[Peace-discuss] Re: solution to a non-problem (fwd)

[C. G. Estabrook]

Francis--

I agree that there's evidence -- public at least since Charles Beard's
time -- that FDR's government wanted the Japanese to strike the first blow
in the long-brewing imperial conflict between the US and Japan -- just as
Lincoln arranged for the Confederate states to be the military aggressors
at Ft. Sumter.  But I don't think Robert Stinnett (or Gore Vidal, in a
recent series of letters to the TLS) have shown that the American
government expected it to be as devastating as the attack on Pearl Harbor
actually was.

It's remotely possible that something similar is true of people within the
American government before 9/11, but the motive is much less apparent.  
FDR really did have to reverse the sentiments of an anti-war populace in
1941 to secure American participation in WWII (which he clearly wanted).  
There was no such need to mobilize US opinion last fall.  We were all
(well, most of us)  perfectly complaisant with the "war on terrorism"
before 9/11 -- as we had been since it was announced twenty years ago.  
We allowed Clinton to lob cruise missiles around and even commit
aggression in central Europe -- and even a new Mideast war would not have
required knowing complicity in attacks within the US. (Look how quickly
9/11 was discarded as a casus belli in Afghanistan, how quickly its
justification reverted to the "humanitarian war" on the Kosovo model.)

Regards, Carl

(PS: It's interesting to be discussing Pearl Harbor this week, the 60th
anniversary of the Battle of Midway, where barely six months after the
attack on Pearl, the Pacific War was essentially won, and the US could
begin the "Grand Area Planning" for the world it knew it would dominate
after the war.  I have a certain personal connection as well: my maternal
grandfather, Annapolis '07, was commandant of the naval base at Pearl
Harbor in the thirties: it was his successor who was there on December 7,
1941.)


On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Francis Boyle wrote:

> "I can't think of anything remotely like it in history -- maybe the
> Reichstag fire..." [Chomsky]
> 
> Well how about Pearl Harbor. See the new book my Stennet, Day of
> Deceit where the author, a retired Naval Officer who served in WW2,
> makes a pretty good argument that FDR and General Marshall knew the
> Japanese were going to attack at Pearl Harbor and let it happen
> because they wanted in to WW2. fab.
> 
> Francis A. Boyle
> Law Building
> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
> Champaign, IL 61820
> 217-333-7954(voice)
> 217-244-1478(fax)
> fboyle at law.uiuc.edu
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:52 PM
> Subject: Re: solution to a non-problem
> 
> 
> > [It's undeniable that US foreign policy follows the interests of an
> > American economic elite, interests inimical to those of the rest of the
> > world, including the large majority of the US population.  But I think
> > we're in danger of slighting that point if we assume that that policy is
> > primarily the result of the machinations of a little group of wilful men.
> > Here's Noam Chomsky's response to a question on this point, from a
> > discussion at Berkeley in March.  --CGE]
> >
> >
> > Q: What's your opinion on the U.S. government knowing about the September
> > 11th attack but letting it occur in order to have justification for an
> > already planned war in Afghanistan?
> >
> > CHOMSKY: It's a common view, and I've read it, over the internet, many
> > times. I think it's extremely implausible.  Unless some really serious
> > credible evidence is produced, personally I wouldn't take it very
> > seriously, and I haven't seen any such evidence.  It's very unlikely.
> > It's not the kind of thing that happens.  I can't think of anything
> > remotely like it in history -- maybe the Reichstag fire.  But it would be
> > an extremely rare and implausible event, and there'd have been no reason
> > to do it.  It would have been crazy, in my opinion.
> >
> > If you think it's worth investigating, go ahead and investigate it, but
> > personally, I don't think it's credible or even, in my view, at least,
> > even serious enough to investigate.
> >
> >   =========================
> >   Carl Estabrook
> >   Five Litchfield Lane
> >   Champaign IL 61820 USA
> >   office    217.244.4105
> >   mobile    217.369.5471
> >   residence 217.359.9466
> >   <cge at shout.net>
> >   <www.carlforcongress.org>
> >   =========================
> >    "One great source of the strength of the ruling class
> >    has ever been their willingness to kill
> >    in defense of their power and privileges.
> >    Let their power be once attacked
> >    either by foreign foes or by domestic revolutionaries,
> >    and at once we see the rulers prepared to kill and kill and kill.
> >    The readiness of the ruling class to order killing,
> >    the small value the ruling class has ever set upon human life,
> >    is in marked contrast to the reluctance of all revolutionaries
> >    to shed blood."  --James Connolly
> >    =====================================================
> >
> >
> 
>