Waco: how the siege became a symbol of government oppression

Government narrative in the aftermath of the siege placed the blame squarely at Koresh’s feet. Authorities portrayed him as a dangerous, and probably insane, individual who had perpetrated an act of mass suicide.

President Bill Clinton reacted to criticism of the government’s handling of the siege by expressing incredulity that “anyone … would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves”.

The official enquires that followed supported this view. In 2000, the official report prepared by former senator John Danforth vindicated government agencies, concluding that Koresh and “certain Branch Davidians” set fire to their own compound.

These findings were supported by Kenneth Newport’s work on Branch Davidian theology and its potential to justify martyrdom in fire. Recordings from the compound, featuring discussion of spreading fuel, appear to back this up.

But other research has questioned these claims. The recordings are open to debate, and Davidian survivors have often stated that Koresh preached against suicide. Sociologist Stuart A. Wright suggested the FBI’s assault accidentally started the blaze.

Given the possibility that CS gas is flammable in confined spaces, and that some in the FBI seemed determined to provoke the group, several scholars have argued that the government should be held responsible for the Davidians’ deaths. Scepticism over the government narrative was shared by the public, with a 1999 CBS poll suggesting that 62% believed that the government had covered up its failings at Waco.

A symbol of government oppression
For many on the right, the siege became a symbol of government attacks on religious and civil liberties. On the second anniversary of the fire, Timothy McVeigh planted a bomb at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people in revenge for the government’s actions. Today Waco remains a potent symbol that continues to motivate many within the survivalist and militia movements in the US.

The events were quickly politicised in popular media. Within months of the siege, NBC’s In The Line of Duty: Ambush At Waco portrayed heroic ATF agents and a diabolic, controlling Koresh. Images of “brainwashed” cultists at Waco, merging with cultural memories of the Jonestown massacre, and later, the 1997 Heaven’s Gate suicides, permeated popular dramas’ presentation of fictionalized new religious movements.

However, as religion scholar Joseph Laycock notes, a more nuanced narrative developed in line with public skepticism surrounding Waco. For example, shows such as South Park satirized disproportionate ATF militarism, while HBO’s The Leftovers featured both a controlling cult and militaristic and an abusive “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Cults”. Michael McNulty’s documentaries, including the Oscar nominated Waco: Rules of Engagement, have also done much to question the government narrative.

Most recently, Paramount’s Waco offered a direct dramatization of events. Based on books by FBI negotiator Gary Noesner and former-Davidian siege survivor David Thibodeau, the series was criticized in some quarters for an overly sympathetic portrayal of Koresh, including papering over accusations of child abuse.

As Noesner concluded, the siege was “a very complex situation where both good and bad decisions were made on both sides that led to a very tragic conclusion”.

Some positive outcomes did follow. In the aftermath of the siege, the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group worked with the American Academy of Religions to modify its approach to religious groups. This helped them reach a peaceful solution to the standoff with the Montana Freemen in 1996.

The Davidians also survived and developed. Today, a new Branch Davidian church sits on the site of Mount Carmel. It serves as both a memorial to the events of 1993 and as a testimony to the resilience of their religious belief.

Andrew Crome is Lecturer in History, Manchester Metropolitan University. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution / No derivative)