Is There a “Triple Government” at Work?
January 4, 2015 by
Bill Blunden
The Deep State. By DonkeyHotey
“Double government.” Walter Bagehot coined the term in his 1867 book,
The English Constitution.
He hypothesized that British government had split into two separate
layers. On the outer surface were high-profile “extrinsic” institutions
such as the House of Lords, which gave the appearance of being in
charge. On the inside were less conspicuous organs of government, such
as the House of Commons, that actually ran the show.
Expanding upon Bagehot’s ideas is Michael J. Glennon, a
professor of international law at Tufts University. Glennon has written “
National Security and Double Government“, a book which argues that a similar double government has emerged in U.S. politics.
Regarding
national security, Glennon contends that “judicial review is
negligible, congressional oversight dysfunctional, and presidential
control nominal.”
[i]
Instead, he says, the actual decision-making is performed by “several
hundred executive officials who manage the military, intelligence,
diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies”
[ii] that are “slowly tightening centralized power, growing and evolving organically beyond public view.”
[iii] (Read
WhoWhatWhy’s first take on Glennon here)
But are elected officials such as the President truly hostages to murky, unseen elements within government?
Congressional
investigations, leaked classified documents, and statements by former
intelligence officers paint a completely different picture. Far from
being out of control, the public record indicates that security services
are obedient arms of the executive. And, further up the chain of
command, the executive itself is responsive to profound sources of
private influence residing outside of government.
Contradiction: The Obedient CIA
In the 1970s it came to light that the CIA, contrary to its charter, had been
heavily involved in a domestic operation known as MH/CHAOS.
A
series of formal investigations, one led by Senator Frank Church and
another by House Representative Otis Pike, followed and arrived at the
same conclusion with regard to chain of command. The Pike Committee
report stated that the CIA was “utterly responsive to the instructions of the President.” Likewise, the Church Committee
found
that “the President has had, through the National Security Council,
effective means for exerting broad policy control over at least two
major clandestine activities—covert action and sensitive technical
collection” and that the CIA was “not ‘out of control.’”
Members
of the executive branch have admitted as much. For instance,
then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Pike Committee that
“every operation is personally approved by the President.”
***
In an important recent instance, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summary report on
the CIA’s torture program
infers that the CIA intentionally misrepresented it to politicians. But
high-ranking administration members themselves, notably former Vice
President Dick Cheney
explicitly rejected the idea that the president wasn’t told what was happening.
Former CIA officer Philip Agee offers
insight into the institutional dynamics at play with regard to the myth of a rogue agency in his expose
“Dirty Work”:
For
all the recent horror stories, one finds little evidence that a
majority in Congress want the responsibility for control, while the
executive branch continues to insist—rightly—that the Agency’s covert
action operations have, with very few exceptions, followed the orders of
successive presidents and their National Security Councils.
Broader Structural Forces
The
classic conspiratorial worldview is based on the assumption that our
system of government would function properly if only we could round up
all of the troublemakers. But to adopt this mindset is to ignore the
pivotal role of money in politics. Far from being just the handiwork of
several hundred power-hungry bureaucrats, there are more pervasive
structural forces in play that define how our political system operates.
A trial attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission made just this point in a
speech
at his April, 2014, retirement party. He drew a connection between his
superiors’ intent to secure high-paying post-government jobs and their
inability or unwillingness to rein in banking executives after the 2008
financial collapse.
Given this dynamic, is it surprising that Barack Obama’s largest private sector
campaign contributor
during the 2008 Presidential election was Goldman Sachs? Indeed, the
very same banking house provided Obama’s primary opponent, Hillary
Clinton, close to
half a million dollars, purportedly in exchange for nothing more than giving a couple of speeches.
***
Four years later, the 2012 election cycle was influenced by yet
another private money player. The billionaire industrialist Koch
Brothers,
active supporters of numerous climate change-denial think tanks,
raised more than $400 million to mobilize voters and fund a media campaign against federal spending and environmental regulation.
The battle for dominance was
joined by billionaire Tom Steyer in the 2014 elections. He
spent about $65 million to run a long series of ad placements focusing on the threat posed by climate change and
supported like-minded Democratic candidates.
The above are examples of the
Investment Theory of Party Competition,
which views the political arena as overwhelmingly dominated by
corporate factions that leverage their resources to influence policies.
Supporting this theory,
professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern argued in a
journal article that:
Economic
elites and organized groups representing business interests have
substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence.
Driving Military Action Abroad
The
thoughtful reader is saying, “none of this is very surprising—or new.”
And yet, our media and other institutions continue to blame government
or those in it for the degraded state of democracy, ignorant of how this
history informs the present. They also fail to acknowledge that private
capital doesn’t only shape generalized policy—it also works with
government on highly specific, and sometimes lethal, projects of
self-interest.
These began almost the moment the new CIA was up
and running. British-dominated oil interests, infuriated by Iran’s
nationalization of their assets, demanded and got a joint CIA-MI6 coup,
of course rendered surreptitiously. The next year, it was the U.S.-based
United Fruit, this time asking government to rescue its possessions in
Guatemala with another putsch. In both cases, long-playing trauma,
violence and instability resulted, affecting Americans and the world for
decades to come.
***
In the aftermath of the
trillion-dollar
global war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s difficult not to see that Iraq has a
large swathe of its landmass currently occupied by thousands of Islamic State jihadists, or that Afghanistan is essentially a
narco state that’s producing 90 percent of the world’s heroin.
While there’s still debate among commentators as to
whether U.S. invasions have foiled or incited future 9/11 plots, there is little argument that the global war on terror has been a godsend to
arms dealers, the
fossil fuel companies that gained access to what were
nationalized
oil fields, and to contractors—many with links to the Bush White
House—that made more than $138 billion rebuilding what had been
destroyed.
[v]
The Triple Government?
Former CIA officer John Stockwell
summarizes the nature of the relationship between the corporate elite and American intelligence services:
The
CIA and the big corporations were, in my experience, in step with each
other. Later I realized that they may argue about details of strategy—a
small war here or there. However, both are vigorously committed to
supporting the system.
While most institutions suffer from some
form of dysfunction, it’s clear that both the Pentagon and the American
intelligence community largely do what they’re told by POTUS. In the
absence of overwhelming public sentiment, the President mainly attends
to the needs of various corporate factions which have the ability to
provide incentives to political leadership. These business interests
transmit their mandates to the political class through a structural
layer of intermediaries that surround the visible state, the “
Deep State” first described by Peter Dale Scott.
In
other words, the remarkable continuity of national security policy
isn’t entirely a matter of double government; equally, it is a matter of
state capture by deep sources of wealth and power outside of
government.
Perhaps Bagehot would have called this American power structure a Triple Government.
***
Endnotes
[i] Michael J. Glennon, National Security and Double Government, Oxford University Press, 2014, Page 114.
[ii] Ibid Page 113.
[iii] Ibid Page 116.
[iv] For the definitive compendium, see William Blum, Killing Hope:
U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Common Courage
Press, 2004, ISBN: 9781567512526.
[v] Anna Fifield, “Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war,” Financial
Times, March 18, 2013,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MfuPcxGv
Image Credit:
Posts
Now take a look at a map of the fires in Ferguson. They match
the exact location of this initiative, which failed. The riots badly
devalued all properties in the same area after the local businesses
refused to sell out to allow the initiative to happen. 
And
because the scamming zio press and others use any opportunity they can
to destroy rights and freedoms in today's America, obviously Fema
testing and martial law type scenarios became part of this picture.
That is why when a friend of mine bought his sons a new product I was so excited – 