 was a pivotal moment for America. It was manipulated to turn the country to the dark side. It laid the groundwork that has enabled Trump’s aggressive and increasingly successful effort to impose authoritarian rule. We need to pivot to a better world that respects the rule of law, the dignity of all individuals, and strives to promote the common good.