Posted on 06/19/2004 4:27:19 AM PDT by kattracks
THE TERRORIST ATTACKS of 9/11 — self-evidently — signaled the worst intelligence failure in American history. Less well understood: They also signaled the worst policy failure.
For more than two decades, extremist ideologies within the troubled Islamic world gathered strength. On campuses and in Washington think tanks, most “experts” either misunderstood radical Islamism or underestimated the terrorist threat it posed. “Experts” in the Foreign Service prescribed only weak broths as remedies. Such failures should be prompting re-examinations within the foreign-policy community. Evidence that is not happening is the formation of a group calling itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.
The name is misleading: First, only a few of the 26 signatories have military backgrounds and most of those long ago joined the civilian foreign-policy establishment. (For instance, Stansfield Turner, though a retired admiral, is best remembered as President Carter’s CIA director.)
Second, these folks are not exactly in favor of policy change. They were among the architects of the policies that led to 9/11. They seem furious that President Bush decided, following 9/11, to change U.S. policy. They are outraged that Bush’s new policies have “strained” relations with such “traditional allies” as France and Belgium.
Let me be clear: Members of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are patriots who worked hard, assumed risks and meant well. But until and unless they acknowledge their past errors of judgment — errors that enabled terrorism to grow and prosper — one has to conclude that they are in denial. For example, there are currently 18,000 trained al Qaeda terrorists around the world, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Most of them learned their craft in Afghanistan in the 1990s. (Others probably trained in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.)
President Clinton’s policy advisers developed no strategy to infiltrate or shut these training camps; no plan to track the terrorists after they graduated. On the contrary, during the 1990s, intelligence budgets were repeatedly cut, and Special Forces — Delta, Rangers, SEALs, Marine Recon, CIA paramilitaries — were not expanded.
What were the “experts” thinking? Did they reason that the newly trained terrorists might attack Russians in Chechnya, Hindus in Kashmir or Jews in Israel — but surely not Americans at home and abroad? Or think back to 1979, when America’s diplomats in Tehran were seized by militant Islamists and held for 444 days. Carter launched an abortive rescue mission.
Such failures might have prompted Carter to dramatically strengthen America’s military and covert capabilities. But Carter — advised by Stansfield Turner as his intelligence chief — had significantly weakened those disciplines. He had fired 25 percent of U.S. intelligence operatives — including skilled covert operators. “I believe that emboldened terrorist groups,” said one of those whom Carter dismissed. “You may remember that the government outlawed ‘assassinations.’ So, the government did not need a group of espionage agents that were trained to operate in the field, in ‘denied’ areas, in official and non-official cover positions, to engage in active espionage warfare with communists, terrorists and left-wing governments.”
Democrats were not alone in misjudging the dangers of radical Islam. In 1982, Hezbollah suicide-terrorists killed over 250 Americans in Beirut. President Reagan’s response was to pull out of Lebanon. And after the 1991 Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush left Saddam Hussein in power, despite the fact that Saddam had been attempting to develop nuclear weapons, had used chemical weapons as part of a genocidal assault on the Kurds and attempted to wipe Kuwait off the map.
For world-weary diplomats, such crimes did not warrant anything as drastic as Saddam’s eviction from his palaces. Besides, “experts” predicted that Saddam’s defeat in the Gulf War would cause Iraqis to depose him on their own. Wrong again. Two years later, in Mogadishu, al Qaeda-trained terrorists again made Americans flee, reinforcing the perception of Osama bin Laden that America is weak and could be defeated by an adversary bold enough to try.
Even if members of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change cannot bring themselves to criticize their past efforts, one might expect them at least to offer some new ideas, strategies and policies. They have not. They also missed the fact that the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, is advocating policies for Iraq and the broader war on terrorism that are nearly identical with those of President Bush. (In fairness to Kerry, Bush has moved closer to him on such issues as U.N. involvement.)
The retired diplomats don’t explicitly endorse Kerry, but they do call for “the defeat of the administration,” which they apparently regard as a cleverly ambiguous turn of phrase. One has to suspect that what these people really want is a return to policies that did not ruffle feathers in parts of the world where they have friends and summer homes, parts of the world that have rarely made a stand against despots but do boast superior food and wine.
How disloyal, it must seem to them, to abandon long-held policies simply because those policies have failed.
Let’s concede that the antiterrorism policies put in place post-9/11 may not be the best policies America could have. Let’s encourage criticism and fresh approaches. But let’s agree as well that America’s pre-9/11 policies were not just feckless but catastrophic.
To say that those who designed and implemented them bear much of the blame is undiplomatic — but it is the only response one can have to proponents of the status quo ante who falsely proclaim themselves agents of change.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
It's easy to see from this article why Mr. May is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times. I don't imagine the editors at the NYT much apprechiated him spewing the truth all over the place.
Excellent response !
I've been reading the headline about "the brave 26" for about a month now on the AP stories menu-meaning they are doing their best to keep criticism of the present administration on the front burner-everywhere.
Cliff was having it out over the Al Queda/ Iraq tie with a mouthy lib on CNN, I believe after the Commission findings and distortions were printed.
It seems that any organization who uses "for Change" in their title is signalling their leftist orientation.
Good rebuttal to the list of 26.
"One has to suspect that what these people really want is a return to policies that did not ruffle feathers in parts of the world where they have friends and summer homes, parts of the world that have rarely made a stand against despots but do boast superior food and wine."
So why on earth does he say they are patriots? If they put the interests of other "parts of the world" over those of the United States, they may be soliders and they may be diplomats, but they sure are hell aren't patriots.
And, as May himself explains, it seems that what they are is a bunch of miserable failures. And let's remember, it is from these ranks that Kerry will staff his administration, should we all be so unlucky that he gets that chance.
Just the fact that Stansfield Turner is on the list means one has to read no further. The only dumber man in the Carter Administration was Carter himself. He was the Director who determined we no longer needed HUMINT collection and could rely on technical means. The CIA is only now recovering.
I've never seen the left go to such extremes to win an election. Well, actually, they did the same thing to Reagan. It's proof positive Bush is a strong leader, otherwise they wouldn't hate him so much.
As many of you know, I'm a serving Foreign Service officer. I disassociate myself completely from the position of the retired FSOs and generals quoted in the story. I can also tell you that, believe it or not, there are many of my colleagues who feel exactly as I do: that President Bush's bold anti-terrorism campaign is exactly what's needed. We're just thankful that Bush was president when 9/11 occurred.
So am I. I am comforted that you are representing the United States of America's interests!
I am glad you are supporting the WOT and President Bush as that is supporting my liberty and safety as well as that of my country's.
The US has to get tougher and less humane in dealing with the bad people. At the same time we have to be benevolent to the good, the poor, the oppressed especially where the bad people reign. We must be seen as liberators because we are!
The image of the US military must remain invincible as both a force and right down to the individual in uniform - a person of great strength, high morals, doing only good, destroying evil.
Diplomats must support America, not put it down. Any publicly disloyal statements must end the career, permanently. You can argue a position only until the decision is made, then you must support it. Project a united front for the United States.
FYI
We should have gone into Afghanistan after the first hit on US soil...The FIRST hit in 1993 on THE TWIN TOWERS.
We knew damn well who did it.
"The retired diplomats don’t explicitly endorse Kerry, but they do call for “the defeat of the administration,” which they apparently regard as a cleverly ambiguous turn of phrase. One has to suspect that what these people really want is a return to policies that did not ruffle feathers in parts of the world where they have friends and summer homes, parts of the world that have rarely made a stand against despots but do boast superior food and wine. "
The more equal animals squeal like stuck pigs. Poop on them and their self interests.
I think alot of the blame for today's terrorism can be laid at Jimmy Carter's feet for having shown weakness and ineptitude in Iran. This message wasn't missed by the Soviets who later launched thier adventure into Afghanistan. Carter's response? "We won't play in your olympics".
"We knew damn well who did it."
And Clinton never even came to NYC. But I blame the right wing too. We held Clinton's feet to the fire over the wrong things. I hope we don't make that mistake again. The roaring 90s, we were ALL at the party. That party ended 9-11-01. But the clean up is going to take a very long time.
Thanks for posting it!
Kattracks posted it...I saw you on that thread on this subject and thought you would enjoy it.
That old troll who posted the other thread got whacked/banned in about 15 minutes after I sent out the troll alert.
Any list with the traitor Stansfield Turner on the list, is a list of anti American Traitors.
I agree.
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.