Back to the WTC Bombing

Laurie Mylroie and Andrew McCarthy have been involved in a dispute centered on his book, Willful Blindness. I think Laurie has the better of it, critical of McCarthy's role in  prosecuting that case in  a way that left most people thinking the blind sheikh was behind it when the evidence showed he was not, that , in fact, it was more likely a false flag operation with Iraq pulling the strings.

I urge you to read her spirited response which concludes:

To what extent are the networks of Islamic militants penetrated and sometimes supported by states that use the militants for their own purposes? Despite all the injunctions against group-think issued after 9/11, McCarthy, et. al. want to impose just such a stifling consensus and silence the dissenting voices that may exist, like mine.

The Reagan years saw a fierce fight over a closely related issue. The view that prevailed was promoted by figures like CIA Director Bill Casey and journalist Claire Sterling: Major terrorist attacks, particularly against the United States, are basically state-sponsored. That remained the consensual perspective through Bush 41. Are we really sure that this changed so radically a mere month into Clinton's first term in office?

Considerable evidence exists to support the notion that Islamic networks are thoroughly penetrated by states, including evidence presented in Willful Blindness, highlighted in my review. Yet we are not allowed to consider this point and its implications, even as it, quite arguably, represents a dangerous strategic vulnerability: any enemy state that infiltrates the networks of Islamic militants can attack the United States with impunity, as long as that state takes sufficient measures to hide its hand from our incurious eyes.


Laurie Mylroie and Andrew McCarthy have been involved in a dispute centered on his book, Willful Blindness. I think Laurie has the better of it, critical of McCarthy's role in  prosecuting that case in  a way that left most people thinking the blind sheikh was behind it when the evidence showed he was not, that , in fact, it was more likely a false flag operation with Iraq pulling the strings.

I urge you to read her spirited response which concludes:

To what extent are the networks of Islamic militants penetrated and sometimes supported by states that use the militants for their own purposes? Despite all the injunctions against group-think issued after 9/11, McCarthy, et. al. want to impose just such a stifling consensus and silence the dissenting voices that may exist, like mine.

The Reagan years saw a fierce fight over a closely related issue. The view that prevailed was promoted by figures like CIA Director Bill Casey and journalist Claire Sterling: Major terrorist attacks, particularly against the United States, are basically state-sponsored. That remained the consensual perspective through Bush 41. Are we really sure that this changed so radically a mere month into Clinton's first term in office?

Considerable evidence exists to support the notion that Islamic networks are thoroughly penetrated by states, including evidence presented in Willful Blindness, highlighted in my review. Yet we are not allowed to consider this point and its implications, even as it, quite arguably, represents a dangerous strategic vulnerability: any enemy state that infiltrates the networks of Islamic militants can attack the United States with impunity, as long as that state takes sufficient measures to hide its hand from our incurious eyes.