This Monday, NRO Contributing Editor Michael Ledeen wrote a very good article about intelligence and self-deception (Hat Tip: reader M. Simon). It's not so much that America's intelligence agencies did not see Sept. 11 coming - it's that they didn't want to see it coming. Indeed, they were actively trained by the Legislative Branch not to see it coming.
America's Democratic Party has been strangely silent about this aspect of 9/11 during their investigations, despite their ongoing hobby-horse of political intervention in the intelligence process. One wonders why this might be so.
Ledeen's article outlines those failings - then explains why those same issues still matter today.
Ledeen traces the consequences of these policies and the habits they've spawned through America's intelligence apparatus, and then on to policy. While I would tend to characterize the Department of State as instigators of this syndrome rather than victims of it, the key point is that this kind of willful blindness and its consequences are still very much with us. Though some of it has been removed, it's still going on in important places, and on important issues.
This isn't just a recent phenomenon, but it is a serious one that demands ongoing attention. When political interference works to silence threat warnings, it will magnify the natural tendencies of "mirror imaging" and false assumption that exist in all intelligence agencies. These tendencies can be very dangerous in a world where certainty about threats is a rare commodity, but the threats themselves are real.
The cost of this refusal to see is measured in money, blood, prestige... and the national security of the United States. Political correctness kills. It is still killing.
Umm, lessee. Which party did Frank Church belong to? It was Democrats that neutered our intelligence services (ok, they just finished the job that CIA bureaucrats started, but still)
This is of a piece with all DemoLefty thought and action. Screw something up, then blame the Republicans.
Nothing new going on there. Worse, the average guy in the street doesn't follow what goes on in legislative hearings, so there's no voter backlash to be had from such stupid meddling.
M.Murcek, did you read the piece at all? Or is your comment aimed at something I've missed?
Counterintelligence is also is sorry shape.
OT: Anyone else notice that in Bush's comments yesterday to the American Legion he mentioned that 42 of the Iraq 55 had been killed or captured, but that Centcom's current list of shows 39?
Iblis,
OT. Yes. What conclusion did you draw? My primary suspect is bureaucratic fumbling in the preparation of the speech. Second is that they are holding some they suspect but cannot confirm are cards. Third is that they are holding some but want no one to know yet. (Why?) Fourth is that some are being held by others to facilitate effective interrogation.
Counterintelligence has nearly ALWAYS been in sorry shape at the CIA. It's probably the thing they have historically done least well.
I should also note here that counterintelligence goes beyond preventing penetration by foreign intelligence services. Think of it more as intelligence's "quality control" function, with a slight paranoid streak.
Richard:
Well, your guess is as good as mine. Another possibility is that some are suspected but not confirmed killed, with lists varying on whether they include the suspected dead.
If I had to put down money I'd guess we have a couple whose capture has not yet been made public for one reason or another.
Joe:
I'd be happy just to catch the Hansens of the world. Where did I read that he was running upwards of 150 agents of whom we only ever indentified less than ten?
The Guardian, August 5 2002:
"The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday."
Oops, best not to mention that. Democrats bad! Liberals bad!
Phil, you are so right.
I had a plan. I would have gotten rid of al-Queda. But I was too busy shaking all those hands as I left office, and making sure that deserving people got pardoned and making sure that we packed up everything that was ours in the White House, all those gifts and such that friends had given us. So I just didn't get around to implementing our plan to defeat al-Qaida. So I turned over my plan to Bush. That's the real story here.
I am so glad there are still loyal Democrats like you out there to point this out, and that we have nothing to be sorry about just because we didn't get around to implementing that plan I wrote myself to deal with al-Qaida.
Well, Mr. President, I understand your not wanting to start a war for the next President to fight -- one never knows what sort of boob one's successor will be.
But you know, you shouldn't say that you wrote it yourself - after all, was it not Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke who were trying to meet with Administration officials in August 2001, but were postponed till September 4? Shame on you for hogging the credit!
So right. Much better to not do anything but draft the plan. That way, we have done all we could. We couldn't possibly have gone after al-Qaida. Now we can complain that they didn't use our plan, which plays to our strengths.
First, I never hog all the credit. I never once claimed credit for writing that document myself. Not once.
Now, though, you are so right. I'll share a little insight from my administration with you. After the first World Trade Center bombing in '93, in the first year of my administration, there were some who said we needed to take strong action. But I turned to them and I said "it would be wrong, dead wrong, to start a war that the next President will have to fight." Everyone at the table looked at each other, and Al Gore said to me, you know he said "Well, Mr. President, you're right. We're just sorry we didn't think of that."
So through the rest of my Adminstration, that was our policy. We would write plans. Perhaps fire a few cruise missiles at empty tents and asprin factories. But we would leave the fighting to the next President. But you're right, this was all we could do. We did all we should have done. The fault lies with Bush for not following the plan we gave him.
Oh, you give yourself too little credit, Mister President. After all, you tripled FBI counterterrorism funding, and doubled it overall. You rolled up AQ cells in over twenty countries. You signed an executive order to assasinate Bin Laden. You added anti-terrorism measures to two crime bills. You ought to remember this stuff -- heaven knows there's plenty of people out there trying to make sure everybody forgets.
Oh, one more thing -- how about another run in 2012, after Hillary finishes up her two terms?
You guys are killing me over here... strangely it's one of the more effective debates I've seen in this forum. Keep it up!
Yes, in tripling the FBI's counterterrorism effort we insured the success that led to Sept. 11th. This also insured that we had the legal advice we needed when we turned down Sudan's offer to turn Osama over to us. I signed an executive order against Osama, but then I realized we couldn't carry it out. No, we had to follow the executive order against assassinations. We also had to put our principles above field intelligence connections that may have enabled us to infiltrate al-Qaida and get someone close enough to carry out such an action.
Why? I'll tell you why. If we had violated our principles, and dealt with the sort of people one deals with in these operations. If we had done that, sure - we might have got someone close enough to actually carry out an assassination. But then the terrorists would have won.
That's the same with putting measures into crime bills. We did that. We were giving the next President the tools he needed to fight terrorism, but you're right that we should have done as we did - left it to the next President to actually go after terrorist cells in the U.S.
Of course Hillary and I will be happy to be your Presidents-For-Life. That's why a few months ago I suggested the Constitution be ammended. Sure, I claimed that it wouldn't apply to me. But we all know that isn't the case. Ex-post-facto laws apply only to convicted criminals. I've never been convicted of anything in my life.
So the plan is we play dumb, pass the Amendment repealing Presidential term limits while Hillary serves her two terms and then I serve. During that time we will put in place more plans and legal powers for the next President to have when (ha ha) the Clinton Administrations end.
But I'll keep to my principles. The principles you outlined. We'll put this stuff in place, but we'll be wise enough not to prosecute a war that the next President should fight. We'll continue to play to our strengths, Democrat strengths: complaining that if only others had done what we said they should, things would be better. But we'll leave the fighting of wars to the warmongers. I've always been a man of peace. You know that. I ran on a platform of peace, not war. We're proud of our record. I presided over an era of peace in America. We kept the peace and if elected, Hillary and I will return to a policy of peace with all our neighbors and of listening to our allies, who also want peace.
Lurker, I love nothing more than policy discussions. You know that. I can talk policy till late in the night. I would love to continue the discussion with my good friends and supporters like Phil here.
Hey, Phil, do you have a sister? Young and a little on the plump side? If so, I'd like to have you both over some time and meet her - I mean, you both - in person.
But now I have to get back to work on behalf of the American people. I can do so knowing I am lucky that there are people out there who will confront this right-wing media conspiracy to distort our accomplishments in defeating al-Qaida and assassinating Osama bin Ladin. You know, I think all those tapes from the last couple years was another man. We got him. I'm sure of it. Phil, if we only had more patriotic Americans like you. Our policies would have continued, and America wouldn't be where it is today. I thank you.
Now, Mister President -- surely you remember that the bit about Sudan offering to turn over Bin Laden is just something Sean Hannity made up. Remember -- you sent Sandy Berger over to talk to Mansoor Ijaz, and Berger figured out that Ijaz wasn't talking for the Sudanese government and couldn't deliver the goods. I commend you for following this up with the Sudanese government, though, even though the trail led nowhere -- that attention to detail is something some other Presidents might not exhibit between vacations.
One thing, though -- why'd you follow up with Sudan if you meant to leave it to the next President? Mister President, I think you must be tired. You don't sound like yourself -- frankly, you sound a bit, well, addled. You are beginning to dissemble as badly as your enemies.
I am sorry for tiring you out; I'll leave you in peace now.