Posted on 09/18/2001 4:50:17 AM PDT by Liz
We know now that America has been the victim of a large, well-planned, and well-executed terrorist act. The parameters are yet to be fully explored, but that won't stop the usual suspects from pontificating (and, yes, that includes me) on what happened and what needs to be done as a result. A few modest observations:
• As I write this we only know the rough outlines of what has taken place. We do not know exactly who the perpetrators were, though we have heard from Vice President Dick Cheney that there is "no question" that Osama bin Laden had a role. But many groups may have been involved, and we do not know their motivation, or for whom or for what particular objective they worked.
• "Don't know" means "don't know" and nothing more. Absent hard information, talking about who it must have been and what we need to do about it is a waste of air and energy.
To discern the important facts, we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation as our principal investigative agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency (along with National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency) as our principal foreign-intelligence services. Getting the most important information is their job, not the job of the news media, which will only repeat what they are told. Gathering this information will take time, because we need to get it right.
• Terrorism is a political act, performed for political objectives. The general aim of terrorism is to force changes in the targeted society through the shock value of the crime committed. Therefore, if we make radical changes in how our country operates, the bad guys win. We do not want that to happen.
Whoever planned this operation is watching us right now, and they are probably having a pretty good laugh. We can't stop that. What we can do is to maintain that which they most hate, which is a free society. We've worked too hard to become what we are, and we can't allow a few savages to change it for us.
Next, our job is to take a step back, take a deep breath and get to work finding out who it was, where they are, and what to do about it.
Terrorism is a crime under the civil law when committed by domestic terrorists; it can be an act of war when committed by foreigners. For domestic criminals we have the FBI and police. For acts of war we have our intelligence community and the military. In either case we have well-trained people to do the work. If we let them do their job, and give them the support they need, the job will get done as reliably as gravity.
The foreign-source option seems the most likely at this time. The first line of defense in such a case is the intelligence community. The CIA is an agency of about 18,000 employees, of whom perhaps 800 are field-intelligence officers--that is, the people who go out on the street and learn what people are thinking, not how many tanks they have parked outside (we have satellites to photograph those).
I've been saying for a lot of years that this number is too small. American society doesn't love its CIA, for the same reason that it doesn't always love its cops. We too often regard them as a threat to ourselves rather than our enemies. Perhaps these incidents will make us rethink that.
The best defense against terrorist incidents is to prevent them from happening. You do that by finding out what a potential enemy is thinking before he is able to act. What the field intelligence officers do is no different from what Special Agent Joe Pistone of the FBI did when he infiltrated the mafia under the cover name of Donnie Brasco. The purpose of these operations is to find out what people are thinking and talking about. However good your satellites are, they cannot see inside a human head. Only people can go and do that.
But America, and especially the American news media, does not love the CIA in general and the field spooks in particular. As recently as two weeks ago, CBS's "60 Minutes" regaled us with the hoary old chestnut about how the CIA undermined the leftist government of Chile three decades ago. The effect of this media coverage, always solicitous to leftist governments, is to brand the CIA an antiprogressive agency that does Bad Things.
In fact, the CIA is a government agency, subject to the political whims of whoever sits in the White House and Congress. The CIA does what the government of which it is a part tells it to do. Whatever evil the CIA may have done was the result of orders from above.
The Chilean event and others (for example, attempts to remove Fidel Castro from the land of the living, undertaken during the presidency of JFK, rather more rarely reported because only good came from Camelot) caused the late Sen. Frank Church to help gut the CIA's Directorate of Operations in the 1970s. What he carelessly left undisturbed then fell afoul of the Carter administration's hit man, Stansfield Turner. That capability has never been replaced.
It is a lamentably common practice in Washington and elsewhere to shoot people in the back and then complain when they fail to win the race. The loss of so many lives in New York and Washington is now called an "intelligence failure," mostly by those who crippled the CIA in the first place, and by those who celebrated the loss of its invaluable capabilities.
What a pity that they cannot stand up like adults now and say: "See, we gutted our intelligence agencies because we don't much like them, and now we can bury thousands of American citizens as an indirect result." This, of course, will not happen, because those who inflict their aesthetic on the rest of us are never around to clean up the resulting mess, though they seem to enjoy further assaulting those whom they crippled to begin with.
Call it the law of unintended consequences. The intelligence community was successfully assaulted for actions taken under constitutionally mandated orders, and with nothing left to replace what was smashed, warnings we might have had to prevent this horrid event never came. Of course, neither I nor anyone else can prove that the warnings would have come, and I will not invoke the rhetoric of the political left on so sad an occasion as this.
But the next time America is in a fight, it is well to remember that tying one's own arm is unlikely to assist in preserving, protecting and defending what is ours.
Mr. Clancy is a novelist.
The CIA, by being the appearent single point of responsibility for national intelligemce has prevented, just by that appearence, other more grounded, more focused, more task responsible organizations from doing their jobs. Being "central" the CIA has NO chance at being responsible for anything. Responsible intelligence gathering must be directly tied to where it is used. That is, the DIA, INS and Customs are the better place for overseas intelligence organizations, as those organizations are then responsible for the outcome. The CIA can only be irresponsible.
It can be nothing but the House of Excuses.
They were wonderfully effective when they were arming and training bin Laden and his boys in Afganistan. At least they were effective enough then to make sure the Afgans had plenty of Stinger missiles. Good old American effectivity!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000074773sep17.story
Correction: Mr. Clancy was a novelist, until he released The Bear and the Dragon, the most hilariously ignorant waste of paper I've ever had the pleasure of chucking in the trash.
While I agree w/ Mr. Clancy's assessment of today's CIA, and enjoy reading his novels, I have to agree w/ your opinion of Bear & Dragon. Definitely not his best work.
Aiding and abetting the conniving criminal Klintoons who did nothing unless it advanced their personal interests.
Perhaps we should examine how the Klintoon might have profited by hamstringing the CIA with x42's
inane politically correct Human Rights Policy Scrub. Who gained by this?
BUT, you are so right..........
His crooked pals benefited. Then they contributed to him.
"Then that effectiveness needs to be regained. Don't you think?"
Now I don't know which end is up, but you state-loving warmongers should have to pay bin Laden licensing percentages every time you reap profits on his name.
Although you might argue against his claim, after all- You created him.
His crooked pals benefited. Then they contributed to him.
.....that's one way they worked it .....
How about that Chinese tech deal?
Dem donor head of company gave the crooked Clintons $1 M......and a piece of the action?
All the times Bubba's overseas might also be a connection......
Since the Taliban is a militia I would expect to meet you there. Weren't you the one posting a bunch of misleading drivel about the militia's role in the Amercican Revolution?
After the @ss-kicking you received from the Freepers who know something I am surprised to see you raise your head again.
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.