I’ve always believed that the job of a philosopher is to turn attention our attention to the truth or at least to encourage us to think about life and matters with a greater degree of cogency. Sometimes we peer deeply into logical descriptions of language or grapple with metaphysics, at other times we examine the characterisations that we make of life and the conventions by which we live. War is naturally one of those topics that attracts popular and media attention, and, periodically, philosophers turn their attention to its nature and the reasons presented to justify fighting, or, if we can justify a fight, the codes of conduct on how we should proceed: these are aptly summarised, and hotly debated, in the just war conventions.
The conventions tend to emphasise that a nation going to war must possess a morally sound cause for doing so. Its simplest prescription, which most commentators accept, is an attack on the homeland. Once we begin to add in other criteria such as in defence of trade routes or honour or the rights of other peoples, the coherency begins to break down and controversy begins. Only absolute pacifists reject defending the self, family, or fellow citizens against aggression. The minimalist convention that an attack on the homeland justifies war against an aggressor extends delicately into pre-emptive attacks on those who clearly are about to strike, but again consistency falters once clarity of indication diminishes.
The 9/11 attacks on the USA generally have been assumed as providing sufficient and compelling evidence for American and British intervention into Afghanistan and Iraq and for reasserting democratic ascendancy over the world that was promoted by Woodrow Wilson. “Making the world safe for democracy” is one that certainly has much to answer for both historically and philosophically: yet the horrific attacks on 9/11 surely emphasise the necessity of removing terrorist plots to undermine democratic and free nations? Perhaps many have hoped so, but whether that is really the case is another issue. A mounting body of opinion makers believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation – one used to put into play neo-conservative American aims to impose greater control over the world. The ploy is ancient but, perturbingly, is one not unknown to the American military.
At the time of the attacks I had been writing on and discussing the philosophy of war for several years and had been taken by one particular theme: “when the blast of war echoes in our ears,” reason and philosophy are lost. Although I secured a book publication in the aftermath of 9/11 (a book polished long before the attacks), I made a conscious decision not to follow through with a protracted war ethics volume: the ferocity of the attack warranted a swift military response (so it seemed), and in such times as when the homeland (in this case, the West) is attacked patriotic emotions run high. It is not time to reflect upon the storm when it rages all around, or as Seneca noted, “associating with people in large numbers is actually harmful: there is not one of them that will not make some vice or other attractive to us.” Indeed: the political frenzy to get the perpetuators of 9/11 was certainly not the most conducive atmosphere to reflect philosophically – except to withdraw and abide one’s time. Going with the voices of the masses is as unphilosophical as screaming against the mob that they are wrong: a clear head is what is required and historians will agree too much misinformation and emotive output emerges in war for a clear picture to emerge.
Six years later, I have begun to look more closely at dissenting opinion and two things are becoming clear. Firstly, a disturbingly impressive body of evidence has been collated by critics of the official story of 9/11; secondly, the immediate vehicle for dissent has been the anarchic web and associated, easily reproduced media such as DVDs – ironically, the media that Jason Burke in his Al-Qaeda stresses was exploited well by Bin Laden and similar Islamist agitators prior to and after 9/11.
How should we, philosophically speaking, begin to examine stories and theories that we encounter concerning such grave and momentous occasions as those that justify war? William Godwin insisted that governments be thoroughly open in their dealings – even in their military designs. After all, what has a democratic government to fear should the evidence support the cause in question?
Primarily, evidence must be examined, and for that, it must be examinable, objectively so. Secondly, no question nor theory should be rejected on any grounds but in turn should be tested against the evidence. Thirdly, all motives and potential self-interested gains should be similarly weighed with the evidence.
In reviewing 9/11 videos on the net, the greatest disconcerting element supporting “conspiracy theorists” is the absence of evidence from the scenes: indeed, apparently the USA intelligence agencies swiftly removed evidence involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Cause for questioning can only be inflamed by the lack of transparency, and while it may be retorted that parties are innocent till proven guilty (a principle not adhered to in the justification for attacking Iraq), the systematic removal of evidence from what is reputedly one of the greatest crime scenes in history does not look good. It is not far fetched to say that historians know more about the bullets fired at the Battle of Little Big Horn than the airplanes that flew into the Towers and Pentagon. The little evidence that has been officially provided and presumably endorsed by the US government (notably a few frames of the Pentagon being hit) neither proves nor disproves the official theory or that of the dissenters, but that available in the public domain (private videos of the collapse of the World Trade Towers), which have been studied in depth, does give much credence to the growing opinion that the Towers were subject to a demolition and did not collapse spontaneously. (WTC 7 collapsed into its footprint, even though it had not been hit.) Eye witness accounts – both from later interviews and from live footage – draw attention to a series of explosions heard just prior to the Towers’ collapse. Eerily, comparisons with controlled demolitions (something noted by several live commentators at the time) are strikingly similar and a growing number of independent and scholarly writers present strong and coherent criticisms of the official report; meanwhile scientists question the physics imputed to the report, and journalists have revealed many discrepancies involved in the mythical events of that day.
The lack of evidence then fires “conspiracy theorist” questions, which are not well answered by the official report, which in turn draws attention to incentives and motives and some of the links and arguments drawn by investigative journalists certainly raise the eyebrows and should encourage further academic and legal interest.
The 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” are nonetheless making visible headway in their attempt to publicise the alternative positions and not just on the net. When I first watched and read their reports, I was always left unnerved but somewhat cynical that in the land of the free none of the alleged establishment had broken free from a supposed Bush or CIA imposed conspiracy to pay off or silence those knowing “the truth.” However, increasing numbers of high ranking officials both off and on the record are now questioning the official story and demanding that a proper investigation be carried out, and, for what may have interesting political consequences, one gets the impression that swathes of America’s disaffected or disenchanted groups and intellectuals assume that 9/11 was an “inside job.”
Critics are becomingly publicly vocal demonstrating against politicians, impacting upon chat shows, and raising public awareness with open air film shows. Their campaign may end up making history: Watergate was about much less and the amount of money spent on investigating 9/11 was a fraction of that spent on hounding President Clinton and his wayward penis. A cynical but vocal minority may eventually invoke enough outcry to instigate a public investigation but the repercussions that may follow would be historic: a return to a healthy and critical domestic liberalism; a winding down of the US military presence around the world and even a return to isolationism (only a bad policy in the eyes of interventionists); and a more transparent and accountable US government. And how could America’s incumbent politicians look the rest of us in the eye should it be found that the century was founded on one huge and evil lie?
December 2007
ADDENDUM
In the time that has passed, the questions that are raised here have yet to be answered; critics of the official story into 9/11 are still not satisfied with responses; covert propaganda campaigns on mass media and the web seemingly seek to undermine the sincerity of querying the official report and it is disconcerting in many ways to understand that western governments do pay civil servants to add opinions to blogs and to adjust wikipedia articles. Democracy is a fragile thing, a republic of free citizens even more so: if our century opened with a bareface lie to the world, the future certainly looks bleak.
Here's an excellent introduction by one famous American: Charlie Sheen -
