[As the CIA] developed over time, and as it was made clear to the
president, every president since Truman, made clear to them shortly after
they were inaugurated, you have at your disposal a private army. It is
totally secret. There is no form of oversight. There was no form of
congressional oversight until the late 1970s, and it proved to be
incompetent in the face of Iran-Contra and things like that. He can do
anything you want to with it. You could order assassinations. You could
order governments overthrown. You could order economies subverted that
seemed to get in our way. You could instruct Latin American military
officers in state terrorism. You can carry out extraordinary renditions and
order the torture of people, despite the fact that it is a clear violation
of American law and carries the death penalty if the torture victim should
die, and they commonly do in the case of renditions to places like Egypt.
No president since Truman, once told that he has this power, has ever failed
to use it. That became the route of rapid advancement within the CIA, dirty
tricks, clandestine activities, the carrying out of the president's orders
to overthrow somebody, starting -- the first one was the overthrow of
Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. It's from that, the After Action Report,
which has only recently been declassified, that the word "blowback" that I
used in the first of my three books on American foreign policy, that's where
the word "blowback" comes from. It means retaliation for clandestine
activities carried out abroad.
But these clandestine activities also have one other caveat on them: they
are kept totally secret from the American public, so that when the
retaliation does come, they're unable ever to put it in context, to see it
in cause-and-effect terms. They usually lash out against the alleged
perpetrators, usually simply inaugurating another cycle of blowback. The
best example is easily 9/11 in 2001, which was clearly blowback for the
largest clandestine operation we ever carried out, namely the recruiting,
arming and sending into battle of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the
Soviet Union during the 1980s. But this is the way the CIA has evolved.
It's been responsible for the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile and
bringing to power probably the most odious dictator on either side in the
Cold War, namely General Augusto Pinochet; the installation of the Greek
colonels in the late Ô60s and early '70s in Greece; the coups, one after
another, in numerous Latin American countries, all under the cover of
avoiding Soviet imperialism carried out by Fidel Castro, when the real
purpose was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company, and
continued to exploit the extremely poor and essentially defenseless people
of Central America.
The list is endless. The overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia, the bringing to
power of General Suharto, then the elimination of General Suharto when he
got on our nerves. It has a distinctly Roman quality to it. And this is why
I -- moreover, there is no effective oversight. There are a few, often
crooked congressmen, like Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who are charged with
oversight. When Charlie Wilson, the congressman, long-sitting congressman
from the Second District of Texas, was named chairman of the House
Intelligence Oversight Committee during the Afghan period, he wrote at once
to his pals in the CIA, "The fox is in the henhouse. Gentlemen, do anything
you want to." . . .
"Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" is the last volume in Prof. Chalmers Johnson's Blowback Trilogy. The first two books of
which are "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire," and
"The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic."
[So in the years when the U.S. was not using Middle East oil at all, [the
U.S.] was the largest producer and the largest exporter, it still had the
same policies. It wanted to control the sources of oil and the reasons are
understood. In the mid-1940s, the State Department made it clear that the
oil resources of the region, primarily then Saudi Arabia, were a stupendous
source of strategic power which made the Middle East the most strategically
important area of the world. They also added that its one of the greatest
material prizes in world history. But the basic point is that it's a source
of strategic power, meaning that if you control the energy resources, then
you can control the world, because the world needs the energy
resources.--Sameer Dossani Interviews Noam Chomsky: "War,
Neoliberalism and Empire in the 21st Century," counterpunch.org,
March 9, 2007]
[The US now has a trade deficit with every part of the world. In 2006 (the
latest annual data), the US had a trade deficit totaling
$838,271,000,000.--Paul Craig roberts "American Economy:
R.I.P.," counterpunch.org, September 12, 2007]