On Friday, June 23, UVA grad Ron Suskind addressed a packed house at the Miller Center, as part of its Forum series. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist discussed his latest book, The One Percent Doctrine, which tackles the core of the United States’ playbook on terror following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The book’s title comes from Vice President Dick Cheney’s declaration that “if there’s a one-percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.”
Describing the Cheney Doctrine as a “moral departure,” and one that “separates the original twins of analysis and action,” Suskind warned that now “the threshold for action of the world’s No. 1 superpower is suspicion… [And] each of us would fall under that wide umbrella of 1 percent.”
This, Suskind’s third book, came from his desire not “to seek answers,” but to “frame the appropriate questions.” Despite having been the senior national affairs writer for The Wall Street Journal and having “terrific access and a press pass,” Suskind gamely admitted at his talk, “I realized I knew nothing on the War on Terror. What I knew was based on the thin gruel of official-speak.”
“Welcome to the War on Terror,” Suskind told an audience of approximately 250 people. “You’re on a need-to-know basis, and those needs are decided by those in power.” Namely, the White House and the CIA (or, as he called it, “the central organ”). The problem with this scenario, as Suskind sees it, is that controlled information creates fear, and “fear is a profound and powerful motivator.”
It was fear that motivated many of Suskind’s sources to come forward, he claims. “When I started in 2002, there was hesitancy,” Suskind said. “But people eventually said, ‘Tell me again what we have to fear about the public truth?’” These individuals, whom Suskind describes as “people on the front lines of counter terrorism… the combatants from the FBI and NSC,” came forward “because they were afraid of people not knowing what they ought to know.” Furthermore, they were worried that “after the next attack, people will ask, ‘How could you not of told us the truth? We can handle the truth.’” Suskind closed his discussion by urging listeners to have a “real discussion… a real messy one to decide where the lines should be drawn.” In his most chilling remark, Suskind noted that America will almost certainly suffer another terrorist attack, which makes an open discussion all the more important. “We need to do it now,” he implored.
Categories