Logic Times

An Aggressive Campaign

Commentary by Aslan, 3/26/06, 11:51pm. Comments (2)

Soon after Richard Clarke's "blockbuster" public testimony before the 9/11 Commission, most media outlets declared that the Bush administration was asleep at the switch leading up to September 11th.

"President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, testified on Wednesday to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration had largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda prior to the attacks." New York Times

"In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack." Fred Kaplan, Slate

"Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance." Time Magazine

Apparently, today's journalism schools have succeeded in producing minds that can weigh eight years of inaction against eight months of inaction and find the latter more egregious. Nonetheless, the message reverberated: there was enough evidence to do....something. As Time Magazine stated:

"An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide—to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended—just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure." (Editor's Note: As long as the "aggressive campaign" did not include the overly aggressive and patently offensive practice of eavesdropping on Al Qaeda cell phone calls.)

There exists a chance that this unprecedented course of action may have disrupted 9/11, but, as Time itself admits, the chance was small. "If every plan to attack al-Qaeda had been executed, and every lead explored, Atta's team might still never have been caught." To suggest that a new administration, fresh on the heels of its politically explosive Electoral College victory (and popular vote defeat), would have or even could have produced such an intense response to al Qaeda is unhinged from reality.

What is remarkable about Time's story on "the secret history of that failure" is that its two key sources, Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke, are known for playing fast and loose with the truth. Sandy Berger, he of "documents in his underwear" fame, "[w]ith some bitterness…remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley." Here are the words of a felon, a man who actually stuffed top secret documents in his socks (how does that work?), a man who would benefit from Bush assuming more guilt for 9/11, recalling his unhappy encounter with the first Bush administration. We are fortunate that Gary Aldrich, an FBI agent without a history of stuffing top secret documents in any unnatural places, also recalled how the professionalism of the Clinton administration suffered at the hands of outgoing Republican staffers:

Just before the inauguration in January 1993, Tony and Mel went to the Capitol to meet with personal representatives of President-elect Clinton to ensure a smooth transition of responsibilities after the Oath of Office was administered. Dressed in their usual impeccable suits, Tony and Mel waited and waited. They began to get a little nervous, because three rough-looking characters had arrived and were hanging around, eyeballing them. Were they about to be mugged? The trio looked like bikers, with earrings and ponytails, jeans that were torn or dirty, and faded sweatshirts or Levi jackets. Tony thought they might be there to erect bleachers or do some other construction. He walked over to them.

"Guys," Tony began, "we're supposed to meet a few folks from the Clinton administration. Have you run into any guys who might be the Clinton Advance Team?"

One of them gave Tony a dirty look. "We’re the Clinton Advance Team."

Unlimited Access, Gary Aldrich. Page 10.

Aldrich's book is an exposé on the lack of professionalism of the Clinton administration, and it directly contradicts Sandy Berger’s characterization of the people in the administration of Bush 41. Should one believe a thief or a decorated FBI agent? And Richard Clarke? The blatant opportunist who gave us the greatest Jekyll and Hyde performance since the London original with his public and private testimony before the 9/11 committee vs. Condi Rice, a public servant without any stain on her reputation.

These marginal sources did not dissuade Time – and every other major liberal voice – from concluding that the Bush administration was negligent for failing to scrap the ineffective policy of the Clinton administration (that Berger and Clarke shaped) and launch a pre-emptive war against Al Qaeda that would have included compromising the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

However, ignore for a moment the Left's nonsensical quest to blame 9/11 on the Bush administration and grant them their premise: Bush should have mounted "an aggressive campaign" against Al Qaeda and should therefore, if lessons are to be learned, be prepared to mount future aggressive campaigns against other groups that pose threats to the United States. Happily, this happens to be a strategy with which most conservatives would agree, a strategy that the President recently affirmed in his March 22, 2006 national security strategy statement:

"If necessary, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."

Indeed, every citizen rightly demands that the administration learn the lesson of September 11th: to take all threats seriously and to prevent any unstable group or government with a history of antipathy towards the United States from acting on those threats. With this consensus standard in mind, one need only apply that standard to the Iraq threat in late 2002 and early 2003 to understand why the United States is in Iraq today:

No rational review of the threat posed by Iraq fails the test for military action, for "an aggressive campaign" against an unstable dictator with a history of killing millions, who had fought a war with the U.S., who tried to assassinate an ex-President and who was on record threatening attacks in the United States. So many have clamored for a new tone in Washington, for finding some common ground, particularly in the realm of national security; how comforting that the Left has joined the Right in unambiguously declaring that threats like Iraq require "an aggressive campaign" such as implemented by the Bush administration.

Comments

1: Scott Malensek

March 27, 2006 6:43am EST

Why is the US military STILL in Iraq? If no other reason, UN 1483

{Aslan: Indeed, there are sound international justifications, but I would tremble to think that UN resolutions would direct the deployment of US forces - unless our interests happen to coincide.}

Fully agreed. Normally, I present the reasons for war as follows:

Primary reason

to prevent a Nexus of Evil situation
to prevent UBL from setting up headquarters in Iraq as Saddam had annually and bi-annually requested for 5 yrs. UBL had turned down each offer based on the idea that he was safer in Afghanistan, but driven from Afghanistan in 2001/2...the possibility of UBL moving AQ HQ to Iraq was much more likely and easily a worst case scenario for the war on terror (see also 911 Comm report and SIC 911 report and SIC Iraq investigation report for details).

Secondary reasons

to remove/resolve the hundreds unresolved WMD issues (any one of which could kill thousands in the hands of an Iraqi trained terrorist-like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi)
to get the hundreds of AQ terrorist who fled Afghanistan to Iraq
to end Iraqi support for terrorists in general

Tertiary reasons

to create a battlefield against terrorists made of America's choosing-not the terrorists preference (UBL's preference was Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires where he felt he had already destroyed one superpower)
to create a bastion of democracy in the middle of a region plagued by tyranny and oppression...things that spawn terrorism
to drain the swamp of terrorists in the region; i.e., to draw terrorists into a fight against the US military and not the Springfield, Ohio police Department
to offer the Iraqi people a chance at restoring their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-rights that some Americans believe are endowed to all men by the creator
to end the 4000-5000 Iraqis per month who were dying because of UN sanctions per the UN's claims
to prevent Saddam from continuing to terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors (all but one of which he had attacked)
to support a legitimate govt in Iraq.
to position US forces in a more threatening/deterring position to Iran, Syria, etc.
with Al Queda's #1 and #2 leaders pinned in Waziristan/Pakistan, as a means of going after the Al Queda's #3 man, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had already attempted to kill hundreds of thousands in London, Rome, Paris, and Jordan using chemical and biological weapons via training he had been given from Saddam
to end the funding of Palestinian terrorists by Saddam and thus help deter bi-weekly suicide bus bombings that had completely derailed the peace process
to prevent the funding of Al Queda by Iraq through the mega-corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program
to shift American oil dependence (and funding) from terrorist-breeding-ground of Saudi Arabia to a Democratic and representative govt in Iraq and so on...

In the case of UN1483, America's needs/reasons do coincide.

Once again, well written & thanks

{Aslan: Well written? Compared to your response – a portrait of clarity and superb recall – my piece is a hack job. Outstanding.}

2: Biker

March 27, 2006 9:00am EST

What horse*#!$. The threat was in no way what you describe. Iraq was harmless. Why you people feel that Iraq is so dangerous is beyond me. You leave yourselves open to conspiracies because your logic is crap.

{Aslan: I am sure you would have said the same thing about al Qaeda in the summer of 2001. Unfortunately, it is going to take another 9/11 before "you people" finally get it.}