Why Nobody Saw 9/11 Coming

ONDON — Did the Bush administration, before the 9/11 attacks, fail to take terrorism seriously enough? At first the contention seems unlikely. Isn't this the most hawkish administration in living memory? Wasn't it President Bush who coined the phrase "war on terror"?

Yet in the current hearings on the attacks — and in the controversy surrounding the new book by Richard A. Clarke, the administration's first counterterrorism chief — the words "neglect" and "failure" keep cropping up.

And there is something to these accusations — although perhaps not in the sense that the people making them intend. The administration's early failures on terrorism cannot be pinned down to individual instances of "neglect." To understand what really went wrong, we need to go back to the last decades of the cold war, when people like Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Vice President Dick Cheney first started to make sense of terrorism.

In the 1970's and 80's, the predominant view among Washington hawks was that none of the various terrorist groups that operated in Western Europe and the Middle East was truly independent. They were all connected through a vast terrorist network, which was created and supported by the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. The Communists' aim, the hawks believed, was to destabilize the Western societies without being directly linked to violence.

It all seemed to make perfect sense, and books like "The Terror Network" by Claire Sterling, which argued the network hypothesis with considerable force and conviction, became essential reading for anyone who wanted to make his way in the Reagan White House.

The idea that the sinister hand of the Kremlin was behind groups like the Italian Red Brigades and even the Irish Republican Army revealed the deep sense of paranoia within political circles at the time. More important, the idea of the Communist terrorism network buttressed the conservative fixation on states as the only major actors in the international political system.

According to the classically "realist" mindset, only states can pose a significant threat to the national security of other states, because lesser actors simply do not have the capacity, sophistication and resources to do so. Hence, if terrorists suddenly became effective in destabilizing countries like Italy, they couldn't possibly have acted on their own. They must have had state sponsors, and it was only by tackling the state sponsors (in this case, the Soviet bloc), that you could root out the terrorists.

During the cold war, the paradigm of "state-sponsored terrorism" was useful, if not entirely correct. Most terrorists did receive help from states, and there were some links between disparate groups, although not to the extent that many in the United States believed. And some of the worst atrocities — like the 1983 attack on United States military headquarters in Beirut — were in fact carried out by groups that had been created by "rogue states" like Iran, Libya and Syria.

With the end of the cold war, however, things changed. While there was no longer a prime state sponsor for any "terror network," there was also no longer any need for one. It became easy to travel from one country to another. Money could be collected and transferred around the globe. Cell phones and the Internet made it possible to maintain tight control of an elusive group that could move its "headquarters" across continents. In fact, by the end of the decade, it seemed as if the model of state-sponsored terrorism had effectively been reversed: Al Qaeda was now in charge of a state — Afghanistan under the Taliban — rather than vice versa.

But the Washington hawks failed to see what was happening. The world around them had changed, but their paradigm hadn't. For them, states continued to be the only real movers and shakers in the international system, and any serious "strategic" threat to America's security could only come from an established nation.

Consider an article in the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine by Condoleezza Rice, titled "Campaign 2000 — Promoting the National Interest." Ms. Rice, spelling out the foreign policy priorities of a Bush White House, argued that after years of drift under the Clinton administration, United States foreign policy had to concentrate on the "real challenges" to American security. This included renewing "strong and intimate relationships" with allies, and focusing on "big powers, particularly Russia and China." In Ms. Rice's view, the threat of non-state terrorism was a secondary problem — in her to do list" it was under the category of "rogue regimes," to be tackled best by dealing "decisively with the threat of hostile powers."

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that there was relatively little interest in Al Qaeda when the Bush team took over. For most of 2001, the national security agenda really consisted of only two items, neither of which had anything to do with the terrorist threat of radical Islam. First, the administration increased its efforts to bring about regime change in Iraq, which was believed to be the prime source of instability in a region of great strategic importance.

The second goal was a more competitive stance toward China. Missile defense — this time against attack by China and North Korea — was put back on the table. Even the collision of an American spy plane with a Chinese fighter in 2001 is an indication of the administration's mindset — intelligence resources were deployed not to find Osama bin Laden, but to monitor what many White House hawks considered the most likely future challenger of American power.

Sept. 11, 2001, brought about a quick re-orientation of foreign policy. What didn't change, however, was the state-centered mindset of the people who were in charge. According to Mr. Clarke, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld immediately suspected Saddam Hussein, and suggested military strikes against Iraq. While cooler heads prevailed at the time, and there was a real effort to track down and destroy the Qaeda network, there was also a reluctance to abandon the idea that terrorism had to be state-based. Hence the administration's insistence that there must be an "axis of evil" — a group of states critical in sustaining the terrorists. It was an attempt to reconcile the new, confusing reality with long-established paradigm of state sponsorship.

In the end, the 9/11 hearings are likely to find that the intelligence failure that led to the horrific attacks stemmed from the longstanding problems of wrongly placed agents, failed communications between government departments and lack of resources. But it was also a failure of vision — one for which the current administration must take responsibility.

Peter R. Neumann is a research fellow in international terrorism at the Department of War Studies, King's College London.

Our most serious threat in the long term is China. China and Russia have the ability to destroy us as a nation. AQ does not.

Very true. And, if memory serves, at some point in the first 100 days of the Bush Administration wasn't an American military plane disabled by Chinese pilots in the air, landed on Chinese soil and wasn't the crew treated very badly by the Chinese? I seem to remember that thoughts of China being a significant threat were prevailant at the time.

by the end of the decade, it seemed as if the model of state-sponsored terrorism had effectively been reversed: Al Qaeda was now in charge of a state — Afghanistan under the Taliban — rather than vice versa.

On the one hand it can be of analytical use to swap the nomenclature around like that. But on the other hand it is a distinction without a difference. We needed to mop up the Taliban in order to attack Al Qaeda just as surely, either way.
But as to the culpability, or lack thereof, of Iraq, IMHO Saddam's problem was that he had cultivated a situation in which nobody knew that he wasn't making WMD and nobody knew that he had nothing to do with 911 and especially with the anthrax problem of the time. Having cultivated that situation for his own reasons (possibly including the fact that they were true), there was no way to assure Bush that they were not true - and thus no way to prevent an American invasion.
The Administration decided that it could not afford for the regimes in the region to be in doubt that Saddam had done those things and gotten away with it, any more than it could afford for Saddam to have actually done those things (if it had) and for him to believe that he had gotten away with it. The fruits of this policy are not only a democratic Iraqi government in the making but a Libya turning from foe to friend.
Al Qaeda can still exist sub rosa anywhere in the world, but the places willing to allow them to exist publicly are dwindling and may soon disappear. At which point Al Qaeda will be the law enforcement problem the Democrats are fond of claiming that it already is.

The "failure of vision" cannot be placed on the shoulders of the current administration alone. The bulk of the population thought we were somehow immune. It drives me nuts that the partisans in places of power, and the media only blame the government for "failure of vision." The media of course, isn't remotely culpable. The media, that thinks it is immune from everything.

What I cannot understand is why so many are willing to buy blaming the current administration, and call for us to turn over our safety to a corrupt international body that has never stopped terrorism, and indeed, has fed off it and corrupt dictatorships for decades. Amazing.

".....In Ms. Rice's view, the threat of non-state terrorism was a secondary problem....."

The continuing 'practical' alternative to the hyper-critcized Bush policies would then be..........

Within days of taking office the Bush Administration would have declared War on the Soverign State of Afghanistan and would have gone before Timmy Russert, Judy Rough-woodie, Leslie Stall, etc. to explain to these HOSTILE gate-keepers of the public opinion why we're going to invade.

Think about the response!!!!!!!!!!!

There would have been immediate incredulous-jawdropping-SCREAMS of "HAS THIS ADMINISTRATION LOST ITS MIND!!!!!!!!!".

This whole thing is crap, IMHO, and the continued trashing of the Bush administation IS NOT endearing the media to me, whatsoever.

If we had unilaterally invaded Afghanistan and taken out the Taleban based on the fact that they were supporting AQ, what would the left have said?

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had invaded Afghanistan before 9-11.

We would not have been able to stop the 9-11 plot anyway. That was well developed outside of Afghanistan, and going to happen.

All the terrorists would have to say was that 9-11 was in response our invading Afghanistan,and they would get world wide approval.

The blame America first crowd in this country and around the world would have had a field day saying we brought it on ourselves by invading Afghanistan. -

We were saved from a major PR blunder by our own incompetence. -Tom

The author is all wet. I recommend that he revisit Clarke's and Clinton's reaction to the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998.

According to official Kenyan government figures, 213 people were killed in the blast that gutted the U.S. Embassy building in downtown Nairobi. That included 12 American workers and 34 of their Kenyan colleagues, called "foreign service nationals [FSNs]." More than 4,000 Kenyans were also injured in the explosion.

According to Tanzanian government figures, 12 people, all Tanzanians, died as a result of the truck bomb that exploded in the street outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam. Seventy-two Americans and Tanzanians were also injured in the terrorist attack.

The bombings in East Africa should have been the real 9/11 for the American public. It was a failure of leadership (read Clinton/Clarke) that did not rally our country to go to war against al-Qaeda. The number of total casualties, wounded and dead, approximated or exceeded those suffered on 9/11.

I was angered by Clarke's comments during the hearing that only 35 Americans lost their lives to al-Qaeda during the Clinton administration compared to the number lost during the Bush administration. We need to expose Clarke and Clinton for their feckless reaction to the East Africa Embassy bombings, which injured and killed thousands. Clarke's assertion that the Clinton administration placed a higher priority on fighting terrorism is belied by their reaction to the attacks on our embassies. I would also mention that over 1000 people suffered injuries in WTC I in 1993.

The bottom line is that the Clinton administration failed to recognize we were at war and took the less controversial stance of treating terrorism as an ad hoc law enforcement matter. There was a thread that ran through all of these attacks, and that was al-Qaeda.

"If on September 10th, we had arrested 19 Arab men who the FBI said were planning to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, what would the left have said?"

Well the thing of it is, nobody would have said much of anything. The dog that didn't bite just isn't news. Even to this day it really hasn't sunk into my brain that the so-called Millenium Bomb plot was foiled, and it isn't because that would be to give credit where due to Clinton, or whoever. I don't think the prevention of that plot has seeped into anyone's mind, left or right. Or the terrorists convicted in NY of plans to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, etc.

Before 9/11 we just weren't on war footing. Should we have been? Yes. Could Clinton (or other presidents, Carter, whoever) have made us realize we needed to be? Maybe, but they didn't. Does Bush get it? Yes.

But my lingering question (my tagline not withstanding) is DO the American people get it?

Notice how the author waits until the next to the last paragraph to mention "and there was a real effort to track down and destroy the Qaeda network". This was Condi's point about how the administration rejected the fifth nebulous "strategy" of Clarke / Clinton and moved from rolling back AlQ to destroying AlQ.

While there is some truth to what the author is saying, why does everyone think that there cannot be concurrent efforts? Deal with China while pressuring rogue states AND actively trying to destroy AlQ. Sounds pretty nuanced to me.

Nice points, Peach.

This article suffers from its own mindset. One that it shares with the 9/11 commission, the press, and unfortunately the democratic and republican campaigns alike. Guess what folks - 9/11 was a blip. Imagine suitcase nukes in place in 20 major cities, instead of 4 jumbo jets hitting a few targets. Imagine that on the first night of a terror campaign we loose 4 major cities - then they demand that we scuttle two aircraft carrier groups. I don't mean to sound like Tom Clancy, but you get the picture don't you. Our government policies didn't suffer complete failure on 9/11. Sorry, family members of 9/11 victims. State sponsorship or involvement almost guarantees WMD in the hands of the terrorists.

"In the end, the 9/11 hearings are likely to find that the intelligence failure that led to the horrific attacks stemmed from the longstanding problems of wrongly placed agents, failed communications between government departments and lack of resources. But it was also a failure of vision — one for which the current administration must take responsibility."

There is backpedling going on this weekend, albeit still critical of this Administration. I smell something in the wind that is going to take down Clark and the media's obsession with him. Hmmmmm.....

"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always"
-IRA statement to Thatcher govt after Brighton bomb, 1984

It is the nature of counter-terrorism that you must either fight a perpetual defensive war, with the full knowledge that you will not be "lucky always" - Or you must take the offensive, and act preemptively.

Anybody want to venture a guess what the reaction would have been by the dems and those who are trying to lay culpability for 9/11 at the feet of the Bush Administration, if, in February of 2001, the President Bush had announced that they were invading Afghanistan in the name of preempting potential terrorist attacks later in the year?

Yeah, I'm sure the NYT, the Washington Post, and John Kerry would have all rallied behind that initiative...
/sarcasm

"These newspapers, owned and edited by these men, although free from the repulsive vulgarity of the yellow press, were susceptible to influence by the priviledged interests, and were almost or quite as hostile to manliness as they were to unrefined vice...they favored the removal of tariff on works of art; they favored all the proper (and even more strongly all the improper) movements for international peace and arbitration; in short, they favored all good, and many goody-goody, measures so long as they did not cut deep into social wrong or make demands on National and individual virility. They opposed, or were lukewarm about, efforts to build up the army and the navy, for they were not sensitive concerning National honor; and, above all, they opposed every non-milk-and-water effort, however sane, to change our social and economic system in such a fashion as to substitute the ideal justice towards all for the ideal of kindly charity from the favored few to the possibly grateful many."
- Theodore Roosevelt

But my lingering question (my tagline not withstanding) is DO the American people get it?

I don't think they do.

My son had to give a speech in class about a political candidate. He chose Bush, of course, LOL, and had as one of his talking points the fact that the economy was rebounding.

Then he used Clinton's "it's the economy stupid" quote, but used it to lead the listener to the fact that if another terrorist attack happens, the economy will be down the tubes again, so the only real issue is the WOT.

His professor, (who told the class he hates Bush, such unbiased education in college these days, LOL) gave him an A+ and wrote on his paper that his economy argument was a strong persuasive point.

Could it be that this professor had never logically thought through the issue before? It appears that way.

The same thing they are saying about Iraq.

All these "should have done something" people don't even know what we should have done.

Should we have done something offensive? Maybe, but without 9-11 there would have been no support. Defensive? How?

It's just like Iraq. If Iraq had been left alone and leashed some kind of attack, there would have been far more ammo to attack the administration on "should have done something" grounds.

Yet all these whiners in these stupid hearings which I refuse to watch don't even think that far.

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had invaded Afghanistan before 9-11...We were saved from a major PR blunder by our own incompetence

Although I agree we would have suffered a PR setback, I don't think such considerations should deter our political leadership from taking the necessary actions to protect our citizens at home and abroad. That's the mantra of the Clintonistas like Alrbight and Berger, i.e., we didn't have the support from abroad or domestically to take such actions.

In his testimony before the Commission, Rumsfeld said we would have taken action against the Taliban and AQ even if 9/11 did not happen. The comprehensive strategy and plan to deal with AQ was signed on September 10. The Bush administration did not want to retaliate for the USS Cole using the pinprick of missiles launched at training camps. Clinton had 4 months to respond to the USS Cole and did nothing because the proof was not definitive that AQ did it, which is laughable given the prior attacks. Besides, the embassy bombings were sufficient enough.

From a practical and logistical standpoint, it would have been very difficult for the Bush Administration to act immediately on taking office. Anyone who has worked in the federal government during a change in administrations knows that it takes 4 to 5 months to transition to the new team. The fact that we were able to respond so quickly after 9/11 is testimony to the fact that a plan was already in place and just needed to be implemented. That is the Bush legacy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.