All of this may be merely fortuitous for the IAO. The IAO does not have at its disposal government agents that could provoke such deeds for its own benefit. Nor is there any reason to suspect, beyond past history, that any individual within the IAO would undertake or encourage such illegal activities (banish the thought!). Governmental members of the IAO do not individually profit from such projects, beyond their inflated sense of nationalism and prestige. However, defense contractors do. While we do not claim or even imply that various events of recent history were orchestrated by defense contractors, we do know that history is sprinkled with many instances of similar undertakings in foreign countries, most of which are led by fascist governments, not much unlike what our government has become since 9/11.

Let's consider, for example, El Salvador during the early 1980's. "Private" death squads, later found to have various governmental connections, engaged in a campaign of terror similar to that of the DC sniper. Sometimes they chose targets for political reasons (the American analogue would be the choice of Lehey and Daschle as targets for the anthrax attacks). Other times they were chosen to provoke fear and the desire for a hard governmental fist against chaos (e.g. the DC Sniper shootings). (I remember a conversation I had with a woman in El Salvador who stated, with respect to the violence in her country, "What we need is a good dictatorship.") Rather than white vans with ladders on top, the chosen death squad vehicle of the Salvadoran era of terror was the Jeep Cherokee with tinted windows. Interestingly, it was during this very period that Poindexter was involved in illegally supplying Nicaragua's Contras with aid from the proceeds of arms sales to terrorists in Iran.  (There is an arrest warrant in Costa Rica for his activities there during this same period, as well.)

Governments choose private means to follow illegal policies because of the deniability that private organizations afford. The CIA regularly funds private projects through font companies or by purchasing non-existent product from private corporations in return for services rendered. While the only cases of which I am personally aware were not conducted for illegal purposes, it does establish that such channels for funding exist and are utilized. There are precedents within the US Government for using private organizations to do what the US Government cannot legally do. The ADL, for years, spied on American dissidents on behalf of the FBI and exchanged information of mutual benefit.  This was later discovered and the ADL was found liable in a US court.

We do not propose that the above is a solution to the mysteries of the past year and two months. What we do suggest is that such avenues should be investigated. The US press and media has found itself free to speculate about rogue law enforcement individuals, lone nuts, and terrorists as sources for the DC Sniper attacks, but none of them have asked the simple question, "Who benefits?" This unwillingness to ask the obvious says much about the lack of freedom within the American journalism industry. It's time for journalists to go beyond their worn out replays of psychological theories and consider the possibility that these attacks have a larger goal.