Chapter 2 is entitled "deception and self-deception," and discusses at some length the WWII Allied disinformation campaign code-named "Operation Fortitude." General George Patton, highly respected by the Germans but in the doghouse over having slapped two shellshocked GIs at a field hospital in Italy, was put "in charge" of a huge--but entirely ficticious--First United States Army Group "poised" to assault Pas de Calais.It is a familiar story to many, but one from which Professor Mylroie has a little-noticed moral. She points out that Operation Fortitude was not discontinued on D-Day but was kept going at full tilt long afterwards. The Germans, having been convinced of the existence of that force and having made decisions of the basis of that "knowledge," actually acquired a vested interest in that "certainty."
For another five weeks, until mid-July, Hitler still expected the main Allied force to arrive at Pas de Calais, and therefore held back crucial forces . . .. . . CIA training includes training in practicing as well as defending against deception. In addition to learning the history of military deception, intelligence analysts learn to be aware of their own prior assumptions by matching wits with a professional magician--who invariably proves to students that they too can indeed be fooled.This insight has important implications. The author's point in citing it is that the information linking al Qaeda to 9/11 was too easily obtained by half, and that for all we actually know, 9/11 was an Iraqi operation and al Qaeda was, at least in that case, more a willing front for Saddam than an actual perpetrator. OBL's video showed him absorbing credit for the attack, and it is easy to see what he got out of the deal. But his essentially contemptuous reference to the other hijackers' being ignorant of the fact that the hijack pilot intended that the planes would crash rather than landing is far more understandable if fact those men were Iraqi operatives rather than people known to, and loyal to, himself personally.In real life, of course, deception plays out diffferently than it does in a magic show. Instead of a momment of "aha!" there is a gradual recognition of a disturbing possibilty. And instead of the rueful appreciation of the well-executed trick, there is the unpleasant sensation of having been made a dupe.
People's egos and career concerns almaost inevitably come into play, and those who have been duped resist admittingh it as long as possible--and sometimes longer . . .
So the deceiver quickly finds an unlikely ally in the deceived. At a certain point--once sef-deception has kicked in--the effort of concealment becomes almost superfluous.
Saddam had plenty of motive for attacking us but, having a known address, also ample reason to see us assign the blame to someone else. OBL was glad to see the attack carried out, pleased to take credit for it, and contemptuous of the downside of taking the credit for it. And as to the "Islamic fanatacism" required to motivate the suicide missions, we saw suicide missions ordered by Saddam during the invasion--people blowing past checkpoints when our soldiers had arms at the ready--without any implication of "Islamic" fanaticism being involved.
And was the anthrax really a copycat echo rather than part-and-parcel of 9/11? The author says even the US government doesn't have the ability to make anthrax weponized the way the powder in some of the envelopes was. So in truth it's far less likely to have been produced by "a white man in a white van" than by a state-sponsored R&D effort. By one of two countries, one of which happened to be Iraq.
Bump to my #8, a book report on a fascinating read about Iraq. And why we--and the State Dept. and the CIA--know some things about 9/11 that just ain't so.The book is very positive towards the Bush/Rumsfeld approach to the WOT.
Do you think your Iraq ping list would be interested?
was the anthrax really a copycat echo rather than part-and-parcel of 9/11?If in fact Saddam was the perpetrator of 911, including the anthrax attacks (if in fact al Qaeda was merely gleaning all the credit by fronting for Saddam), and Operation Iraqi Freedom was far more crucial than Bush ever let on . . . and Afghanistan was more nearly a "diversion." Not a "diversion from the WOT," but a diversion from the main thrust which was Operation Iraqi Freedom--a temporizing measure while OIF was in initial preparation.The author says even the US government doesn't have the ability to make anthrax weponized the way the powder in some of the envelopes was. So in truth it's far less likely to have been produced by "a white man in a white van" than by a state-sponsored R&D effort. By one of two countries, one of which happened to be Iraq.
OBL was glad to see the attack carried out, pleased to take credit for it, and contemptuous of the downside of taking the credit for it. . . or perhaps hopeful of drawing us into the same Afghan terrain which defeated the Soviets. We walked right into his trap . . . and broke the trap.
Notice [below] that Dr. Mylroie plainly says that Clinton had the evidence of Iraq's involvement in the first bombing of the WTC, but hid it from the American people.
I think FReepers need to hammer away at that point in a highly visible way during this presidential campaign year.
We need to put Clinton and the DemocRATS on the defensive in a big way.
I propose that in all of our FReeps some of our signs should read something on the order of: "Clinton HID THE EVIDENCE from the American People that Iraq bombed the WTC". Make him prove he didn't. Maybe we could send a link to this thread to various media people who might have the guts to run with that idea. What do you think?
On 10-18-01 (a month after 9-11) Laurie Mylroie said [excerpted]:
"Q: Is your opinion that bin Laden basically was the front man for Saddam Hussein?