Why Nobody Saw 9/11 Coming

NYT ^ | 3/27/04 | PETER R. NEUMAN

[headsonpikes]

Good post.

[Just mythoughts]

New York Times still in love with communists, worship that "system" of "we are gods".

[Desdemona]

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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

[vharlow]

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.

[DoctorMichael]

".....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.

[Capt. Tom]

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

[kabar]

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.

[jocon307]

"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?

[NonValueAdded]

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.

[dawn53]

Never thought it through like that, you're exactly right. It happens all the time in Israel. Terrorist attacks are blamed on Israeli retailiation for terrorist attacks. It's a vicious circle.

[reed_inthe_wind]

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.

[OpusatFR]

"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.....

[LouD]

"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

[Dog Anchor]

"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

[dawn53]

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.

[an amused spectator]

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

And an excellent example of this quote by Denis Boyle (NRO) "... but then the French press isn't as French as the New York Times, where every page is drenched in rich nuance."

[altura]

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.

[kabar]

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.

[Plumrodimus]

Why Nobody Saw 9/11 Coming?

The Congressional Task Force on Terrorism was aware over ten years ago that Islamic terrorists were planning to crash airplanes into skyscrapers in the United States (Target America by Yossef Bodansky, 1993).