The Election That Changed Everything
And which could prove to be history’s deal-breaker
by TOM ENGELHARDT
For decades, the U.S. government had a habit of using the Central Intelligence Agency to deep-six governments of the people, by the people and for the people that weren’t to its taste and replacing them with governments of the, well, take your choice — military junta, shah, autocrat, dictator, etc. — across the planet.
There was the infamous 1953 CIA- and British-organized coup that toppled the democratic Iranian government of Mohammad Mosadegh and put the shah and his secret police, the SAVAK, in power.
There was the 1954 CIA coup against the government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala that installed the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas.
There was the CIA’s move to make Ngo Dinh Diem the head of South Vietnam, also in 1954, and the CIA-Belgian plot to assassinate Congo’s first elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba, in 1961 that led, in the end, to the military dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko.
There was the 1964 CIA-backed military coup in Brazil that overthrew elected president Jango Goulart and brought to power a military junta.
And, of course, the first 9/11 — Sept. 11, 1973 — when the democratically elected socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown and killed in a U.S.-backed military coup.
You get the idea.
In this way, Washington repeatedly worked its will as the leader of what was then called “the free world.” Although such operations were carried out on the sly, when they were revealed, Americans, proud of their own democratic traditions, generally remained unfazed by what the CIA had done to democracies — and other kinds of governments — abroad in their name.
If Washington repeatedly empowered regimes of a sort Americans would have found unacceptable for ourselves, it wasn’t something that most of us spent a whole lot of time fretting about in the context of the Cold War.
At least those acts remained largely covert, undoubtedly reflecting a sense that this wasn’t the sort of thing you should proudly broadcast in the light of day. In the early years of the twenty-first century, however, a new mindset emerged. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, “regime change” became the phrase du jour.
As a course of action, there was no longer anything to be covert about. Instead, the process was debated openly and carried out in the full glare of media attention.
No longer would Washington set the CIA plotting in the shadows to rid it of detested governments and put in their place more malleable client states. Instead, as the “sole superpower” of Planet Earth, with a military believed to be beyond compare or challenge, the Bush administration would claim the right to dislodge governments it disdained directly, bluntly, and openly with the straightforward use of military force.
Later, the Obama administration would take the same tack under the rubric of “humanitarian intervention” or R2P — “responsibility to protect.” In this sense, regime change and R2P would become shorthand for Washington’s right to topple governments in the full light of day by cruise missile, drone and Apache helicopter — not to mention troops, if needed.
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would, of course, be exhibit A in this process and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, exhibit B.
With this history in mind and in the wake of the recent election, a question came to me recently. In 2016, did the American people leave the CIA in a ditch and potentially do to themselves what the Agency — and, more recently, the U.S. military — had done to others?
In other words, in the strangest election of our lifetimes, have we just seen something like a slow-motion democratic coup d’état or some form of domestic regime change?
Only time will tell, but one sign of that possibility. For the first time, part of the national security state directly intervened in an American election. In this case, not the CIA, but our leading domestic investigative outfit, the FBI. Inside it, as we now know, fulminating and plotting had been ongoing against one of the two candidates for president before its director, James Comey, openly, even brazenly, entered the fray with 11 days to go.
He did so on grounds that, even at the time, seemed shaky at best, if not simply bogus, and ran against firm department traditions for such election periods. In the process, his intervention may indeed have changed the trajectory of the election, a commonplace in the rest of the world, but a unique moment in this country.
Donald Trump’s administration, now filling up with racists, Islamophobes, Iranophobes and assorted fellow billionaires, already has the feel of an increasingly militarized, autocratic government-in-the-making, favoring short-tempered, militaristic white guys who don’t take criticism lightly or react to speed bumps well.
In addition, on Jan. 20, 2017, they will find themselves with immense repressive powers of every sort at their fingertips, powers ranging from torture to surveillance that were institutionalized in remarkable ways in the post-9/11 years with the rise of the national security state as a fourth branch of government, powers which some of them are clearly eager to test out.
Blowback and blowforward
It took 22 years — in the wake of Washington’s 1979 decision to use the CIA to arm, fund and train the most extreme Afghan and other Muslim fundamentalists and so give the Soviet Union a Vietnam-style bloody nose — for the initial American investment in radical Islam to come home big time.
On that blowback path, there would be American military housing in Saudi Arabia blown sky high, two U.S. embassies bombed in Africa, and a U.S. Navy destroyer ripped apart in a harbor in Aden. But it was 9/11 that truly put blowback on the map in this country — and, appropriately enough, turned Chalmers Johnson’s book with that title, published in 2000, into a bestseller.
Those Al Qaeda attacks, estimated to cost only $400,000, were aimed at three iconic structures — the World Trade Center in Manhattan (representing American financial power), the Pentagon in Washington (military power), and assumedly either the White House or the Capitol (political power) — as United Airlines Flight 93 was undoubtedly headed there when it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Those strikes by 19 mainly Saudi hijackers were meant to deliver a devastating blow to American amour propre, and so they did.
In response, the Bush administration launched the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, also known to its rabid promoters as “the Long War” or “World War IV.” Think of that “war,” including the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as a kind of “blowforward,” or a second vast, long-term investment of time, money and lives in Islamic extremism that only entrenched the phenomenon further in our world, helped recruit more supporters for it, and spread it ever more widely.
People across the country are coming together to stand up for what they believe is right. action.aclu.org
In other words, Osama Bin Laden’s relatively modest $400,000 investment would lead Washington to squander literally trillions more dollars in ever-expanding wars and insurgencies, and on the targeting of growing, morphing terror outfits in the Greater Middle East and Africa.
The resulting years of military effort that spiraled out of control and into disaster in that vast region led to what I’ve called an “empire of chaos” and set a new kind of blowback on a path home, blowback that would change and distort the nature of American governance and society.
Now, 37 years after the first Afghan intervention and 15 years after the second one, in the wake of an American election, blowback from the war on terror — its generals, its mindset, its manias, its urge to militarize everything — has come home in a significant way.
In fact, we just held what may someday be seen as our first 9/11-style election. And with it, with the various mad proposals to ban or register Muslims and the like, the literal war on terror is threatening to come home big time, too.
Based on the last decade and a half of “results” in distant lands, that can’t be good news. According to the latest report, for instance, fears of persecution are growing even among Muslims in the Pentagon, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security, and with Islamophobic sentiments already rampant inside the newly forming Trump administration, you can conclude that this won’t end well either.
On Sept. 12, 2001, you would have been hard put to guess just how the shock of the attacks of the previous day would play out in the United States and the world, so perhaps it’s idle to speculate on what the events of Nov. 8, 2016 will lead to in the years to come.
Prediction’s a dicey business in the best of times, and the future ordinarily is a black hole. But one thing does seem likely amid the murk. With the generals and other officials who ran America’s failed wars these last years potentially dominating the national security structure of a future Trump administration, our empire of chaos — perhaps including regime change — will indeed have come home.
It’s reasonable to think of Donald Trump’s victory and his brand of right-wing corporatist or billionaire “populism” and of the rising tide of white racism that has accompanied it as a 9/11-style shock to the body politic, even if it proves a slo-mo version of the original event.
As with 9/11, a long, blowback-ridden history preceded 11/8 and Trump’s triumph. That history included the institutionalization of permanent war as a way of life in Washington, the growing independent power and preeminence of the national security state, the accompanying growth and institutionalization of the most oppressive powers of that state, including intrusive surveillance of almost every imaginable sort, the return from distant battlefields of the technology and mindset of permanent war and the ability to assassinate whomever the White House chooses to kill — even an American citizen.
In addition, in blowback terms, domestically you would need to include the results of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of 2010, which helped release staggering amounts of corporate and one-percenter funds from the engorged top of an increasingly unequal society into the political system, without which a billionaire running for president and a cabinet of billionaires and multimillionaires would have been inconceivable.
As I wrote in early October 2016, a significant part of the white working class feels as if, whether economically or psychologically, its back is up against the wall and there’s nowhere left to go. Many of these voters have evidently decided that they’re ready to send a literal loose cannon into the White House.
They’re willing, that is, to take a chance on the roof collapsing, even if it collapses on them.” Think of Trump’s election, then, as the victory of the suicide bomber the white working class dispatched to the Oval Office to, as people now say politely, “shake things up.”
In a moment that, in so many senses, is filling with extremism and in which the jihadists of the national security state are clearly going to be riding high, it’s at least possible that election 2016 will prove the equivalent of a slow-motion coup in America.
Trump, like right-wing populists before him, has a temperament that could lend itself not only to demagoguery, but to an American version of authoritarianism, especially since in recent years, in terms of a loss of rights and the strengthening of government powers, the country has already moved in an autocratic direction, even if that’s been a little noted reality.
Whatever Americans may have ushered in with the events of 11/8, one thing is increasingly certain about the country that Trump will govern. Forget Vladimir Putin and his rickety petro-state. The most dangerous country on the planet will now be ours.
Led by a man who knows remarkably little, other than how to manipulate the media and, at least in part, by the frustrated generals from America’s war on terror, the United States is likely to be more extreme, belligerent, irrational, filled with manias and heavily armed, its military funded to even greater levels no other country could come close to, and with staggering powers to intervene, interfere and repress.
It’s not a pretty picture. And yet it’s just a lead-in to what, undoubtedly, should be considered the ultimate question in Donald Trump’s America. With both the CIA’s coup-making and the military’s regime-change traditions in mind, could the United States also overthrow a planet?
If, as the head of what’s already the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, Trump carries out the future energy policies he promised during the election campaign — climate-science funding torn up, climate agreements denounced or ignored, alternative energy development downplayed, pipelines green-lighted, fracking and other forms of fossil-fuel extraction further encouraged and the U.S. fully reimagined as the Saudi Arabia of North America — he will, in effect, be launching a regime-change action against Planet Earth.
All the rest of what a Trump administration might do, including ushering in a period of American autocracy, would be just part and parcel of human history.
Autocracies come and go. Autocrats rise and die. Rebellions break out and fail. Democracies work and then don’t. Life goes on. Climate change is, however, none of that. It may be part of planetary history, but not of human history. It is instead history’s potential deal-breaker.
What the Trump administration does to us in the years to come could prove a grim period to live through but a passing matter, at least when compared to the possible full-scale destabilization of life on Earth and of history as we’ve known it these last thousands of years.
This would, of course, put 9/11 in the shade. The election victory of 11/8 might ultimately prove the shock of a lifetime, of any lifetime, for eons to come. That’s the danger we’ve faced since 11/8, and make no mistake, it could be devastating.
Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. Originally published at www.tomdispatch.com.