DEEP STATE n. a hard-to-perceive level of government department(s) agencies or super-control orgs that exists regardless of elections, prosecuting the agenda of the long-term national interest (extant power dynamics) at home and abroad; and that may thwart popular movements or radical change initiated bottom-up from the public or by citizens against ruling elite in foreign countries.
Government: Here is the Pro-NSA Surveillance Argument (10-Jun-2013) theblaze.com article, purged from their website but retained by the Wayback Archive.
Guardian UK: The NSA Files index of pages and sub-sections on the Guardian newspaper website relating to Snowden revelations and NSA (US) / GCHQ (UK) signals intelligence. Released and collated around November 2013.
NSA Scandal: Is Palantir Powering the NSA's PRISM? (7-Jun-2013) @ ibtimes.com International Business Times website. Whoever the fuck they are. IBT Media based in NYC, owns Newsweek through a sister company (same shareholders). Dodgy money-laundering and other typical loose money play.
The Rise of the Biosecurity State - with Whitney Webb on Rokfin (20-Sept-2021) @ ROKFIN VIDEO on Whitney Webb's Rokfin channel.
While the rank-and-file military are among the most patriotic of Americans and show unwavering support for the Constitution, there is a class of elite national security establishment who, whatever they may say on ceremonial occasions, believe they are above the Constitution. The “national security establishment” is colloquially known as the Deep State . In the past military leaders were part of the ruling class, intelligence agencies did not exist and there was no danger of a rogue national security establishment in 1789. That why for all their brilliance, the Framers of the Constitution did not foresee the emergence of this threat. JFK assassination was the crossing of the Rubicon, and the tail started wagging the dog. Brennan’s 2016 elections machinations were yet another vivid demonstration that the national security establishment spun out of control.
This threat emerged only after WWII and national security state when Truman established intelligence agencies which comprise the core of the Deep State (CIA, NSA, FBI and Pentagon). Add to this State Department and you get what is called “Trumanites”. They brought with them the three cornerstones of American (Five Eyes) foreign policy:
Gradually the national security bureaucracy became so large and omnipotent that the Madisonian branches of government became mainly ceremonial institution providing legitimacy to the ruling elite via national election. Something like the British House of Lords, symbolically important but in reality without much power. Intelligence agencies “Nomenklatura“, not Trump, are moving the nation toward autocracy, operated at an increasing removed from constitutional limits and restraints manner.
Tufts law professor Michael Glennon points out in a recent essay in Humanitas that the Cold War brought something new and ominous in military-civilian relations. The national security bureaucracy became so large and omnipotent that the Madisonian branches of government became something like the British House of Lords, symbolically important but in reality with little power. The executive, legislature, and judiciary became a kind of Potemkin village, with real national security power lodged in, as Glennon describes it, “a concealed managerial directorate, comprising the several hundred leaders of the military, law enforcement and intelligence departments.” As this bureaucracy grew, Glennon argues, “those managers… operated at an increasing remove from constitutional limits and restraints, moving the nation slowly toward autocracy.”
Glennon also points out that, prior to Trump, there was an unwritten pact between the bureaucracy and the Madisonian government: never publicly disagree. While national security policies have long been crafted and maintained by deep state bureaucracies, everyone played along and told the public these resulted from “intense deliberations.” Yet a few people noticed that, whether under Republican or Democrat administrations, national security policies never really changed, intelligence operations were never disrupted, and even peacenik-seeming presidential candidates became warlike presidents. For decades, neither elected officials nor bureaucratic leaders publicly acknowledged that American national security policy was being run by what Glennon describes as a “double government,” with elected officials impotent.
However, with the staggering intelligence failure that was 9/11 and two protracted and losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some have questioned whether the “grown-ups” in the national security bureaucracy are even competent. Trump gave voice to those concerns in the 2016 campaign, and the result has been a breakdown in the Cold War truce between the two components of the double government. Leaders of the national security establishment, who know they have genuine power, took precautions in the unlikely event of a Trump victory and then tried to overturn Trump’s election. When they failed, they partnered with Congress to have Trump removed through impeachment, taking full advantage of the fractured nature of civilian control of national security institutions. Impeachment witnesses, such as Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, have been unanimous in their implicit belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be managed by a professional class of bureaucrats, not by the elected president.
In the mind of ordinary American, the term “Deep State” and “democracy” happily coexist. Most do not even understand that they are infected with what in famous George Orwell novel 1984 is called “Doublethink”. The existence of an uncontrollable elite as the “Deep State” the core of which make up Wall Street bankers, MIC and the top brass of the intelligence agencies is incompatible with the existence of the democracy, unless we assume that democracy exists for the top 1% or even less of the population. It is something like modernized feudalism for all the rest. This strange, but stable combination is called neoliberalism. As neoliberalism came to power with coup d’état facilitated by thinks tanks specifically created for this purpose (the army of “professional revolutionaries” in Bolsheviks terms) neoliberalism and Deep State are closely interrelated. This interrelation is reflected in the Sheldon Wolin term “Inverted totalitarianism” which is the actual name of the somewhat strange social order established in the USA since 70th, which US propaganda calls democracy.
The concept of Corporatism and the concept of “deep state” are very close. Corporatism presupposes the merger of government and corporations. It can be done openly, as in Mussolini Italy, or via back door including the “revolving door” mechanism as it was done in the USA. In both cases corporations control the government, although in Mussolini’s case their absolute power is moderated by the esitable of the fascist party with its program. In the latter case, the USA inverted totalitarian regime: a tiny part of the power of the “surface state” is preserved. But enough to prove the legitimacy to the rule of the “Deep State” or “Inner Party” in terms of Orwell’s dystopia 1984.
Deep State just adds another component to pre-existing since the end of WWII concept of military industrial complex (see Eisenhower warning about MIC which is a warning about the victory of corporatism in the USA) – intelligence agencies. With this addition elections became simply a device to legitimize the governance of the current elite, with undesirable for the elite candidates filtered before they can compete in election by various means, including radical, as with JFK assassination. Elections serve just of Potemkin village legitimizing the candidate that was chosen by tiny elite (the top 1% or 0.1% depending on how you count).
Except for deep social crisis, as with election of Trump, who definitely was less preferred by the deep state candidate than Hillary Clinton but won, or more correctly the faction of the elite that landed behind Trump won, because of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA due to which the current elite lost legitimacy in the eyes of most population. And, especially, working people and lower middle class which make up most voters.
As many observers pointed out, the election of Trump was essentially a middle finger shown to the current neoliberal elite in the USA, particularly the Clinton’s wing of Democratic Party which betrayed working class as a part of “Clintonization” of the Party in early 90th during which it became the party of Wall Street and later, under Obama, the second war party. The same happened with Labour Party in the UK under neoliberal archetype Tony Blair.
We can say that Deep State emerged simultaneously with powerful intelligence agencies after WWII. In the USA it was Truman who created added CIA to the roster of intelligence agencies and he can be called a godfather of the US deep state. This concept became more well known recently in view of color revolution against Trump launched by Clinton wing of Democratic party (so called “soft neoliberal” wing) in association the supporting them elements of intelligence agencies such as State Department, CIA and FBI.
The concept of the Deep State is related to the answer another fundamental question: Can democracy exist in a state with powerful intelligence agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI (which plays the role of counterintelligence agency in the USA; look at Russiagate) and the State Department (which has functions, which duplicate those of CIA). Thus the concept of the “deep state” can be viewed as a reformulation of the iron law of oligarchy on a new level (state level), explaining the role of intelligence agencies as an immanent part of the ruling elite. For example, the neoliberals elite which rules the USA since late 1970s. Carter – not Reagan – was the first neoliberal president of the USA.
“The concept of the Deep State is related to the answer another fundamental question: Can democracy exist in a state with powerful intelligence agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI?”
Intelligence agencies gained a special status under corporatism. They became the backbone and the intellectual center of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) which also now includes major Wall Street banks (which historically have very close ties with CIA; CIA was formed by lawyers which served their interests such as Allen Dulles). Under neoliberalism the financial oligarchy became an important part of MIC (especially oligarchy of such banks as Goldman Sachs and Citibank) because the power of the US military secure their global expansion. Recently Silicon Valley mega corporations also joined it. All of them are closely connected via and to NSA and CIA (especially Amazon, Google and Facebook).
Julian Assange’s short book “When Google Met Wikileaks” is an unparalleled firsthand account of the confluence of forces that’ve mutated the Military-Industrial Complex mutated into a far more powerful entity: the Media-Military-Financial-Industrial-Silicon Valley Complex. It is a de facto unelected aristocracy with huge financial resources, total proliferation (reach) and zero significant accountability. Members of this cabal stand above law and can’t be easily demoted or replaced by civil authorities. When the members fuck up, they may lose a job but soon appear again in an even more senior position. They now are a new incarnation of the “Royal Court” of a feudal hegemony, or in more modern term a Nomenklatura, which can, like in old times, to depose a monarch (or Supreme Leader, President, politburo, cabinet) or even kill if opposed too publicly.
The Media-Military-Financial-Industrial-Silicon Valley Complex is a new unelected aristocracy with huge financial resources and zero accountability. Members of this transnational clan stand above law and can’t be easily blocked by civil authorities from their ascent through positions of power by civil authorities (e.g. intelligence agencies level, J Edgar Hoover who died in his official position as head of the FBI, much like Soviet members of Politburo).
So in a way the concept of Deep State implies and emphasizes the hypertrophied role of three letter agencies among unelected government bureaucracy. They are joined at the heap with financial oligarchy, MIC and Silicon Valley in national politics. Especially in formulating foreign policy. Influence of MIC on the US foreign policy is nothing new and power of neocon, who are lobbyists of MIC attests that. They came to dominate the USA foreign policy from then end of WWII. One of the most plausible hypotheses about JFK’s assassination is its origin as a CIA plot, because his policies threatened to limit the power of intelligence agencies (especially CIA, which the Kennedy’s hated) and curtail weaponized international expansion which Wall Street and MIC depended on to maximize their profits and plunder.
Some features of the American Deep State are different to the Deep State in other neoliberal countries such as EU, GB, Turkey, or Russia.
The “deep state” victory over voters and political dominance is always “incomplete” – at least to date. The “surface state” retains some positions of power and periodically even tries to counterattack the Deep State leviathan (in certain areas e.g. Church Committee). The merger of interests of three letter agencies like CIA/NSA/ FBI also has its own internal contradictions. For example, NSA and CIA competes for funds. State Department, which is forth most important intelligence agency in the USA (and the oldest of all four) now lost its independence and can be viewed as a subsidiary of CIA, see Emailgate and Strzogate for details ). Alliance of CIA and Wall Street also can never be absolute. They have somewhat different worldviews on both the USA foreign policy priorities and methods of achieving them. There is a fierce and perpetual competition between intelligence agencies for state resources (public funding) which regularly pits, for example, CIA against NSA and both of them against DIA (e.g. requiring the sacrifice of Michael Flynn to placate neocons with a vote on budget allocation).
In the Syria War, these agency differences can lead to essentially supporting groups of insurgents hostile to each other while trying to achieve an America-friendly corporate satisfactory revolution-based “regime change” in the country. All of the well known Islamic terrorist groups began using funds and training and equipment supplied by Anglo-American agencies in pursuit of “regime change”.
It’s worth looking into the Vault 7 scandal for insight into the tricky relations between American agedncies. In this case the CIA (‘humint“) was concerned by the rise in status and capabilities of NSA (“sigint“) and autonomously tried to duplicate its capabilities. These American agencies demonstrably lie to each other and try to poach funds from the other agencies. Vault 7 confirms CIA top brass concerns about the increased role and influence of NSA as internet communications continue to redefine espionage, power over networks becoming a new foundation of agency power.
In the US, the intel agencies are also competing with the semi-independent status and role of military intelligence. The Pentagon frequently clashes with both CIA and NSA. Exampoe: General Flynn, who served as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and in 2017 was entrapped by FBI with the help of NSA and CIA, a strong sign there’s not much love between DIA and other agencies (with DIA probably being the most competent of them all three). In certain areas these powerful institutions of the Deep State are like spiders in a jar. There is no monolith unity across the entire Deep State landscape.
The rise of intelligence agencies inevitably led to conversion of the state into national security state and we can talk about “election democracy” in such state only with great reservations. Some freedom to choose candidates still exists – as Sanders and, possibly, Trump emergence in 2016 elections attests – but the ultimate choice is determined by intelligence agencies, not so much by voters. FBI derailing of Sanders in favour of establishment candidate – Hillary Clinton – vividly attests to this; not that Sanders fought a good fight in this respect serving more like a sheepdog in the elections.
Two-party system (duopoly) as an instrument of central governmental power continuity was invented and implemented by the British elite in the 19th-century as a solution to universal suffrage (see Walter Bagehot “The English Constitution”) and unsurprisingly, it was exported to the American democracy after the Civil War ended (1865) as a perfect mechanism for inverted totalitarianism (i.e. US hegemonic neoliberalism).
But there is second trend here which increases the elite control of the country: this is a dramatic transfer of power to institutions of “deep state”, which in certain sense now like TBTF are beyond civil control. As well as a secret alliance between Wall Street and CIA and other three letter agencies.
All those factors essentially make Presidential and Congress election in the USA truly optional, serving mostly ceremonial, decorative function. Yes, elections still continue to exist and sometime provide good theater, within the strict rules of an emasculated “two parties, winner takes all” system, which is not that different from one-party show elections in Russia.
They still have a role in legitimizing the current rulers, although actual rules are not the same as those who were elected. This is especially true about the two recent US Presidents: George W Bush and Barack Obama. And that explains why Barack Obama foreign policy is essentially a continuation of the policy of George W Bush with minor tweaks. Just the fact that neocon Victoria Nuland who worked for Cheney was promoted to the key role of the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs tells that Obama controls very little in foreign policy area and that ‘deep state” is functioning autonomously and without control of “surface state”.
The US political system does not have a single government. It actually has two distinct governments. They are called “surface state” or Madisonians and “deep state” or Trumanites (national security establishment in alliance with selected members of financial oligarchy, media owners and technocrats). The latter term emerged because it was Harry Truman who signed the National Security Act of 1947, which created major three letter agencies (CIA, DOD, FBI and NSA).
Simplifying the complex relation between those two US governments (sometimes Madisonians fight back and have Trumanites to make a temporary retreat) we can say that:
The “deep state” represents the actual government of the society by unelected elite, which is composed of high-level officials within the intelligence services, military, law enforcement, judiciary and, often, organized crime. It should be viewed as an extended and more realistic variant of military industrial complex dominance (see Media-Military-Industrial Complex) as it includes selected members of financial oligarchy along with industrialists, Internet moguls, and media owners.
In British author John le Carré’s latest novel, A Delicate Truth: character describes the Deep State as “… the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall and Westminster.”
Conversion of system of governance to “deep state” which happened in the USA almost immediately after 1947 essentially made a large part of federal elections including Presidential elections optional, but they still continue to exist as a ceremonial function for the sake of providing the legitimacy of the government in an emasculated “two parties system” form. While relationship is more complex than simple dominance, “deep state” is the tail that wags the dog. And JFK assassination (Nov 22, 1963) meant first the triumph of “deep state” over “surface state”. In this sense 9/11 was just the last nail in the coffin of democracy.
The “Deep State” is a widespread modern phenomenon which is a typical model of governance in all major neoliberal states, including the USA, GB and France. For example, it able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process. That’s why elected candidates swiftly perform “bat and switch” maneuver and conduct polices radically different from those for which they were elected. As any elite dominance project it is deeply anti-democratic although it uses fig leaf of democracy for foreign expansion via color revolutions and wars.
Like in Third Reich, this dominance is supported by relentless propaganda and brainwashing with mechanisms polished since Reagan to perfection. There is now no problem to create an “enemy of the people” when the elite wants and it does not matter which country or individual is selected as an enemy. The essence of elite politics in this area was best formulated by Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief.
Naturally, the common people don’t want war; not in Russia, nor in England, nor in Germany, nor the United States. That is understood. But it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
This is a hidden set of political actors and powerful institutions that are concealed within the wider, “visible” state which took over the functions of traditional state, leaving such organization of Executive branch, President, congress and courts mainly ceremonial role. Such transformation is well explained by the Iron Law of Oligarchy and in various forms happened in Third Reich, the USSR, Turkey, China and many other countries.
Daniel Ellsberg provided first-hand evidence of the Washington establishment’s long history of hawkishness about war in The Doomsday Machine at Google.
In this talk, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower addresses how the regime of secrecy allows the deep state duopoly to build multi-layer lies, which justify or (if possible) make noble any action by the US government at home or abroad:
“But what made that dangerous, then or now? And the answer was that the government secrets that they were holding onto were secrets about criminal activity, actions that would be extremely embarrassing to a president, because they were unconstitutional or simply incredibly reckless, dangerous, horrible priorities, unlikely ever to succeed in any sense or to end. The public would not have applauded if they understood the actual strategy and the actual prospects.
Every member of Congress has taken that oath. Every member of the Executive Department has taken that same oath. The president’s wording is a little different, protect, preserve and defend or something. But support and defend, everybody else takes it.
And all of us violated it every day. we heard the president lying to Congress and lying to the public about what he intended, where the prospects were, what he was going to do in Vietnam, elsewhere. We all heard the president lying the public into a war, keeping the war going, letting him know the costs would be much less than internal estimates all indicated. And no one broke.
There were no leaks, including me. So was I observing that oath or violating it, when I knew that Congress, which has the exclusive authority to take us to war, at least that’s the best interpretation contradicted by president’s men, was entirely delegating that secretly to a president who was determined to enlarge the war. That’s how you get wars that go on 10 years or 11 years, whatever.
The truth is the United States, as I learned from the Pentagon Papers, when I read all of them, had begun the war in 1945 and ’46, supporting a French effort to reconquer a colony which had declared its independence in August and September 1945. And actually Ho Chi Minh had been recognized as a head of state, at least of the north, in Paris when they were negotiating in ’45, ’46.
But in terms of American traditions, we thought of ourselves as– we didn’t think– of having run the first war of national liberation. But it could have been called that, the first war of separation for an empire. And we thought of ourselves as anti-imperial. And we still think of ourselves that way, as not an empire like the others. That’s false.
That’s very clear from the Pentagon Papers where we’re deciding who should run Vietnam this year or next year or how they should stay in power, what criminal acts they’re entitled to take, how much we need to support them. And so it’s very obviously the documents of an empire. In fact, that’s what I said to my wife, when she said, at one point, before they came out, does it really matter to get this history out? And I said, well it’s the first genuine history of imperial operations since the Nuremberg documents were discovered, covered after the Second World War. And before that, it probably goes back to Punic times, to the Syrian empire, to Sumerian empire, and so probably all the same, but we don’t have the documents for it.
And here they are. And yet, even so, I managed to think of it as an aberration. We had somehow gotten ourselves into acting like an empire. Let me say just very briefly now– I could spend the whole time on this. But I’ll just say, I’ve come recently to see what we are as a covert empire. And covert refers to plausibly denial covert operations.
Covert operations, I should say, are defined as operations that are not just secret, that you’re not just keeping it safe, but that you lie about plausibly. And to make it plausible, you provide in advance evidence, false evidence, misleading evidence as to what’s really going on and who’s running it and why it’s happening and who did it and so forth, a false flag in some cases, whatever.
But you provide several layers of cover for what’s being done to protect the president from the notion that he is murdering, overthrowing governments, installing coup governments in democracies and so forth, as so often in the third world then and now, up until now. Well, you don’t want the US to be associated with that. It’s happening over there.
And if a US hand surfaces, he or she wasn’t working for any agency. And if you find the agency, it wasn’t the CIA. And if it was the CIA, it wasn’t the president. So you have layer after layer of cover stories with documents. I didn’t know this. It didn’t come to my attention. This so-and-so did it and so forth. The Vietnam War was run from beginning to end like that. That’s how we run our empire.
We deny that we are an empire. And what is an empire? A country that determines the regime of other countries, decides who the police chief was, who shall live and who shall die, what the basic foreign policies are. We do that throughout Central America and always have, often many other parts of the world as far apart as Indonesia, now the Middle East.
In general, we decide: Who do we want? Is this guy OK? We don’t decide every detail but any more than you decide every detail of a military commander’s operations. But they work. If they don’t do what we want, we replace them with somebody else. We deny that we’re an empire. We’re against empire. When other people do the same sort of thing, they’re empires. They’re acting imperially. First level of denial on the American part. And then second, how do they get in power? Who has to be killed? What paramilitary forces have to be paid and go in, as into Nicaragua, for example, and other places? So the efforts are also plausibly denied OK, I could spend time. And I don’t know if people have it in mind.”
The American Conservative covers this topics with links to this useful essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the “deep state” — the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment — is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.
“These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there.
At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence.
Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.”
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.
My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude. Per Bill Moyers – “Anatomy of the Deep State”.
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity.
On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”
This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice — certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well-trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government.
In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus’ expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it’s a vital part of the Deep State’s apparatus. The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialisation and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to “live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face.”
Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women’s suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage.
A defining feature of Progressivism is “to believe that questions of fundamental morality have been essentially solved, and what’s left is to work out the details.”
Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives in the making, similar in the heart of hearts but lagging 10-20 years behind Democratic Party adoption of Progressive social norms.
Neoreactionaries, on the other hand, condemn some of these fundamentals — like women’s suffrage? desegregation? Labour laws? equality of opportunity — and are quick to highlight the sacred consensus that all Right-Thinking People share.
Lofgren: Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called “groupthink” the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers.
This syndrome is endemic to Washington DC. The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town’s cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critique the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one.
Upton Sinclair wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time.
Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it’s 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist.
After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one’s consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: “You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?”
No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers! Apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes, unless one is blessed with imagination, a fiercely independent moral compass and a brave sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one’s surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld: “I didn’t know all that I knew, at least until I’d had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.”
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It’s probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites — political, military, financial — were so genuinely traumatized by the events.
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It’s an ideology. I just don’t think we’ve named it. It’s a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialisation. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it’s our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war. This can’t last. We’d better hope it can’t last. And we’d better hope it unwinds peacefully. I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses — and it will one day — it will not be a happy time.
Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? Could you foresee a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to reform itself? If so, what then?
Michael J. Glennon, in his book National Security and Double Government assumes there’s an internal struggle between those two forms of government, not just passive submission one to another, but in most cases deep state prevails. This move led the USA “…beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy…”
In the evolving Deep State, the Trumanites exercise their power because of an alliance with Wall Street, almost unlimited funding (including many hidden sources in the Congress-authorised US budget) and higher efficiency, abuse of secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer-pressure to conform, facilitated by corrupted capture of key decision makers throughout the corridors of power.
Mal Warwick summarizing Glennon: Who makes national security decisions? Not who you think! Why does Barack Obama’s performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.
Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in National Security and Double Government. The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand — the “Madisonian” institutions — incorporated into the US Constitution and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real decision-knowleddge work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies. These officials — the so-called Trumanites, an emergent caste from out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman — make the actual decisions in national security. To wage the Cold War, as a case in point, President Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council. This command structure has occupied the boss seat ever since.
Glennon: “The United States has moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America’s double government.”
In other words, if Al Qaeda hadn’t existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it. Which to an extent they did.
“The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.”
Glennon is well credentialed: professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, face to face daily with the Trumanites he writes about in National Security and Double Government. The book is exhaustively researched and documented. Notes make up two-thirds of the book.
Bruce Morgan: “The more I learn about how politics and government actually work — and I’ve learned a fair amount in my 73 years — the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I’ve read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason to think that things can ever get better. On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. His answer? Move to Vancouver.”
“Elected officials are no longer in charge of our national security—and that is undermining our democracy,” says the Fletcher School’s Michael Glennon.
Glennon: “We are clearly on the path to autocracy. There’s no question that if we continue on that path, [the] Congress, the courts and the presidency will ultimately end up… as institutional museum pieces.”
Glennon’s works were informed by a seminal book of statecraft –The English Constitution – an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of government was for popular consumption, and another, more hidden part, was for real, consumed with getting things done in the world. Glennon saw distinct parallels with the current American political scene, as well he might.
He explored the similarities in a 30-page paper he sent around to several friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. Glennon’s friends were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S. State Department and the military.
Expanded from that original brief paper, Glennon’s book National Security and Double Government (Oxford University Press) takes our political system to task, arguing that the people running our government are not our visible elected officials but high-level—and unaccountable—bureaucrats nestled atop government agencies.
Glennon’s informed critique of the American political system comes from a place of deep regard. Glennon says he can remember driving into Washington, D.C., in the late spring of 1973, at the time of the Senate Watergate hearings, straight from law school at the University of Minnesota, to take his first job as assistant legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate. Throughout his 20s, he worked in government, culminating in his position as legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Sen. Frank Church from 1977 to 1980. Since entering academic life in the early 1980s, Glennon has been a frequent consultant to government agencies of all stripes, as well as a regular commentator on media outlets such as NPR’s All Things Considered, the Today show and Nightline.
In his new book, an inescapable sadness underlies the narrative. “I feel a great sense of loss,” Glennon admits. “I devoted my life to these [democratic] institutions, and it’s difficult to see how to throw the current trends into reverse.” Tufts Now spoke with Glennon recently to learn more of his perspective.
Tufts Now: You’ve been both an insider and an outsider regarding government affairs. What led you to write this book?
Michael Glennon: I was struck by the strange continuity in national security policy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Obama, as a candidate, had been eloquent and forceful in criticizing many aspects of the Bush administration’s national security policies, from drone strikes to Guantanamo to surveillance by the National Security Agency—the NSA—to covert operations. Yet as president, it turned out that he made very, very few changes in these policies. So I thought it was useful to explain the reason for that.
Were you surprised by the continuity?
I was surprised by the extent of it. I knew from my own experience that changing national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy favours the status quo. Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in fulfilling his promises.
You use the phrase “double government,” coined by Walter Bagehot in the 1860s. What did he mean by that?
Walter Bagehot was one of the founders of the Economist magazine. He developed the theory of “double government,” which in a nutshell is this. He said Britain had developed two sets of institutions. First came “dignified” institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords, which were for show and which the public believed ran the government. But in fact, he suggested, this was an illusion.
These dignified institutions generate legitimacy, but it was a second set of institutions, which he called Britain’s “efficient” institutions, that actually ran the government behind the scenes. These institutions were the House of Commons, the Cabinet and the prime minister. This split allowed Britain to move quietly from a monarchy to what Bagehot called a “concealed republic.”
The thesis of my book is that the United States has also drifted into double government, and that we have our own set of “dignified” institutions—Congress, the presidency and the courts. But in national security policy, these entities have become largely for show. National security policy is now formulated primarily by a second group of officials, namely the several hundred individuals who manage the agencies of the military, intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracy responsible for protecting the nation’s security.
What are some components of this arrangement?
The NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon and elements of the State Department, certainly; generally speaking, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. It’s a diverse group, an amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure, that dominates the formation of American national security policy to where Congress, the presidency and the courts all defer to it.
You call this group the “Trumanite network” in your book. What’s the link to Harry Truman?
It was in Truman’s administration that the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted. This established the CIA and the National Security Council and centralized the command of the U.S. military. It was during the Truman administration as well that the National Security Agency [NSA] was set up, in 1952, although that was a secret and didn’t come to light for many years thereafter.
In contrast to the Trumanites you set the “Madisonians.” How would you describe them?
The Madisonian institutions are the three constitutionally established branches of the federal government: Congress, the judiciary and the president. They are perceived by the public as the entities responsible for the formulation of national security policy, but that belief is mistaken. The idea is driven by regular exceptions. You can always point to specific instances in which, say, the president personally ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden or Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution. But these are exceptions. The norm is that these three branches defer to the Trumanite network, and that’s truer all the time.
So the trend is toward increased power on the Trumanite side of the ledger.
If that’s true, why has there not been a greater outcry from the public, the media—all the observers we have?
I think the principal reason is that even sophisticated students of government operate under a very serious misunderstanding. They believe that the political system is self-correcting. They believe the framers set up a system of government setting power against power, and ambition against ambition, and that an equilibrium would be reached, and that any abuse of power would be checked, and arbitrary power would be prevented. That is correct as far as it goes, but’s only half the picture. The other half is that Madison and his colleagues believed that for equilibrium to occur, we would have an informed and engaged citizenry. Lacking that, the entire system corrupts, because individuals are elected to office who do not resist encroachments on the power of their branches of government, and the whole equilibrium breaks down.
What role, if any, have the media played?
The media have been enablers. Although there are a handful of investigative journalists who have done a heroic job of uncovering many of the abuses, they are the exception, for several reasons. Number one, the media are a business and have a bottom line. It takes an enormous amount of money to fund an investigative journalist who goes about finding sources over a period of years. Very few newspapers or television concerns have those sorts of deep pockets.
Second, access for the press is everything. There is enormous incentive to pull punches, and you don’t get interviews with top-ranking officials at the NSA or CIA if you’re going to offer hard-hitting questions. Look, for example, at the infamous 60 Minutes puff piece on the NSA, a really tragic example of how an otherwise respectable institution can sell its soul and act like an annex of the NSA in order to get some people it wants on the TV screen.
What is the role of terror in this environment?
The whole transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network has been fueled by a sense of emergency deriving from crisis, deriving from fear. It’s fear of terrorism more than anything else that causes the American people to be increasingly willing to dispense with constitutional safeguards to ensure their safety. Madison believed that government has two great objects. One object of a constitution is to enable the government to protect the people, specifically from external attacks. The other object of a constitution is to protect the people from the government. The better able the government is to protect the people from external threats, the greater the threat posed by the government to the people.
You’ve been involved with the U.S. government for 40 years. How has your view of government changed?
Double government was certainly a factor in the 1970s, but it was challenged for the first time thanks to the activism stemming from the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. As a result, there were individuals in Congress—Democrats and Republicans like William Fulbright, Frank Church, Jacob Javits, Charles Mathias and many others—who will stand up and insist upon adherence to constitutionally ordained principles. That led to a wave of activism and to the enactment of several pieces of reform legislation. But there is no ultimate victory in Washington. Those reforms have gradually been eaten away and turned aside. I think today we are right back where we were in the early 1970s. NSA surveillance is an example of that. The Church Committee uncovered Operation Shamrock, in which the NSA had assembled a watch list of antiwar and civil rights activists based upon domestic surveillance. Church warned at the time that NSA capabilities were so exceptional that if they were ever turned inward on the American people, this nation would cross an abyss from which there is no return. The question is whether we have recently crossed that abyss.
To what degree are we still a functioning democracy? I’m sure you know that President Jimmy Carter told a German reporter last year that he thought we no longer qualified as a democracy because of our domestic surveillance.
We are clearly on the path to autocracy, and perhaps it’s possible to debate how far we are down that path. But there’s no question that if we continue on that path, America’s constitutionally established institutions—Congress, the courts and the presidency—will ultimately end up like Britain’s House of Lords and monarchy, namely as institutional museum pieces.
Here is how Christopher Bellavita in Homeland Security Watch summarizes an interesting discussion at Cato Institute: Why has American national security policy changed so little from the Bush administration to the Obama?
Michael J. Glennon asks this same question in his book “National Security and Double Government.” His answer: “…national security policy is determined largely by “the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who protect the nation and who operate immune from constitutional and electoral restraints. The President, Congress and the Courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy,”
Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon’s argument: Harvard National Security Journal: Michael Glennon’s Argument.
Glennon’s book adds more analysis to the argument, using (from Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision) the rational actor model, the government politics model, and the organizational behavior model. Glennon extends that framework by discussing culture, networks, and the myth of alternative competing hypotheses. The book is richer. But the core of Glennon’s position is in the paper. This link takes you to a video of Glennon talking about his book at the Cato Institute: Cato Institute: National Security Double Government (the talk starts at the 5:20 mark).
Cato Institute: In National Security and Double Government, Michael Glennon examines the continuity in U.S. national security policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Glennon explains the lack of change by pointing to the enervation of America’s “Madisonian institutions,” namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. In Glennon’s view, these institutions have been supplanted by a “Trumanite network” of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated from law and politics. Glennon warns that leaving security policy in the hands of the Trumanite network threatens Americans’ liberties and the republican form of government.
Some blurb reviews:
Professor Scott represents probably the most comprehensive coverage, especially his book. But the article in the Asia-Pacific journal represents a fair summary of his views on the subject “The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld” (13-March-2014): “In the last decade it has become more and more obvious that we have in America today what the journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin have called two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own, visible to only a carefully vetted cadre–and its entirety… visible only to God.”
And in 2013, particularly after the military return to power in Egypt, more and more authors referred to this second level as America’s “deep state.” Here, for example, is the Republican analyst Mike Lofgren: “There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.”
At the end of 2013 a New York Times Op-Ed noted this trend and even offered a definition of the term: “<DEEP STATE n. A hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical change. Some have said that Egypt is being manipulated by its deep state.”
The political activities of the deep state are the chief source and milieu of what’s elsewhere called “deep politics” i.e. all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged. Others, like Tom Hayden, call the deep state a “state within the state,” and suggest it may be responsible for the failure of the Obama administration to follow the policy guidelines of the president’s speeches: “We have seen evidence of a ‘state within the state’ before, going back as far as the CIA’s operations against Cuba. In Obama’s time, the president correctly named the 2009 coup in Honduras a ‘coup’ and then seemed powerless to prevent it.”
This development of a two-level or dual state has been paralleled by two other dualities: the increasing resolution of American society into two classes–the “one percent” and the “ninety-nine percent”–and the bifurcation of the U.S. economy into two aspects: the domestic, still subject to some governmental regulation and taxation, and the international, relatively free from governmental controls. All three developments have affected and intensified each other–particularly since the Reagan Revolution of 1980, which saw American inequality of wealth cease to diminish and increase. Thus, for example, we shall see how Wall Street–the incarnation of the “one percent”–played a significant role in increasing the deep state after World War Two, and how three decades later the deep state played a significant role in realigning America for the Reagan Revolution.
In earlier books I have given versions of this America-centered account of America’s shift into empire and a deep state. But another factor to be mentioned is the shift of global history towards an increasingly global society dominated by a few emergent superpowers. This trend accelerated after the Industrial Revolution by new technologies of transport, from the railroad in the 19th century to the jet plane and space travel in the 20th.
In the fallout from this rearrangement we must include two world wars, because of which Britain ceased to act as the dominant superpower it had been since Napoleon. The Soviet Union and the United States subsequently competed in a Cold War to fill the gap.not, however, predetermined that the Cold War would be as thuggish and covertly violent as for decades it continued to be. For that we should look to more contingent causes on both sides of the Iron Curtain–starting with the character of Stalin and his party but also including the partly responsive development of the American deep state.
The “deep state” was defined by the UK newsletter On Religion as “the embedded anti-democratic power structures within a government, something very few democracies can claim to be free from.” The term originated in Turkey in 1996, to refer to US-backed elements, primarily in the intelligence services and military, who had repeatedly used violence to interfere with and realign Turkey’s democratic political process. Sometimes the definition is restricted to elements within the government (or “a state-within-the state”), but more often in Turkey the term is expanded, for historical reasons, to include “members of the Turkish underworld.”
It is most useful to think of “deep state” in the larger sense, i.e. to include both the second level of secret government inside Washington and those outsiders powerful enough, in either the underworld or overworld, to give it direction. Like myself, Lofgren suggests an ambiguous symbiosis between two aspects of the American deep state: the Beltway agencies of the shadow government, like the CIA and NSA, which have been instituted by the public state and now overshadow it, and the much older power of Wall Street, referring to the powerful banks and law firms located there.
“It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice – certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. I shall argue that in the 1950s Wall Street was a dominating complex. It included not just banks and oil firms but also the oil majors whose cartel arrangements were successfully defended against the U.S. Government by the Wall Street law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, home to the Dulles brothers. This larger complex is what I mean by the Wall Street over-world.”
Lofgren’s inclusion of Wall Street is in keeping with Franklin Roosevelt’s observation in 1933 to his friend Col. E.M. House that “The real truth… is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
FDR’s insight is well illustrated by the efficiency with which a group of Wall Street bankers (including Nelson Rockefeller’s grandfather Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg) were able in a highly secret meeting in 1910 to establish the Federal Reserve System–a system which in effect reserved oversight of the nation’s currency supply and of all America’s banks in the not impartial hands of its largest. The political clout of the quasi-governmental Federal Reserve Board (where the federal Treasury is represented but does not dominate) was clearly showed in 2008, when Fed leadership secured instant support from the successive administrations of a Texan Republican president, followed by a Midwest Democratic one, for public money to rescue the reckless management of Wall Street banks: banks Too Big To Fail, and of course far Too Big To Jail, but not Too Big To Bail.
Top-level Treasury officials, CIA officers, and Wall Street bankers and lawyers think alike because of the “revolving door” by which they pass easily from private to public service and back. In 1946 General Vandenberg, as Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), recruited Allen Dulles, then a Republican lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell in New York, “to draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947.” Dulles promptly formed an advisory group of six men, all but one of whom were Wall Street investment bankers or lawyers. Dulles and two of the six (William H. Jackson and Frank Wisner) later joined the agency, where Dulles orchestrated policies, such as the overthrow of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala, that he had previously discussed in New York at the Council on Foreign Relations.
There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director. Although he did not formally join the CIA until November 1950, he was in Berlin before the start of the 1948 Berlin Blockade, “supervising the unleashing of anti-Soviet propaganda across Europe.” In the early summer of 1948 he set up the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), support of what became by the early 1950s “the largest CIA operation in Western Europe.”
Wall Street was also the inspiration for what eventually became the CIA’s first covert operation: the use of “over $10 million in captured Axis funds to influence the [Italian] election [of 1948].” (The fundraising had begun at the wealthy Brook Club in New York; but Allen Dulles, still a Wall Street lawyer, persuaded Washington, which at first had preferred a private funding campaign, to allow the operation through the National Security Council and the CIA). Dulles’s friend Frank Wisner then left Wall Street to oversee an enlarged covert operations program through the newly created Office of Policy Co-ordination (OPC). Dulles, still a lawyer, campaigned successfully to reconstruct Western Europe through the Marshall Plan. Together with George Kennan and James Forrestal, Dulles also “helped devise a secret codicil [to the Marshall Plan] that gave the CIA the capability to conduct political warfare. It let the agency skim millions of dollars from the plan.”
This created one of the earlier occasions when the CIA, directly or indirectly, recruited local assets involved in drug trafficking. AFL member Irving Brown, the assistant of AFL official Jay Lovestone (a CIA asset), was implicated in drug smuggling activities in Europe, at the same time that he used funds diverted from the Marshall Plan to establish a “compatible left” labor union in Marseilles with Pierre Ferri-Pisani. On behalf of Brown and the CIA, Ferri-Pisani (a drug smuggler connected with Marseilles crime lord Antoine Guerini), hired goons to shellack striking Communist dock workers.
An analogous funding source for the CIA developed in the Far East: the”M-Fund,” a secret fund of money of enormous size that has existed in Japan [in 1991] for over forty years. The Fund was established by the United States in the immediate postwar era for essentially the same reasons that later gave rise to the Marshall Plan of assistance by the U.S. to Western Europe, including the Federal Republic of Germany….. The M-Fund was used not only for the building of a democratic political system in Japan but, in addition, for all the purposes for which Marshall Plan funds were used in Europe.
For at least two decades the CIA lavishly subsidized right-wing parties in countries including Japan and Indonesia, possibly still using captured Axis funds. (One frequently encounters the claim that the source of the M-fund was gold looted by Japan during World War Two (“Yamashita’s gold”).
As a general rule the CIA, rather than assimilating these funds into its own budget, appears to have left them off the books in the hands of cooperative allied powers–ranging from other U.S. agencies like the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) set up in 1948 to administer the Marshall Plan) to oil companies to powerful drug kingpins.
The CIA never abandoned its dependency on funds from outside its official budget to conduct its clandestine operations. In Southeast Asia, in particular, its proprietary firm Sea Supply Inc., supplied an infrastructure for a drug traffic supporting a CIA-led paramilitary force, PARU. The CIA appears also to have acted in coordination with slush funds from various U.S. government contracts, ranging from the Howard Hughes organization to (as we shall see) the foreign arms sales of U.S. defense corporations like Lockheed and Northrop.
But we’re the good guys, right?
I’d be all on board with that axiom if only we presented the world a bit more Shakespeare and Kerouac and a lot less Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsay as paradigm human beings. And better schooling so we beat the Chinese machine and stop this nihilistic old-age decay. You silly bastards!