Ira
Smolensky
Whistle-blowing
and the myth of 9-11
USA
Today ran a story last week about the fate of two 9-11 Òwhistle-blowersÓ whose
experience adds to the already ample evidence that, in the real world of
politics, no good deed goes unpunished.
Dan
LÕAllier and Chris Christopherson were both involved in the relief effort at
the sight of the World Trade Center when they discovered that Kieger
Enterprises of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, the company that employed them, was
looting considerable quantities of donated materials for its own profit.
The
two men went to the FBI. In
return, they suffered through serious harassment, lost their jobs, and were exiled
from the relief industry. The
company, on the other hand, was never prosecuted for the 9-11 thefts.
Outrageous? Yes. Surprising? No.
The
sad truth is that whistle-blowing is a high risk venture that often punishes
the messenger instead of the perpetrator.
Indeed, a good portion of the time, there is nobody who wants to listen
sympathetically. Blissful
ignorance can be quite appealing for any number of reasons. Investigating the charges of
whistle-blowers can be hard work.
It can cost a lot. Then,
too, that which goes around comes around, which is to say that if you pursue
the charges of whistle-blowers too avidly you might just have people checking
your closets to see if there are any handy skeletons next to your summer suits.
In
this particular case, it appears that there was an element of the latter. Apparently, FBI personnel took some
unauthorized souvenirs from the World Trade Center site, which might have
become a tad embarrassing for the agency if the case against Kieger Enterprises
came up for trial.
While
this might have played a role, I would speculate that another, more important
factor came into play.
While
whistle-blowing is a shaky undertaking in the best of circumstances, it is doomed
right from the start when it threatens to disrupt something as sacrosanct as the
dominant U.S. mythification of 9-11.
To
President Bush (and probably a majority of Americans), 9-11 was a totally
unprovoked attack in which despicable and ÒcowardlyÓ (to use the PresidentÕs
term) foes hit us below the belt by means for which there was no current
defense. According to the myth,
Americans responded with great courage and civic spirit, forging a new national
unity that transcends party for all of us who are truly patriotic.
Of
course, one can understand the genesis of this myth when it is held up against
that of the attackers and their fans around the globe: that the U.S. is the
satanic source of all that is evil in the world and that the 9-11 attack was
necessary to make a dent against this nationÕs oppressive hegemony.
While
myths do not necessarily have to be false, both of these are. It is possible to have legitimate
grievances against the U.S., but it is beyond any semblance of accuracy to
blame the U.S. for all the worldÕs ills and give it none of the credit for any
of the good. (In addition, and, I
think, by design, the architects of the 9-11 attack have actually worsened
rather than mitigated American arrogance.
This has led to a new round of American miscalculations which have made
the world a less safe place for just about everyone, a state of affairs that is
just as much on the heads of the 9-11 attackers as it is on the U.S.)
On
the other hand, the failure of the U.S. to ward off the 9-11 attack can legitimately
be tied to a lack of vigilance on the part of government and the airlines. Nor is the U.S. totally blameless for
the sad state of the world or the resentment many feel against us. In part, we are seen as hypocritical
and self-serving because that is often just what we have been. Then, too, 9-11 did not bring us
together in the idealized way that the President and others claim. Right from the beginning, there have
been ugly instances of economic and political opportunism. The President ought to know this, since
he and his party have used 9-11 (and their version of its myth) as much as they
possibly could to tame and ultimately bury the Democratic Party not for the
sake of the country, but rather in the quest for political dominance.
Thus
is explained the sad fate of our 9-11 whistle-blowers. Their testimony was unwelcome-- inconvenient
and politically incorrect, as it were-- in this era of phony patriotism and
spurious war.