The Final Victim of 9/11: the Myth of Government Competence

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
by James Ostrowski
LewRockwell.com

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Government is … the most effective instrument available by which a politically organized society can pursue its common objectives, including the shared aim of securing the protection of legal rights for all."

~ Stephen Holmes and Cass R. Sunstein
The Costs of Rights
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"FAA headquarters: They're pulling Jeff away to go talk about United 93.

Command Center: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?

FAA headquarters: Uh, God, I don't know.

Command Center: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.

FAA headquarters: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room."

~ Transcript, September 11, 2001
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a novelist of Dostoevsky’s caliber set out to illustrate the inherent incompetence of government, he could not surpass the impact of a third-rate journalist’s account of what the federal government "did" on September 11, 2001. Then, add in for good measure what we know about the state’s pre-9/11 and post-9/11 screw-ups, and the myth of the modern state as our indispensable protector has been destroyed.

This myth is easily propagated. All it takes is some wishful thinking and jawboning. "Government is great, blah, blah, blah. . . Without government, Arab terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, blah, blah, blah. . ." On 9/11, this idea, this will o’ the wisp fantasy, was sorely tested. All we asked was that it emerge from the craniums of state-worshipping hacks such as Mario Cuomo and Rudy Giuliani and have the nerve to meet Mr. Reality. It chickened out and checked out and is currently hiding out.

Let me back up a bit before I indict the state for criminal negligence.

They can’t complain about money. The agencies in question had a combined budget of over three hundred billion dollars. They can’t complain about power. Defense, Justice, CIA, FAA, et al. had plenty of power. They can’t complain that we didn’t centralize power enough. The feds, not local yokels, were in charge. Manpower was not lacking; they had millions of warm bodies. Education was not lacking: Ph.D’s and Ivy League B.S.’s were falling all over each other.

Then, when all that talent, brains, money and power was desperately needed, what happened? Utter incompetence, confusion, delay, indecisiveness, ill-preparedness, and stupidity from start to finish.

The sins of commission and omission are so numerous, let me chart them out:

Pre-9/11 Incompetence

*
Sixty years of anti-Arab or anti-Islamic foreign intervention
*
Funding the Mujahideen
*
Banning guns in the cockpits
*
War on drugs funneling drug profits to al Qaeda and the Taliban
*
Federal subsidies to the Taliban
*
Failing to follow-up on leads that could have led to the thwarting of the attack
*
Locking the doors to the roof of the WTC because of bureaucratic infighting

9/11 Incompetence



*
No apparent air defense of Washington or our most important city, New York
*
No apparent plan for responding to mass hijackings
*
FAA receives accidental transmission from the hijackers and responds slowly
*
NORAD is confused, indecisive and slow
*
No fighters near New York
*
Total confusion in the chain of command
*
Complete confusion about what to do about hijacked planes – shoot them down?
*
Shoot-down order issued after the attacks but never relayed to the pilots
*
George Bush reads to children while the nation is attacked
*
Air Force One communications failures
*
Where are the hijacked planes?
*
Where is our radar?
*
Poor communications equipment after the towers were hit, causing many unnecessary deaths (but pension benefits had been fully funded)

Post-9/11 Incompetence

*
Killing non-combatants in Afghanistan, manufacturing new terrorists and new propaganda for existing terrorists
*
Occupying and trying to convert an ungovernable country (Afghanistan) into a Western-style corporate state "democracy," at a huge financial cost and loss of American and Afghan lives, creating even more impetus and propaganda for terrorists
*
Invading and occupying yet another ungovernable country (Iraq – invented by Winnie Churchill and the U. S.), and trying to convert it into a Western-style corporate state "democracy," at a huge financial cost and loss of American and Iraqi lives, creating even more impetus and propaganda for terrorists, and giving terrorists a rallying point for killing Americans.

So, our much-vaunted and ballyhooed government, when it really mattered, on the worst day in American history, blew it; stunk up the joint. Worse yet, it actively generated the conditions that gave rise to the attack! And it responded to the attack by means that will increase terrorism in the future.

[Great courage was shown by rescue personnel on the ground and by the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93.]

And please, don’t you clowns tell us you’ll do better next time. So will they! Just as you were fighting the last war on 9/11 – against the Russians or the Canadians or the Sandinistas or the Michigan Militia – the next time they strike, you’ll still be fighting 9/11 and we’ll get our butts kicked again. "When will they ever learn?"

Why is government incompetent? Its vice is identical to its alleged virtue: power. The very power we are told government must have to fulfill its mission shields its principals from real world feedback about their performance. Government has the power to pay its employees continual raises regardless of performance. Predictably, those employees soon get fat, dumb, and happy. Though there are some competent people in government, the overwhelming motivation of people who seek government jobs is job security, the near-certainty of receiving a paycheck week after week, year after year, with virtually no concern for performance and very little chance of losing their jobs.

While there are certainly good reasons for people to be concerned about job security, what kinds of people will put that one consideration above all others in pursuing a career? Perhaps those who lack confidence in their own ability to function in a competitive environment where one’s performance is constantly scrutinized and judged by employers, business associates, customers and clients. Thus, our 9/11 response team was staffed mainly by people who consciously and deliberately seek out employment scenarios where their performance is unlikely to be closely scrutinized in any meaningful way. And since no was ever fired and no one resigned, they were right.

Government has the power to put any competitors out of business and thus like any monopolist it gets lazy and complacent. It has the power to immunize itself against accountability for its errors and omissions. It therefore, over time, adopts a mindset of mindless irresponsibility, best exemplified by its casual attitude toward the murder of non-combatants. By its very nature, the state cannot be bound by the moral strictures binding on the rest of us. Thus, over time, its agents adopt a mindset of operational nihilism leading to such holocausts as the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki – still fiercely defended to this day.

On a more technical level, there is Lew Rockwell’s brilliant yet Nobel Prize-losing insight – extending Mises’ explanation for the failure of state socialism – that governments in mixed economies likewise cannot rationally plan in the absence of market feedback. Surely, if those who worked in the World Trade Center had manifested their security concerns in a market, they would have paid for defense against an air assault, and forgone protection of Japan, Korea and Germany and the jailing of marijuana merchants. Unrestrained by the need to make a profit by pleasing customers, military planners squander billions of dollars guided mainly by self-interest, whim, cronyism, graft, and special interest group dynamics. Left out of the equation: any defense of our most important city on 9/11. And we used to laugh about the Russians waiting in line to buy toilet paper.

If we perform an "institutional analysis" (excuse my pretension), we reach the same conclusion. How did the federal government get its power? By winning a war against the Confederacy by sacrificing its own soldiers' lives to wear down a smaller but better army. Mohamed Atta did not secede from the Union on 9/11 so Grant’s gambit would not have been effective.

How does it maintain that power?

*
By raising revenue by threatening to imprison its recalcitrant citizens. (Mr. Atta was not evading taxes, sorry.)

*
By maintaining sufficient force to ward off its displacement by a foreign state or domestic revolutionary movement. (Sorry, the soon to be ashen Mr. Atta was not, contrary to neocon propaganda, trying to take over the U. S. Government on 9/11.)

*
Persuading its population, largely dumbed-down by government-schooling, that it is great, good and indispensable. (Sorry, you didn’t convince Mr. Atta.)

What else is the federal government good at? Mass destruction of cities and populations given some advance notice. Sorry, Mr. Atta kept his counsel.

Thus, the institutional skills of the government, each designed to facilitate its self-preservation, were all quite useless to us on 9/11. Of course, the propaganda machine kicked in immediately to contain the damage to the state’s reputation. All it took was a former rogue prosecutor turned washed-up politician and burlesque adulterer to stand in front of the cameras and mouth platitudes for a few days to convince the dimwits that all was well.

It’s time to realize that the federal government is led by a bunch of incompetent, brain-less morons who are a threat to our personal and national security. Thanks, Abe, for creating this useless monster. Though it is not clear what can be done about it, at the very least you can go to sleep tonight knowing the truth. After all, tomorrow is another day.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,515
Tokens
Huh? The myth of government competence? Since when did people actually think the government was competent?

icon_wink.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,477
Tokens
Total incompetence. What about the American people that think Bush is doing a good job on terrorism? He's done nothing. Lying scumbag.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Are you serious?

What is the solution, according the the masses, to virtually every ill that befalls us? Regulation. Litigation. Invasion.

Look at Amtrak, the poster child for this process. After thirty years of shoddy service and obscene budget over-runs, Congress finally decided to do something about it a couple of years ago. After months of deliberation, their solution: increase Amtrak's budget, and set up two new government offices -- one to oversee the Amtrak runners, and one to act as a liason between the office overseeing the office and Congress.

What has been the response to 9/11? More bureacracy, more expednitures, and more of the heavy-handedness in the Middle East that caused the attacks to happen in the first place.

What is the response to budget crises? More expenditures and higher taxes. If states, counties and municipalities were allowed to indulge in the sort of fiduciary insanity that the federal government is allowed, this country would have collapsed inward on itself years ago because of lack of willing victims to front the bills.

As far as I can tell, probably 99.9% of all people everywhere think that the government is competent -- even when it's wrong, the solution is more government.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,515
Tokens
Well, we agree that the government isn't competent.

But I don't agree with your 99.9% statement. Dunno, maybe we've got different peer-groups. Most of my friends complain about how wasteful the government is.

Anyway, even if people think the government is incompetent, there is a difference between thinking the government is incompetent and actually doing something about it. Just because the government creates more departments and regulation doesn't necessarily mean Joe Average actually WANTS more departments and regulation. But the government has become a self-perpetuating machine.

For most people, it is a matter of convenience. They don't have time to stop (or change) the self-perpetuating machine. They're too busy paying the bills, raising kids, etc. They might complain about the government, but as long as they get their house in the suburbs (and 2-3 cars), they're relatively happy.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,723
Tokens
Phaedrus, I usually disagree with you on most political issues, but can't agree with you more on this one. Within 50 years, we're going to implode from our own governental bureaucratic monstrosity.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Very convincing and well-reasoned article, indeed. However, did I intepret the author correctly when he implied, I believe, that 'national security' should be done away with in favour of individuals (and business) taking full responsibility for their own security?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Total incompetence. What about the American people that think Bush is doing a good job on terrorism? He's done nothing. Lying scumbag <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 words for you "Patriot act".
The problem is that anything you do to prevent terrorism someones going to bitch because their toe are going to be stepped on.

As long as the liberals think that if we properly lap the asses of maniacal sociopathic islamic radicals will fix the problem,then more liberties will be taken away.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Actually, as long as neoconservatives think that the public should ignore the fact that your leadership has long been lapping the asses of maniacal sociopathic Islamic radicals, more liberties will be taken away to continue this.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Well, when people have to pay 9 or 10 bucks a gal. of gas they'll understand why they did...and when NYC and LA start getting more brown outs than Bagdhad they'll wish they did more.
Oil might be the reason for terrorism but its also the reason why people in N. america live reasonably comfortably too.Wait, till the whiners about big oil get their wish....they'll be the first ones to bitch...again!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Very convincing and well-reasoned article, indeed. However, did I intepret the author correctly when he implied, I believe, that 'national security' should be done away with in favour of individuals (and business) taking full responsibility for their own security?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say you read that just right. Ostowski is very big on cause-and-effect, and on not "letting bygones be bygones" when it comes to contributing to one's own major problems.

Ostrowski wrote one of my favourite modern essays, "A $ 21 Trillion Tax Cut." Highly recommended.


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
While there was little on the subject of the creation of Islamic enemies by the US gov't that I would begin to dispute, the idea that a society in which full-scale security (including the military, am I to believe?) by private enterprise seems a frightening proposition. I have to wonder what checks-and-balances would be allowable under such a system and if our current ones, namely law enforcement and the courts, would sill be permitted. If not, what is to stop Bill Gates, for example, from invading Alabama, forming a coup with Sam Walton's kids, and taking out a foreign nation on their own? If 'market forces' or 'consumer behaviour' is the answer to this question, then I have to declare a very loud 'no, thanks.'
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
585
Tokens
A land without laws!!! Exciting...

That's fine with me, but I want this land to have a really strong military in case some other land tried to enforce a law like taxation without representation. A strong military to keep the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and oppurtunity to do what is right or wrong, with consequences of each dealt with like they did on Clint Eastwood westerns. Disputes simply dealt with in the alleys of cities much like the pre Rudolph Guiliani days of New York City.

Maybe Clint Eastwood or Rudy could ride into Iraq and take care of business over there.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
While there was little on the subject of the creation of Islamic enemies by the US gov't that I would begin to dispute, the idea that a society in which full-scale security (including the military, am I to believe?) by private enterprise seems a frightening proposition. I have to wonder what checks-and-balances would be allowable under such a system and if our current ones, namely law enforcement and the courts, would sill be permitted. If not, what is to stop Bill Gates, for example, from invading Alabama, forming a coup with Sam Walton's kids, and taking out a foreign nation on their own? If 'market forces' or 'consumer behaviour' is the answer to this question, then I have to declare a very loud 'no, thanks.'
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could a system which responds to the needs and desires of those it effects possibly be worse than one which says it will, but then doesn't?

I am actually not an advoacte of priate-enterprise military (at least not in the sense of "Marine Corps, Inc. [a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Nakamura Corporation {A Time-Warner AOL Company.}]) However, how could a private military with a contractual charter and economic incentive to defend a given country possibly not be preferable to the one we have now (in the States I mean?) The one we have in the U.S. right now expends $ 447 billion per year and counting in order to fight one and one half foreign wars per year, many of which not only do not defend the country but actually subject it to greater physical danger, as well as put strains on trade, diplomatic and other ties. How could Marine Corps Inc. possibly be any worse?

I think that some of your fundamental misunderstandings of capitalism (which are very common; I'm not picking on you in particular) lead you to envision some sort of insane world where everybody fúcks over everybody else for a buck, the Tom Wolfe version of capitalism if you will, and if so then I guess I can understand how you'd be horrified at the idea of living in a place where such a system was utilised to run the infrastructure, military etc. But even if that were the case and our natural state of being was just another day in the Pepsi vs. Matsushita arms race, I cannot conceive of how that could possibly be worse than living in a system built on deception, theft, and the ubiquitous implied threat of violence to any who do not obey the central authority.


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
We will agree to agree that the US military is an overbloated enemy generator designed to centralise power for only a few. I don't fail to see your point there, trust me. However, as with all ideological arguments, I must resort to the slippery slope scenario (in this case, granting military/security/law enforcment powers and access to individuals/businesses/corporations whose goal is power through wealth generation) at which time it becomes difficult to believe that market information and consumer reaction will wield enough power to balance out the potentially negative effects.

If MicroSoft declares war (literally) on Linux, is it the uber-capitalist's assertion that the laws of supply and demand will force MicroSoft to suffer? Further, is it also the capitalist's assertion that this is the most desired (read: efficient) form of establishing order?

Should Military Inc. exist, would they not be virtually dependent on at least the illusion of security threats in order to generate demand? Is a for-profit enemy generator not at least as undesirable as a for-power enemy generator?

Also, if you don't advocate privatised military, what do you propose as a reasonable alternative to the current system?

(Sorry about all the questions. This is the central topic in the anti-state debate that I can't seem to wrap my head around.)
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is the central topic in the anti-state debate that I can't seem to wrap my head around.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem for me. The military and infrastructure aspects of managing a country without a state tend to bog down even the most ardent anarchists and libertarians and anarcho-communists and such. I've never understood why, but they do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I must resort to the slippery slope scenario (in this case, granting military/security/law enforcment powers and access to individuals/businesses/corporations whose goal is power through wealth generation) at which time it becomes difficult to believe that market information and consumer reaction will wield enough power to balance out the potentially negative effects.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This again highlights the fundamental flaw in most anti-capitalist arguments: the misunderstanding about money. If capitalism could even be accurately categorised as a quest, it is not the quest for money; it is the quest for profit. There is a difference.

Substantially all human behaviour is capitalistic in nature; that is why it is so laughable to see systems such as socialism which fly in the face of basic human nature and expect to achieve Utopia rather than chaos and destruction as occured in previous attempts (Germany and the USSR.) A subsitence farmer in Siberia is the ultimate capitalist -- if he doesn't get more out of the ground than he puts in in the way of work, physical resources and time (all of which are forms of capital) he dies. He doesn't care anything about the struggle of the proletariat (or for that matter about the Lockean principles of just government.) He just wants to live, and in order to do so he has got to be a capitalist even if he's never heard the word before in his life.

Private ownership and/or management of enterprises generally thought of as the exclusive preview of the state are often thought of strictly as several companies, MicroSoft and Pilsbury and Monsanto and Ford for example, all offering up their own brand of the service (in this case the military) in a sort of mercenary frenzy to accrue consumer dollars. This is very unlikely to manifest itself even in the most laissez-faire anarchist capitalist universe, because a military cannot be efficiently run as a defensive collective, for a monetary profit. The only way to run a military for monetary profit is in the capacity of conqueror, or as a mercenary-for-hire operation -- and neither of these models are sustainable (historic examples such as the Roman and British Empires are no longer logistically feasible thanks to the capitalist tide of technology in small-scale weaponry and wide-scale communication, and mercenary forces throughout history have only been profitable as long as there was sustained conflict.)

The non-centralised, non-government model of military defence is the private militia. Militias generally form as the imperative for and advantages of mutual defence become apparent to a local group or groups, and throughout history they have proven effective at threat mitigation from both external and internal factors (they have also proven effective at disaster management, far more so than such imperial endeavours as FEMA.) By their very nature militias are strictly defensive, and as such they represent no threat to external forces -- and therefore do not encourage aggression. This fact alone mitigates most of the cost of actually managing and supplying such a militia, and because all participants have a vested interest in the maintainance of the operation it becomes a communistic enterprise -- one of the several examples in social interaction where communism is the preferred and even ideal modus operandi.

In the U.S. I'm not even sure sure that such private militias would be necessary. As many lefties are fond of pointing out, we are the most heavily-armed citizenry in the world. Who is going to invade us? The threat of large-scale military action against the U.S. by any nation is nil, and not because of the massive war machine built up by Washington -- but because of the fact that any attempt at overt conquest of Americans is likely to result in bloodshed on a scale unseen in the last several centuries of human history, all of the Crusades combined into a two-week period followed by the biggest tailgate party ever envisioned. The American people could very likely take down the American military, so I seriously doubt that there is any fear about beligerence on the part of, say, Paraguay.

But, I digress (or really, ramble.) The point is that the idea of moving away from the Grand Army of the Republic as bulit by Lincoln and abused by Lincoln and most of his successors is simply unnecessary to the defence of America, and possibly even counter-productive for that purpose. Other options exist, including privately-run for-money militaries, but those would likely be abandoned as money pits within a few years by the companies trying to run them. Mutual defence, as a logical conclusion to an assessment of a socially imperative need, has always since the dawn of human civilisation led cooperative and disparate groups alike to co-operate towards a more productive solution to the problem of external aggresion and internal destabilisation. We could easily return to such a state in this part of the world, and it could happen with some effort in other parts. It is not particularly likely to happen, mind you -- I am cognisant of that fact. But it is very much feasible, and can be done without an iota of state intervention ... in fact the only state intervention one would be likely to see in such a case would be massive retaliation against people attempting to defend themselves, as the state would (correctly) see that as a threat to its existence and no doubt attempt to stamp it out as rapidly as possible. We have seen the way the American government reacts to perceived internal threats in race riots, the interment of Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese heritage, at Waco, etc. so it is no stretch to think that any group of Americans attempting to take responsibility for their own defence would be in for the fight of their lives. But the fact remains that it can be done, and if done in a strictly defensive context, done quite affordably as far as monetary expenditure goes, with expenditures so low that a simple voluntary pay scale and voluntary enlistment could more than provide for the defensive needs of any given section of the American population.


Phaedrus
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,245
Messages
13,565,903
Members
100,775
Latest member
thakurslony
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com