How many times have you heard someone make some outrageous allegation and then, when challenged, justify it by saying something like "But it was proved the US government planned to attack their own citizens to start a war with Cuba"? Other times, other theories will be tossed out, but the example I just gave is, to a degree, correct. The problem being that the conspiracy theorists, as usual, take a tiny germ of truth and run with it far too far.

Operation Northwoods was a plan to simulate a Cuban attack inside the US in order to create popular support for the invasion of Cuba. At least that is how the conspiracy theorists present it. In fact, it was a "plan" only in the sense that it was a written document presenting a methodical approach. In reality it was a single study paper which summarized this possibility.

To anyone who never worked in the government, especially in the military, there exist study paper for literally EVERYTHING. There are studies of every possible permutation of war with enemies, of war with neutrals, even of war with allies. There are study papers of how we could cause revolution in hostile nations, or in firendly nations, even in our own nation. Just because there is a study of something does not mean it was seriously considered.

You need to consider several things. First of all, the intelligence analysts who draw up these reports are judged by their output. In other words, the more they write, and the more impressive it is, the more highly they are regarded. So writing something shocking and novel is not necessarily a sign it is to be taken seriously, but rather a sign someone is bucking for a better assignment.

Second many studies ar eundertaken for preventative purposes. We examine, for instance, how we would cause a revolution in order to prevent enemy agents form doing the same. This is not always the case, but it often is. Why do we do it this way? Because we know our own troops our own assets and our own procedures perfectly. It is more useful often to develop a prototype using perfectly known variables rather than using estimates of enemy resources. Sometimes the opposite is true, but sometimes it is not.

Third, and most important, is preparedness. There is no anticipating what a leader might request. So the military and intelligece agencies prepare plans for every potential scenario, likely or not. Thus when a leader comes to them with a truly bizarre request, they still have some old study they can dust off and upgrade. After all, the man who says "your plan will be ready in 6 weeks" is not getting promoted, the man who says "it will take 24 hours" is.

However, none of this matters to conspiracy theorists. Just as they think that "fog of war" is a cop out for the USS Liberty incident, because everyone in warfare has perfect information and intelligence gathering ships always broadcast their presence loudly so everyone knows they are there, they also imagine that plans are only drawn up for immediate use. Thus Operation Northwoods means that Kennedy was only moments away form ordering the death of US citizens, and, clearly, that means the Bush administration knocked down botht he twin towers and the levees in New Orleans.

It only makes sense, right?

POSTSCRIPT

Actually, it isn't just the government which engages in strange contingency planning. When I worked for a large global financial firm, we had drills on a regular basis in which we pretended various data centers had been disabled and tried to determine the best way to continue operations. In other words, we were preparing to continue running our operations during disaster or war. Credit cards must not stop working, and mortgage bills must continue to arrive, even if armageddon comes.

POSTSCRIPT II

As I was sure someone would mention MKULTRA and bring up "real abuse", I did some research online. First, I discovered an interestingly shifty definition of what is "proved". I also discovered that many people forget just how partisan the entire Church Committee investigation was. (Of course, we all know partisan hearings NEVER distort information or create scandals where none exists... Just ask tobacco or oil executives how even handed Congress is.)

But the best thing I found had to be "official documents" recorded online, that contained the grammar and spelling of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. For example, from a supposed reproduction of the Church report, the goals of one project (MKNAOMI) was:

To provide for a covert support base to meat clandestine operational requirements.

Now, either the CIA was operating the most covert "Steak of the Month Club" ever, or else we have here a document which has been very badly transcribed. And if such bizarre transcription errors can make their way in, then what else is just slightly... um... different?

And people wonder why I don't take articles on the internet, and especially Wikipedia, seriously. And take it even less seriously when it comes to conspiracy theories.