Call Off the Dogs

When I teach strategy, a topic that deals largely with the future, I frequently refer to Ambrose Bierce's observation that "it is the unexpected that occurs... it is also the unlikely — one might almost say the impossible." Predictions rarely come true, despite the best efforts of deep thinkers everywhere. And the maddening thing is that in retrospect, events all seem so obvious, so foreseeable, so inevitable. Once the veil of ignorance is lifted, it is hard to remember what it was like not knowing. Some fool themselves into thinking they could have known all along.

I thought about this this week as a feeding frenzy erupted over the news that the president had received word of a possible al Qaeda hijacking plot a month before the Sept. 11 attack. "BUSH KNEW" the New York Post headline screamed — the more staid Times fronting with "Bush Was Warned Bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes" — the ever-reliable Washington Post offering the more accurate "Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers: Aug Report Had No Details on Sept Plot." The story, which by now most people know: Last August 6, in a routine daily intelligence briefing, the commander in chief was told that al Qaeda might try to hijack some aircraft. No dates, targets, or methods were mentioned. The appropriate authorities were notified to be on alert. Not much of a story for the kind of reaction it got. Then again, who reads Ambrose Bierce these days?

Al Qaeda took us by surprise. No one likes surprise, but it is a fact of life. The responsible reaction is to figure out what gaps the adversary exploited and close them. But the current working premise seems to be that al Qaeda should not have been able to surprise us, and the August 6 briefing "proved" that they didn't. Yesterday the politicians and press were seized with perfect hindsight. Why weren't the dots connected? If the president knew, why wasn't this prevented? And the truly irrelevant question: Why did it take eight months to learn about that routine briefing? The president's critics finally have an issue, or so they think

It is critical to understand the difference between information (the dots) and intelligence (the act of connecting them). Analysis is an art form, and intellectual process, a means of looking at a body of information and extracting important patterns based on a set of premises and objectives. Often the dots do not seem to connect, or only connect when forced to by reasonable inferences (sometimes called WAGs, or "wild-ass guesses"). Sometimes they connect easily, but erroneously. They are not numbered like pictures in a children's book. It is the job of the analyst to use his judgment to figure out what the mass of dots really mean. It is not a foolproof or objective process.

The dots themselves can be tricky. Frequently they include bits of information from informants. In that case, analysts have to make all kinds of judgment calls. Who is the source? Is the source credible, and if so how credible? Has the source supplied information in the past, and if so, how good was it? If this all adds up to a threat, how grave is it? How precisely can it be predicted? Who should be warned? Is it worth alarming the public? There are many judgment calls to make, none of them with obvious answers. Note that worldwide alerts were issued in January, May, and July of 2001, though nothing happened — or at least no plan was successfully carried out. And in August the president did raise a flag though channels, though not publicly.

Some have averred that the very mention of hijacking in the briefing should have brought swift action, at the very least warning the public about this grave danger. However, before Sept. 11, hijacking was not perceived in the same way as it is today. Ari Fleischer made a very important point when he stated that the term hijack "might as well be a different word in a different language from what we have all unfortunately come to know about the post-9/11 world." Again, hindsight: Should the analysts have known all the implications of a hijacking? Well it would have been nice, but most intelligence analysts were focusing on weapons-of-mass destruction scenarios because they were seen as the most likely means of producing the kind of carnage witnessed in New York and Washington. The FBI agent who was writing prescient case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui was the exception — and as we know, his analysis did not register.

But once an event happens and it all seems preordained, the dots connect themselves. It no longer takes a specialist to analyze the unknown — practically anyone is free to state the obvious as though it always had been. This is the problem with hindsight — you can instantly sift through the information and apply it in a way an analyst would love to do if he only had a time machine.

So what exactly did the president know on August 6? That a terrorist group with a history of violence against the United States was believed to be about to undertake the latest in a series of suspected operations. What did he do? He put law-enforcement authorities on alert. Seems reasonable to me. Now enter speculation and the question what should have happened. Enter journalists, pundits, politicians, and other non-specialists trying to answer this counterfactual and intrinsically unanswerable question with full benefit of hindsight. Enter people without with limited (if any) intelligence background saying these circumstances are "troubling" and "raise questions" and are cause for "grave concern" and other Washington-isms designed to sow doubt and confusion without evidence or accountability. It is an intellectually dishonest process. In time of war, it is demented.

"A sniff of politics?" It reeks. Once congressional committees begin sifting through information, I am sure they will find all kinds of interesting tidbits which, taken out of context, will prove some point or other. I'm awaiting the first use of the expression "smoking gun" — ABC's Charles Gibson has already treated the public to "what did the president know and when did he know it?" (Get some new material guys, Nixon is long gone.) Every agenda will be pursued, from the crackpot to the merely partisan, to, perhaps, sincere attempts to reform the way of doing business in the intelligence community. This could be an opportunity to repair the damage done in the 1970s in the wake of the Church/Pike hearings, in which our intelligence services were eviscerated, and cooperation between the intelligence agencies was made illegal. Or, it could turn into a replay of that unfortunate spectacle. Mining the reams of data that the hearings will subpoena will give the politicians something to talk about and appear relevant — give the Democrats an issue to use in place of an actual policy agenda — give the press dramatic things to report — and give pundits endless opportunities for mischief. Meanwhile our intelligence community will carry on its largely excellent work to the best of its ability, and our president will continue to prosecute the war, if he is allowed to.

Excellent, thoughtful and logical piece.

The president's critics finally have an issue, or so they think.

This is the real issue. Democrats have seen every attempt to attack and diminish or politically harm the president come to utter failure. They know that President Bush acted correctly and showed excellent leadership on September 11th and ever since. His September 20th speech was masterful, cementing his place in Presidential history and our military actions in Afghanistan put deeds to words. Americans approved and felt confident that they had a real leader. A good man, friendly and near-average in many respects but able to take charge, use his excellent serior staff and accomplish the necessary goals in fighting terrorism, minus the tawdry scandals and endless posing and spinning of the Clinton years

Now, the Democrats, having willingly lowered themselves collectively to Clinton's level and seeming to like the neighborhood down there, are attempting to 'Nixon-ize' George W. Bush. This attempt will also utterly fail and possibly backfire. Americans like Bush and can see that he is no Clinton; blaming others for every mistake and passing the buck whenever confronted with something unpleasant. Bush is a leader, not a poser.

On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a vague and general warning about terrorists possibly planning to hijack a plane. The president put the proper agencies on warning. No knowledge of using the hijacked plane(s) as missiles was ever mentioned or probably thought of at the time, as the article notes. No probable dates, no specifics were given. It's all 20/20 hindsight and with no basis for the screaming headlines and finger pointing going on.

Americans are not as stupid as the media assumes. The evidence is clear. This is political grandstanding and a media feeding frenzy but without any meat to feed on. It gets old fast with no evidence, no substance to the story. Even the Democrats are backing off, fearing the voter backlash from being seen as attempting to smear a popular president with lies and contrived accusations baased on speculation and Monday-morning quarterbacking.

The liberal media is shooting itself in the foot by trumpting this non-story endlessly. Bush acted properly. What he knew a month before September 11th was of little use in preventing the September 11th attacks and it's obvious to eveyone but liberal Bush-haters and the media.

Let them howl. This will simply help to further open the eyes of the public to the strong, leftist-driven media bias against Bush and Republicans and the Democrat's desperation and shallowness.

The best way to handle this is for Republicans to align behind the same four messages:

1) We can not explain the failure of the previous administration to act when they were directly advised on possible attacks. Or when OBL was directly offered for capture by the Sudan government. (provide further details)

2) We can not explain why individuals appointed during the previous administration did not pass on critical information that would have been useful in decision making to the President when he took office. We will investigate this selective and apparently politically motivated, lapes in judgement.

3) The breifing received by the President was so vague as to only indicate possibilities. An advisement that some organization is planning at some time to attack a US interest somewhere in the world or hijack a US plane is of little practical use.

4) The Congress was given the same level of information as was received by the President. Apparently, these highly classified reports which contain sensitive intelligence is being leaked to the press and might jeprodize the lives of intelligence officers. Such leaks violate the National Security Act and will be investigated as well. This should have the Dems backtraking in a couple of days.

"I frequently refer to Ambrose Bierce's observation that "it is the unexpected that occurs..."

Off topic (a bit). I have had to explain several times to persons with PhDs that one cannot replace testing of engineering systems by simulation.

The dream, you see, is simulating failures. Simulation is much cheaper and faster than testing, goes the 'reasoning'.

This is impossible.

Failures you foresee are designed against. The failure that bites is always one you did not foresee.

Such failures can only be revealed by test.

Were we angels, our devices would always be perfect. No "safety factors" would be needed. A safety factor is the result of human fallibility.

Amazing that this has to be recited to so many learned men, full of dreams of simulation.

--Boris

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.