A Response To: "President Says He Had No Foreknowledge of 9/11"
Read This First ---------> Editorial Link
I think one of the biggest problems many people are having with the issues before the 9/11 Commission, and by extension their judgment of the Bush Administration, is that many are getting wrapped around the axel of the process and whether the Bush Administration is trying to hide something. In my opinion the only thing the Bush Administration is trying to hide from is political embarrassment stemming from the fact that their own hubris towards anything "Clintonian" and their own inability to lead this country in the direction of their vision, or any vision for that matter, caused them to NOT place terrorism of the kind implemented on 9/11within the Top 5 of their priority list. The reality is that they probably DIDN'T know about the attack, but that's not to say the information wasn't there or they aren’t at fault for missing it. Therein lies the real source of embarrassment and also the real problem.
If we take the President's word at face value, then it begs the obvious question, "Why didn't he know?"
There are only a few possible reasons:
A) The information did not exist and therefore no amount of effort, to include grand strategies and policies, would have mattered.
This simply is not a possibility as there is more than enough evidence that various agencies had different pieces of the puzzle, i.e. known suspects in the country, suspects taking flight training, increased chatter, old evidence that it was tactic under consideration, etc.
B) The information existed in bits and pieces and these pieces simply were not put together and communicated to the appropriate people.
This is more likely, but may only be part of the issue, albeit a large part. If there is truth to this, and there seems to be, then it begs the question, "Why couldn't the pieces be put together?" Well, having served in the Intelligence Community as a consultant, I can tell you that there are a myriad of disconnects that can allow such information to languish and remain unconnected for days, weeks, months or even years. This subject is one that needs its own commission and years of work, and enormous amounts of political will, to fix. But, this issue speaks directly to why Richard Clarke's insistence on meeting with the "Principals" was so important. The Principals were the ONLY ones authorized to know EVERYTHING within their particular area of the Intelligence Community. By putting the principals in a single room in order to discuss a single topic one sets the stage to circumvent the bureaucratic maze that creates the stovepipes that are the root of all intelligence disconnects. Having this meeting, facilitated by a single-minded anti-terrorist expert, would have been the ONLY tool available, given the current state of the intelligence community, which could have possibly "connected the dots". THIS IS WHY THE PRINCIPALS MEETING WAS SO IMPORTANT! Without it, there really was no way to put it all together. Richard Clarke knew this and the hubris of the Bush Administration blew it off.
C) The information existed and it was either ignored or misunderstood.
This is also likely a piece of the puzzle, although not as large. There is ample evidence that the President was briefed continuously on "intelligence matters", many of which concerned terrorism. However, there is also ample evidence that direction the Bush Administration was heading was one of ballistic missile defense and more strategic approaches to combating what amounted to tactical level terrorism. This means that either the President and his staff were not getting good intelligence or they were ignoring or misinterpreting the intelligence they were getting. There seems to be some evidence in regards to the line of reasoning that they misinterpreted or ignored what they were getting. Three books, "The Age of Sacred Terror", "Against All Enemies", and "The Price of Loyalty" all speak to the machinations of policy development and information distribution, as well as outright hubris, within the current administration. Reading between the lines one can see that this administration, and in particular the head, led by edict and visionary belief. Basically, they have a staff of like-minded believers and “subject matter experts” that are responsible for implementing policy based on the edicts passed down from above. While this isn't necessarily a bad way to lead, delegation is, after all, a key to good leadership, it must be accompanied with appropriate context, intent and follow up to ensure that the orders aren't carried out in a vacuum or for the sake of showing effort as a replacement for progress. Without the proper intent or goal communicated, most will try to accomplish the letter of the tasking instead of the spirit. If you don’t know the end state to be reached, how can you reach it? And, if the leader doesn’t know the end state to be reached, how can it be properly communicated in the first place? Better to show effort in the absence of direction then to ask for direction, no?
If this is the case, we must ask ourselves, "Was the intent clearly conveyed?" If it was, then the Bush Administration is guilty of not following up on its edicts - something the Washington Post is currently writing about. If it wasn't, then the Bush Administration is guilty of blindly passing out edicts without actually providing direction in the form of intent or actual measurable goals. Either way, it seems like a very poor approach to problems that can affect the country as a whole, say like global terrorism. Now, add to this the fact that they didn’t have, ignored or misunderstood what the Intelligence Community was saying and you have a very detailed and succinct recipe for disaster. Without this knowledge, how could they possibly communicate a clear end state? Sure, they created a policy, but to what end?
Conclusion:
Did the Bush Administration KNOW 9/11 was going to happen? Almost definitely not, and to think otherwise draws attention away from the real issue. The real issue is why they didn't know or have a better idea it was going to happen. The answer I think is a mixture of both B and C above:
- They did NOT have a counter-terrorism policy of their own in place (they admit they were developing one - they say a better one).
- They downgraded the position of the only real expert with any continuity on the subject because they distained anything connected to President Clinton (Hubris).
- They terminated the only mechanism available to work around the bureaucratic maze that is the current Intelligence Community, i.e. they disbanded the "Principal's Meeting" (Again, hubris).
- The counter-terrorism policy was based on an ideological "vision" that was not consistent with the threat, i.e. missile defense vs. tactical counter terrorism (they either ignored the briefings they were getting or misinterpreted them).
- The policies they were pursuing were either implemented wrongly or were wrong to begin with (lack of clear communication of intent and/or lack of follow up).
All of the above speaks to one thing and one thing only, lack of good leadership. Regardless of whether the neo-conservative ideology the Bush Administration, et al, promotes and pursues is correct, with regards to counter-terrorism, the creation and implementation of policy was poorly led and implemented. People point to the President's actions after 9/11 as an example of his leadership ability. This is an intellectual slight of hand at best. 9/11 clearly delineated what needed to be done in regards to global terrorism. With our military might even Michael Dukakis would have done the "right" thing when an enemy has been so bold as to stand up and go toe to toe with us. With that said, the Bush Administration has even managed to screw up the War On Terrorism as well with his clearly miscalculated foray into Iraq that has exhausted our military and wasted national resources on a venture with little or no return with regards to countering global terrorism.
THIS is why the Bush Administration is attacking Richard Clarke and his mild accusations with such vigor. They don't want people to start looking too closely as they will figure out the greatest lie of all, this administration offers nothing beyond ideological faith and resulting vision. Just look at the "No Child Left Behind" initiative, the "Faith Based Charities & Services" initiatives, the "Energy Policy" initiatives, etc., etc., etc. With each book and each revelation the onion is peeled a little more and when the onion is peeled back far enough, there will be nothing there. Much like the vacuous leadership of the Bush Administration. If the one thing the administration can point to, “war time leadership”, is tarnished, there will be nothing left to promote.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Read This First ---------> Editorial Link
I think one of the biggest problems many people are having with the issues before the 9/11 Commission, and by extension their judgment of the Bush Administration, is that many are getting wrapped around the axel of the process and whether the Bush Administration is trying to hide something. In my opinion the only thing the Bush Administration is trying to hide from is political embarrassment stemming from the fact that their own hubris towards anything "Clintonian" and their own inability to lead this country in the direction of their vision, or any vision for that matter, caused them to NOT place terrorism of the kind implemented on 9/11within the Top 5 of their priority list. The reality is that they probably DIDN'T know about the attack, but that's not to say the information wasn't there or they aren’t at fault for missing it. Therein lies the real source of embarrassment and also the real problem.
If we take the President's word at face value, then it begs the obvious question, "Why didn't he know?"
There are only a few possible reasons:
A) The information did not exist and therefore no amount of effort, to include grand strategies and policies, would have mattered.
This simply is not a possibility as there is more than enough evidence that various agencies had different pieces of the puzzle, i.e. known suspects in the country, suspects taking flight training, increased chatter, old evidence that it was tactic under consideration, etc.
B) The information existed in bits and pieces and these pieces simply were not put together and communicated to the appropriate people.
This is more likely, but may only be part of the issue, albeit a large part. If there is truth to this, and there seems to be, then it begs the question, "Why couldn't the pieces be put together?" Well, having served in the Intelligence Community as a consultant, I can tell you that there are a myriad of disconnects that can allow such information to languish and remain unconnected for days, weeks, months or even years. This subject is one that needs its own commission and years of work, and enormous amounts of political will, to fix. But, this issue speaks directly to why Richard Clarke's insistence on meeting with the "Principals" was so important. The Principals were the ONLY ones authorized to know EVERYTHING within their particular area of the Intelligence Community. By putting the principals in a single room in order to discuss a single topic one sets the stage to circumvent the bureaucratic maze that creates the stovepipes that are the root of all intelligence disconnects. Having this meeting, facilitated by a single-minded anti-terrorist expert, would have been the ONLY tool available, given the current state of the intelligence community, which could have possibly "connected the dots". THIS IS WHY THE PRINCIPALS MEETING WAS SO IMPORTANT! Without it, there really was no way to put it all together. Richard Clarke knew this and the hubris of the Bush Administration blew it off.
C) The information existed and it was either ignored or misunderstood.
This is also likely a piece of the puzzle, although not as large. There is ample evidence that the President was briefed continuously on "intelligence matters", many of which concerned terrorism. However, there is also ample evidence that direction the Bush Administration was heading was one of ballistic missile defense and more strategic approaches to combating what amounted to tactical level terrorism. This means that either the President and his staff were not getting good intelligence or they were ignoring or misinterpreting the intelligence they were getting. There seems to be some evidence in regards to the line of reasoning that they misinterpreted or ignored what they were getting. Three books, "The Age of Sacred Terror", "Against All Enemies", and "The Price of Loyalty" all speak to the machinations of policy development and information distribution, as well as outright hubris, within the current administration. Reading between the lines one can see that this administration, and in particular the head, led by edict and visionary belief. Basically, they have a staff of like-minded believers and “subject matter experts” that are responsible for implementing policy based on the edicts passed down from above. While this isn't necessarily a bad way to lead, delegation is, after all, a key to good leadership, it must be accompanied with appropriate context, intent and follow up to ensure that the orders aren't carried out in a vacuum or for the sake of showing effort as a replacement for progress. Without the proper intent or goal communicated, most will try to accomplish the letter of the tasking instead of the spirit. If you don’t know the end state to be reached, how can you reach it? And, if the leader doesn’t know the end state to be reached, how can it be properly communicated in the first place? Better to show effort in the absence of direction then to ask for direction, no?
If this is the case, we must ask ourselves, "Was the intent clearly conveyed?" If it was, then the Bush Administration is guilty of not following up on its edicts - something the Washington Post is currently writing about. If it wasn't, then the Bush Administration is guilty of blindly passing out edicts without actually providing direction in the form of intent or actual measurable goals. Either way, it seems like a very poor approach to problems that can affect the country as a whole, say like global terrorism. Now, add to this the fact that they didn’t have, ignored or misunderstood what the Intelligence Community was saying and you have a very detailed and succinct recipe for disaster. Without this knowledge, how could they possibly communicate a clear end state? Sure, they created a policy, but to what end?
Conclusion:
Did the Bush Administration KNOW 9/11 was going to happen? Almost definitely not, and to think otherwise draws attention away from the real issue. The real issue is why they didn't know or have a better idea it was going to happen. The answer I think is a mixture of both B and C above:
- They did NOT have a counter-terrorism policy of their own in place (they admit they were developing one - they say a better one).
- They downgraded the position of the only real expert with any continuity on the subject because they distained anything connected to President Clinton (Hubris).
- They terminated the only mechanism available to work around the bureaucratic maze that is the current Intelligence Community, i.e. they disbanded the "Principal's Meeting" (Again, hubris).
- The counter-terrorism policy was based on an ideological "vision" that was not consistent with the threat, i.e. missile defense vs. tactical counter terrorism (they either ignored the briefings they were getting or misinterpreted them).
- The policies they were pursuing were either implemented wrongly or were wrong to begin with (lack of clear communication of intent and/or lack of follow up).
All of the above speaks to one thing and one thing only, lack of good leadership. Regardless of whether the neo-conservative ideology the Bush Administration, et al, promotes and pursues is correct, with regards to counter-terrorism, the creation and implementation of policy was poorly led and implemented. People point to the President's actions after 9/11 as an example of his leadership ability. This is an intellectual slight of hand at best. 9/11 clearly delineated what needed to be done in regards to global terrorism. With our military might even Michael Dukakis would have done the "right" thing when an enemy has been so bold as to stand up and go toe to toe with us. With that said, the Bush Administration has even managed to screw up the War On Terrorism as well with his clearly miscalculated foray into Iraq that has exhausted our military and wasted national resources on a venture with little or no return with regards to countering global terrorism.
THIS is why the Bush Administration is attacking Richard Clarke and his mild accusations with such vigor. They don't want people to start looking too closely as they will figure out the greatest lie of all, this administration offers nothing beyond ideological faith and resulting vision. Just look at the "No Child Left Behind" initiative, the "Faith Based Charities & Services" initiatives, the "Energy Policy" initiatives, etc., etc., etc. With each book and each revelation the onion is peeled a little more and when the onion is peeled back far enough, there will be nothing there. Much like the vacuous leadership of the Bush Administration. If the one thing the administration can point to, “war time leadership”, is tarnished, there will be nothing left to promote.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
posted by Mike at 3:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home