In a statement in the Tallahassee Democrat, Lance deHaven-Smith and Matthew Witt suggest that Congress be pressured to pass legislation requiring that -- in the event of another terrorist attack -- a real investigation be conducted. They argue that this will help to reduce the likelihood of another false flag attack.

Are they right? Is there any way that Congress would pass such legislation if we pressure them? Would this be asking the fox to guard the chicken coop? If another false flag occurs, will the Constitution and all normal laws be suspended, so that such legislation would be superseded anyway?

Terrorism windfall: Investigate thoroughly if defenses fail again

By Lance deHaven-Smith and Matthew Witt, Tallahassee Democrat

When it comes to their elected officials, Americans would be wise to remember an old saying about moral hazards: Never make your doctor the heir to your estate.

The president's popularity soared after 9/11. It also tends to rise when the terrorist threat level is raised from yellow to orange.

This means, unfortunately, that regardless of who is in the White House, America has made its president heir to a political estate of great value: our unquestioning support if or when the administration itself fails to protect the nation from terrorism. This seems illogical, but history has proven it true.

The rally-'round-the-president effect is so consistent that it was used by Osama bin Laden in the 2004 presidential election. Bin Laden released a defiant tape just four days before Election Day. In his book "The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind reported that, after reviewing the tape, the CIA concluded bin Laden was actually working for Bush's re-election. Ironically, although Bush and bin Laden are supposed to be enemies, each benefits the other politically.

As the Bush administration's popularity has plummeted, the potential political windfall it would receive from another terrorist attack on U.S. soil has grown enormously. It seems as if the doctor who has become heir to our estate now faces ruin unless he receives this inheritance.

The situation should be of concern not only to the citizenry, but also to the current administration itself. For it is certainly possible that terrorists may strike on U.S. soil sometime this summer, as the secretary of Homeland Security has predicted. If such an attack were successful, will Americans suspect that it might have somehow been facilitated or even orchestrated by the administration?

Several months ago, this possibility was suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. National security adviser under President Carter, Brzezinski said that the Bush administration might be tempted to blame Iranians for a terrorist attack and use the attack as a pretext for broadening the Iraq war to include Iran. This, Brzezinski predicted, would eventually draw other Middle Eastern nations into the conflict and turn the unsuccessful occupation of Iraq into a region-wide conflict with potentially catastrophic results.

Similar fears were recently voiced by Paul Craig Roberts, who served as assistant secretary of the treasury in the Reagan administration. According to Roberts, "Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran."

Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that public officials at the highest levels would allow terrorist attacks simply to shore up their position in politics and public opinion. On the other hand, these kinds of things have happened before.

In 1968, when he was running for president against Vice President Hubert Humphrey and saying that he wanted peace in Vietnam, Richard Nixon sent messages to the South Vietnamese government urging it to boycott peace talks with the Johnson administration so that the unpopular war would continue through the election and Nixon's victory would be assured.

Nixon promised South Vietnam that he would take a tougher line with the North Vietnamese than would be taken by either Johnson or Humphrey. Because of this treasonous deal, South Vietnam refused to participate in the peace talks, the war continued, and Nixon was elected.

Although it may be impossible to prevent a terrorist attack, steps could be taken to make false flag operations and "planned" defense failures much less likely. One safeguard would be to enact legislation now, setting forth procedures for investigating any terrorist attack and defense failure that may occur in the future. The legislation should ensure that, unlike the investigation conducted after 9/11, future investigations will be adequately funded, staffed by independent professionals, initiated immediately, and take immediate control of the attack site for purposes of preserving and collecting evidence. Congress should require witnesses, including the president and vice president, to testify separately and under oath, and criminal penalties should be mandatory for public officials who prevaricate, withhold evidence or hide behind exaggerated claims about the need for secrecy.

More generally, any administration that fails in its duty to defend the nation should be prohibited from playing any role in appointing, directing or constraining the investigation of its failure. Just as we should never make our doctor the heir to our estate, we should never assign our heir the duty of our autopsy.

Lance deHaven-Smith is a professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University. Matthew Witt is an associate professor of public administration at the University of La Verne in California.

A report on Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was carried on the "Jim Lehrer News Hour." A transcript is available at www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/iraq_02-01.html.

For the full statement of Paul Craig Roberts, go to www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html.