William Colby and the CIA's Moral and Intellectual Virtues

 

William Colby and the CIA’s Moral and Intellectual Virtues

Peter Schultz

 

            In his “maiden speech” as DCI for the CIA, William Colby had this to say: “in the intelligence profession we will be required to show moral and intellectual courage.” [Shadow Warrior, 370]

 

            Would that be the moral and intellectual courage that was required in the Phoenix assassination and torture program in Vietnam, in Chile, in Indonesia, in Cuba, in Panama, in Iraq?

 

            If so, then it is fair to ask what is moral and intellectual courage? Does it include murdering and torturing human beings? It does. So, murdering and torturing are transformed, magically as it were, into moral and intellectual virtues – and such acts are accepted, even praiseworthy aspects of “the intelligence profession.”

 

            How does this happen? Via a belief in a “divinely decreed destiny,” which the CIA was serving. To believe in such a destiny it helps to believe, e.g., that God has blessed America. And where are people who believe in such a destiny most likely to be found, in prisons or at Harvard, Yale, and other elite institutions? Don’t those attending such elite institutions have a vested interest, so to speak, in believing in such destinies? “We are at elite institutions, so we are the elite; we are the chosen ones. That’s our destiny.”

 

Whether it’s called a divine or a natural destiny, these people take themselves to be superior beings, virtuous beings, serving humanity as its benefactors. And those Americans who believe that America is destined for greatness, either destined by God or by its exceptional virtues, share this belief in their own superiority, a superiority that justifies inhuman cruelties such as aggressive war, assassinations, and torture.  

 

            In any case, the actions of these elites, even if inhumanly cruel, are justified, even praiseworthy. They are especially praiseworthy when they are committed by those in “the intelligence profession,” apparently a profession like the medical profession, with one small difference: CIA professionals don’t take an oath to do no harm. In fact, for the CIA, doing harm becomes, magically, the profession’s virtue. Murder and torture, for intelligence professionals, are virtues and are guarantees of respectability.  

 

            So it goes.

Serendipity and the Respectables

 

Serendipity and the Respectables

Peter Schultz

 

            The respectables tend to believe in a divinely decreed destiny because that gives meaning, in the form of divine approval, to their respectability. Hence, the respectables are often snobbish.

 

            Inculcating a belief in divinely decreed destinies is socially and politically useful insofar as such a belief facilitates social and political success or greatness. It justifies the cruelty that is required to achieve greatness, to achieve and demonstrate superiority or dominance, another attribute of respectability. It is through rule, through dominance, that superiority, greatness, or virtue is achieved and demonstrated. It is most useful if such dominance is thought to be divinely decreed; it is useful to think that God blessed or blesses America. America’s dominance is best mythologized as a divinely decreed destiny.

 

            But wait. Fate or destiny: Is it divinely decreed or is it serendipitous? Are events decreed or should we say of them, “so it goes?” In Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut introduces Billy Pilgrim, who is trying to understand the Dresden firebombing, to aliens who accept events as they unfold, don’t try to control or change them, because that is “the way the moment was constructed.” So, perhaps, however strange it might seem, fate or destiny is not divinely decreed; it is serendipitous. “So it goes.”

Thoughts on Royster's The Destructive War

 

Thoughts on Royster

P. Schultz

 

            Why is greatness more appealing than goodness? Because greatness confirms that one has a divinely decreed destiny, confirms that one is “sanctified,” as Stonewall Jackson thought he was.

 

            By attributing victories to God, Jackson was confirming both his and the Confederacy’s divinely decreed destiny. This confirmation required domination and domination confirmed divine approval. Isn’t this the heart of “American exceptionalism?” This is shared by most Americans, but most strongly by the most patriotic, most dedicated Americans, just as it was shared by both Jackson and Sherman, and by people in the north and in the south. It was shared even in the presence of slavery and savagery. In fact, it was required because it was the only way to redeem those phenomena.

 

            This was also true of the Civil War itself. Unless it represented a divinely decreed destiny, the war was just inhuman in its death and destruction. And insofar as it was seen as part of the unfolding of such a destiny, then its death and destruction were justified. “His [Jackson’s] aggressiveness embodied his confidence that, when the destruction to which he committed himself stopped at last, his cause would prove to have been God’s.” [69] Did not Lincoln justify the war in the same way? Read his second inaugural.

 

            This is the veil that Machiavelli lifted, by asserting, e.g., that Hannibal’s greatness – and it was greatness – was due to his inhuman cruelty. When the belief in a divinely decreed destiny is seen for what it is, a myth, then greatness can be seen for what it actually is, inhuman cruelty. And when that veil is lifted, no wars will be seen as “heroic wars.” There are wars, of course, but there are no heroic wars. Interestingly, though, lifting this veil could make the world a more peaceful place because there would be no “holy wars.” Wars, yes; holy wars, no. And no wars of annihilation or purification.

 

            Why was the movie Mash banned in Israel? Because it presented war as an obscenity in which the dedicated appear as fools and the ironic appear as wise. Israel, because Jews claim to be “the chosen people,’ cannot tolerate the idea that war is obscene, that it is not divinely decreed. Because insofar as war is not divinely decreed, so too it becomes doubtful that the Jews’ claim to be a divinely decreed people also becomes doubtful. Similarly, if God didn’t bless America, then its wars are not divinely decreed. They are obscenities, maybe just or necessary, but still obscenities.

Politics: Some Really Weird Shit

 

Politics: Some Really Weird Shit

Peter Schultz

 

            On February 20, 1973, Richard Nixon sent the following note to William Colby as American POWs returned from Vietnam: “As I saw our POWs come off the plane at Clark Field, I was never so proud to be an American. This would not have been possible had it not been for those – like you – who served America with such dedication.”

 

            Perhaps if more Americans had served America with less dedication and more dissent there wouldn’t have been POWs at all. But take note: Nixon, by celebrating the return of the POWs, is celebrating the war and the Americans who dedicated themselves to it. It’s like a magic show. According to Nixon, the debacle in Vietnam is something to be celebrated. Even in defeat, America and her dedicated, virtuous citizens are to be celebrated. That’s some weird shit.

 

            And another moral fable appeared, one in which of course the Americans are the “good guys,” especially those who were dedicated to the war. So, Nixon celebrates the POWs, despite the fact that they represented the failure of the US war in Vietnam. Despite the fact that Communists had defeated the America, Nixon “was never so proud to be an American.”  Why would, how could a person feel pride in such a situation? This is some weird shit.

Nixon, Watergate, and Conspiratorial Politics

 

Nixon, Watergate, and Conspiratorial Politics

Peter Schultz

 

            Nixon’s apparent passivity seemed remarkable as Watergate events unfolded. For example, Nixon didn’t ask John Mitchell about whether or not he was aware of, even responsible for the burglary. When Nixon explained why, he said: “If he [Nixon] asked and Mitchell said, ‘Yes, I did it. Then what do we say?’” [202, Silent Coup]

 

            This alerts us to something interesting about the behavior of politicians who believe that politics is all about power, getting it and keeping it. Nixon didn’t confront Mitchell because the result might be a loss of power. “Then what do we say?” On the other hand, in not asking Mitchell about the burglary, Nixon could claim, were Mitchell held responsible, that he, Nixon, didn’t know anything about the burglary. Not asking Mitchell was, therefore, Nixon’s best strategy insofar as he was seeking to protect his power. Even if his gambit failed, Nixon would be no worse off than if he had asked Mitchell and was discovered to have kept Mitchell’s answer secret.

 

            In other words, when politics is all about power, cover-ups are the best strategy, even if they don’t always work. If your goal is to protect your power, not justice, e.g., you might as well cover up because even if the cover up doesn’t work, you’re no worse off than if you told the truth to begin with. It’s the best available strategy because (1) your cover up might succeed and (2) because even if it doesn’t, it might mitigate the damage to your power. When politics is all about power, honesty is not the best policy. In fact, dishonesty is.

 

            So, Nixon being non-confrontational, avoiding confrontations in order to cover up events wasn’t a personality trait, although it might seem like one. It wasn’t even the result of paranoia. Covering up is the best political strategy available if politics is all about power, getting it and keeping it. It’s why institutions would rather pay off abusers than prosecute them. The payoffs protect the institutions’ power. Prosecutions might get justice, but they don’t fortify institutions or their elites.

 

            Hence, as Machiavelli so clearly indicated, conspiracies are the stuff of politics because being conspiratorial is the best available strategy if you are all about power. It’s your best bet for getting and keeping power. Persuasion, seeking consent or power honestly, is a two-way street, so to speak. Those you’re appealing to might or might not respond favorably. But if you seek power conspiratorially, you are in charge via your manipulations. If successful, then you rule. And if you are unsuccessful, you can deny your involvement and do so plausibly. This is what the CIA, et. al., call “plausible deniability.”  And it is, of course, the essence of power politics.

American Politics: The Pursuit of Empire

 

American Politics: The Pursuit of Empire

Peter Schultz

 

            American politics revolves around two ideas: First, it revolves around the idea that, as Thomas Paine and Ronald Reagan said, the world can be begun again. New modes and orders, “new world orders,” not only can be imagined but they can be implemented. Second, it revolves around the idea that power, centralized, pervasive power is the key to creating the new modes and orders it imagines. This power needs to be essentially bureaucratic, with technological and military powers playing huge roles in the necessary bureaucratic arrangements.

 

            New modes and orders have been embraced by Americans from at least 1789 when a new constitution was implemented. The defense of that Constitution, made plain in the Federalist Papers, involved relying on “a new science of politics,” which included a new vocabulary such as “the presidency,” “checks and balances,” “the separation of powers,” a “Supreme Court,” a “federal district,” “judicial review,” “the freedom of speech,” and “states’ rights,” to name a few. Originally, the new modes and orders included racial slavery and “interactions” with indigenous peoples, the latter to be subsumed into the new empire to be created.

 

            The new modes and orders were expansionary, eventually even to the point of that expansion was manifestly deemed the nation’s destiny. In fact, early on, it was commonly thought that the United States would encompass the entire Western Hemisphere, south as well as north, Canada as well as Mexico and beyond. The new science of politics underlying the new American Constitution fed American hubris, culminating in a desire for becoming a great empire. That desire, that passion is perhaps the strongest desire, the strongest passion characterizing American politics and the elites overseeing the regime. Rarely have American politicians challenged this desire, this passion for empire. In fact, I cannot think of one today who does. Not only Donald Trump, but the Democrats as well, want American greatness to be evidenced by its global military and economic predominance, labeled “full spectrum dominance,” these days. That dominance will include outer space as well. This is, easily, America’s most powerful “ideal.” Hence, respectable and respected people think that idealistically America should rule the world by means of centralized and pervasive technological and military power.

Lobbyists, Oligarchy, and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Lobbyists, Oligarchy, and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Peter Schultz

 

            I am reading an informative book, American Oligarchy: The Permanent Political Class, by Ron Formisano. He makes a powerful case that money is key to the American oligarchy, to maintaining it and getting it to function for the wealthy. “Lobbyists together with the interests they represent are now the Fourth Estate.” [65] This seems to be quite sensible, even self-evident. But more may be said.

 

            Perform in your mind a thought experiment. Remove all the lobbyists et. al., and the money they would spend and ask whether the policies of the government change? Formisano implies, without much argument, that the answer would be “Yes.” But there is room for doubt.

 

            As Formisano notes: “The ‘gift economy’ is ‘so sophisticated that even people inside it feel it is a culture of goodwill and not the auctioning off of the public welfare.’” [62] And if it’s not the auctioning off of the public welfare, then it is obviously the prevailing conception of the public welfare that’s the problem. What’s needed, therefore, is a different conception of the public welfare.

 

            The lobbyists, et. al., are merely reflections of a particular conception of the public welfare. Lobbyists or even money are not “the dogs;” rather, they are “the dog’s tail.” The “dog” is the glorification of wealth, which reflects the glorification of power as the heart of political life. Once you embrace power, concentrated, pervasive power as the key, the essence of political life, wealth will be pursued to the detriment of other phenomena, such as community, equality, justice, and even peace, because wealth is power. If wars generate wealth, wars will be waged – even if they aren’t winnable. It’s that simple.

 

            Of course, lobbyists and the wealthy have too much power. But lobbyists and the wealthy aren’t at the root of our problems. Rather, the root is power. As Lawrence Lessig says, our politicians are “decent,” “good people working in a corrupt system…. The enemy is well dressed.” Read: the enemy is respectable. Exactly, because it is the decent and the good who embrace power, and those who acquire power are respectable.  

 

            As a result, in the trio the good, the bad, and the ugly the differences between these types disappear when the good allow themselves to be seduced by the desire for power. Political life, built on and around power, will be good, bad, and ugly all at once. Political power can never transcend the good, the bad, and the ugly. Political power needs leavening, say, by beauty, if it’s to be humane.

 

[Consult here, e.g., Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or the novels of Jane Austen.]