Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"the fact that the new administration did not place a high priority on transnational terrorism as a major threat to the United States, certainly not as high a priority as the previous administration."

This not a fact at all. It is a claim, made by Richard Clarke. But it is not supported by the facts.

Okay, I've now browsed the Foreign Affairs web site from January 2000 to September 2001, and I don't see a single article that mentions international terrorism, "as we now generally understand it". A search of the archives for "al qaeda" doesn't turn up a single hit for anything prior to 2002. This in the foreign policy journal for foreign policy professionals.

Btw, "to expand intelligence capabilities against terrorism of all kinds.", WOULD seem to indicate that Rice had an inkling of the problem she was going to inherit from the Clinton Administration.

To roots of our mistakes, we might also add the false psychological premise that the terrorists “envy us because we’re rich, and hate us because we’re free.” Of course this leads to the idea that democracy and economic growth, felicitous in themselves, will counteract terrorism, which is doubtful. (Never mind whether setting up a democracy under these circumstances is even possible.) The premise is often stated by Bush, who may actually believe it, and shows up in the editorial pages. Both liberals and conservatives repeat it with glazed eyes, as if from a distant dream... Currently it appears to be the dominant reason underneath the public’s support for Bush’s foreign policy, since the new question is “Don’t these people realize we’re trying to help them!” Perhaps by the time the public mind finally reasons its way through the emotional fallacy, Rumsfeld will find the WMD’s, taking us all stuttering back to Reason Number One! More likely still, the insertion of the U.N. shows that the Bushies are hoping to walk away from the whole mess (save for a few soldier enclaves, well-guarded)--but not have this capitulation become evident until after the re-election.

"This not a fact at all. It is a claim, made by Richard Clarke. But it is not supported by the facts".

You, are full of shit.

So Clarke was ahead of the other foreign policy professionals, in addition to being ahead of the Bush team. Clarke 2, everyone else 0.

SW is on the money. Sullivan just makes shit up. And for him there's only one issue:

Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad. Clinton was at least as bad.

If NYC is nuked, Patrick will be happy -- as long as he can blame it on Clinton.

Who the hell cares, at this point, whether Bush was actually worse than Clinton?! There was a very good editorial back in the Nov. 17, 1997 Aviation Week -- in the wake of the Aum Shinrikyo nerve gas attack -- of the glaringly obvious threats the world was about to face, and the appalling negligence of every world leader concerning them. (Alas, it didn't specifically mention the use of airliners as weapons -- although that idea has also been floating around in plain view for a very long time, as Nick Kristof further confirmed in the NY Times last night.)

When Condi Rice tries to claim that Clinton was no better than Bush in the matter of megaterrorism, she is at least halfway plausible (although a lot of Clarke's wrath at Bush seems to flow from the fact that he thought he had finally managed to arouse the Clintonites properly in the wake of the "Cole" attack, and then found that under Bush he was right back where he'd started). Where Rice and Co. are absurdly implausible is in their attempts to claim that Bush is BETTER than Clinton was on the subject, for which there is no evidence whatsoever -- even now. The real question now is whether Kerry will be adequate on the subject -- a question on which I am still uneasy, although I'm inclined to take some hope from the now undeniable fact that his IQ is about 40 points higher than Bush's. Will he pay proper attention to the number of very prominent people of both parties -- Nunn, Lugar, Hart and Rudman, just to drop the most prominent names -- who ARE properly alert to the deadly possibilities?

Incidentally, if you want a very good summary of the extremely serious mistake that both the Bushites and Clarke continue to make in regard to the nature of Moslem terrorism, see http://slate.msn.com/id/2099065/ .

you know the grand strategy decision I really, REALLY don't get right now (and I am not prone to the use of all-caps -- I *really* don't get this)?

why give Sharon essentially everything he wanted?

I mean, Israel rockets another Hamas leader today, right. yes, Hamas is evil, but now the US is in bed with Israel in Palestine. that's not just a rocket attack by the IDF, it's a rocket attack by the US. and as a US citizen, I am a little concerned. no crazy is going to ask me for whom I voted before killing me.

what's the grand strategy here?

wcw asks:
what's the grand strategy here?

Florida's electoral votes.

The grand strategy, as should be evident by now, is to actively provoke the Arab Muslim world, and shake things up. Ousting a dictator and setting up a democracy was to be the good-footed version. The conservative pundits have maintained, at least up to this point, that whatever happens will be militarily manageable. (On this, they have not been in agreement with the military itself.) The important question is: what happens if the homeland is attacked again? The conservative answer appears to be that the public-at-large will support massive bombing of someplace, anyplace, no matter whether related to the bombers (should they be identifiable) or not. The Israeli experience suggests that this won't work, and the reaction to Fallujah may become our first taste. We all--liberal and conservative--had better get past the infantile cynicism and start thinking pro-actively about: (1) what happens if the publics of the West (U.S. + Europe + whomever) finally become revulsed by this logic, causing a political-security crisis within our own societies, and (2) how we are going to make the world a peaceful place. Otherwise there are WMD's, or police states, in EVERYBODY'S future.

Clinton had barely taken office when the first WTC bombing occurred in 93. At the time there was no anti-terror organization. Janet Reno had not yet been confirmed as AG and GHW Bush AG, William Barr was still holding the office. Barr, the ATF cowboys and FBI were tied down in Waco TX initiating a shooting standoff against the Branch Davidians.

Reno had to come in and end the standoff started by the Bush cowboys. This placed the FBI in turmoil and Sessions left, the FBI went to an interim head and then Clinton made the absolute worst mistake of his administration, appointing Louis Freeh as FBI director. Freeh turned out to be a political partisan and politcized the FBI to the point where communication between the FBI, the DOJ and Clinton administration was at times non-existent.

Freeh diverted millions of dollars and wasted his agents time investigating President Clinton and ignored more important problems. Mr. Freeh was a computer illiterate and prevented the FBI from entering the computer age. Freeh was not interested in preventing terrorism. He was only interested in prosecuting terrorists after they had acted.

Clinton substantially increased the anti-terror budget from almost nothing to a respectable amount. He was fought every step of the way by a GOP Congress. Clinton not only had foreign terrorists, under Clinton's watch, the domestic terrorists did the most damage, with McVeigh, the Unabomber and the Olympics bomber. The US was beset by a host of fruitcakes engaged in terrorism against doctors and family planning clinics.

Clinton asked the military for a plan to attack bin Laden, capture or kill him and shut down his cells. Having failed in Iran, an overcautious military did not step up to the challenge.

Clinton administration was very successful in capturing and prosecuting terrorists including Tim McVeigh, the 93 WTC bombers, the Unabomber and those responsible for the embassy bombings, To find out how the Clinton administration handled terrorism, you should read Simon and Benjamin, two guys who were there on the job.

During the Clinton administration, the threat of terrorism was mostly ignored by the GOP Congress. The GOP criticized Clinton for even the smallest actions against bin Laden (sending cruise missiles). Can you imagine the GOP attacks if Clinton sent in troops after bin Laden?

A successful fight against terrorism requires all branches of government working together. When foreign policy is as politicized as it has been since Reagan took office it will be less successful.

Why is foreign policy so politicized? Marshall alludes to the debate but supposedly will address it later. The GOP and the DEMS have starkly different views of the way the world works.

The DEM view of terrorism is that it arises from injustice and perceived unfair treatment of groups that are out of power. Terror can be use to make territorial gains or it can be used to advance an ideology. Resolution of the territorial / justice disputes can successfully dampen terrorism as in the case of N Ireland. In the DEM view, ideological terrorists are harder to control and that requires an international effort. Terrorists take advantage of weak states or states that tolerate them. However, since all state are vulnerable to ideologues of one form or another, it makes sense for nations to work together to mutual benefit.

GOP views terrorism as a tool of states in their quest for hegemony or world domination. The GOP view is that terror orgs like al Qaeda are of little concern, "so many flies to be swatted". The GOP believes that the only terrorism that can harm the US is "State supported terrorism". According to this view, Sandinistas in Nicaragua are not independent groups concerned with parochial issues but tools and agents of Cuban / Soviet hegemony. This is why the Bush administration backed the coup in Venezuela. That is why when al Qaeda attacked the US, the Bush administration immediately looked to Iraq. In their world view, an insignificant group like al Qaeda cannot harm the worlds largest superpower. In their view, they must have state support to be successful. Thus the focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr Bush is still convinced that Saddam had a hand in supporting the WTC attacks.

This is was and will be the bottom line from the Bush administration. They don't consider independent terrorist groups to be a big problem. The view all terrorist groups of agents of a state. Thus, the Bush war on terrorism is directed at states like Iraq and places lesser importance on al Qaeda and bin Laden himself. This is why there are over 100,000 troops in Iraq and less than 20000 in Afghanistan.

I am not sure what Patrick is arguing. Is Patrick arguing that the Bush policy is not focused on "states that support terrrorism" instead of on the terrorists themselves? Because that is the stated Bush administration policy. Is he arguing that Clinton was not focused on terrorist organizations? Because the record shows that Clinton administration built an internal organization to deal with terrorism, proposed legislation starting in 95 and upon handing over the keys, advised the incoming Bush administration that we would spend more time dealing with terror than any other foreign policy issue. The Clinton administration was wrong. The Bush adminstration has spent far more time and effort dealing with Iraq than dealing with terrorism.

Bruce wonders about a Kerry administration fight against terrorism. Look at Kerry's history. Kerry is a whistle blower. He blew the whistle on Nam as a Vet against the War. In the Senate, he is known less for legislation than for investigation. Kerry blew the whistle on BCCI, led on Iran Contra and has a history of bringing light to dysfunction. There was his Kerry's with McCain to get to the bottom of the MIA story. In the past Kerry has laid out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Dems as well as GOP have been hit. Kerry will not protect anyone or agency that is not meeting expectations.

A Kerry administration would be as open as Bush has been secretive. A Kerry administration would support those who want change and an opening to fix the problem. At the same time, good people might get hit and some efforts stifled by the sunshine.

IMHO, Kerry is the Bush administration worst nightmare. All the work that Rove and Bush have done to shield the Bush agenda from scrutiny might be undone. If Kerry is elected and Congress flips, then the GOP would get hammered. However, a GOP Congress could put pressure on Kerry not to be too open.

Something I read several years ago in regard to the world wide web may be germane here. The idea of sovereign states has run its course. National borders will become meaningless as information flows freely around the globe. Someone smarter than me could argue that international terrorism is the first manifestation of that free-flowing information. If this is so (or even nearly so), none of the Bushies will figure it out.

Might be educational to compare Rice's article to Clinton's National Security Strategy from December 2000. It can be found here:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

I recommend Section II, where the headings under "Protecting the Homeland" are, in this order:

- National Missile Defense

- Countering Foreign Intelligence Collection

- Combating Terrorism

- Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

- Critical Infrastructure Protection

- National Security Emergency Preparedness

- Fighting Drug Trafficking and Other International Crime

Bin Laden is mentioned four times in the whole paper, and al Qaeda is not mentioned at all. Sullivan is right in that the Clinton focus on al Qaeda and terrorism is not quite what Clarke made it out to be.

Odd that a woman of color who rose to a position of some power within the global elites, and must surely have had at least passing experience with American racial apartheid, would then craft a foreign policy statement which undervalues NSA's of color, as though she had somehow absorbed white racial supremacy by osmosis, only to have it purged by Osamasis, and yet still, sadly, today she plays her role as a good ol' girl in defending the very epitomy of arrogant klanism.

Cornel West aludes to an Uncle Tom sobriquet at The Nation Institute when he observed of Rice, At what point does the African American desire to carve out positions of power bend back upon itself in slavish subservience to the dark lie that creates and supports that very same power?

Are Powell and Rice slaves to black ambitions? In this instance, for this administration, isn't that then the cruelest form of slavery of all?

tbrosz wrote at April 17, 2004:

"Bin Laden is mentioned four times in the whole paper, and al Qaeda is not mentioned at all. Sullivan is right in that the Clinton focus on al Qaeda and terrorism is not quite what Clarke made it out to be."

It's not quite truthful to say that "al Qaeda is not mentioned at all". Al-Qaeda isn't *named* there, but it is *referred to* — for instance as bin Ladin's "terror network":

"When terrorism occurs, despite our best efforts, we can neither forget the crime nor ever give up on bringing its perpetrators to justice. We make no concessions to terrorists. Since 1993, a dozen terrorist fugitives have been apprehended overseas and rendered, formally or informally, to the United States to answer for their crimes. These include the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing, the attack outside CIA headquarters, and an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago. In 1998, the U.S. Armed Forces carried out strikes against a chemical weapons target and an active terrorist base operated by Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans. We will likewise pursue the criminals responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

"Whenever possible, we use law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools to wage the fight against terrorism. But there have been, and will be, times when those tools are not enough. As long as terrorists continue to target American citizens, we reserve the right to act in self-defense by striking at their bases and those who sponsor, assist, or actively support them, as we have done over the years in different countries."

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_part2.htm

Notice that no terrorist group was specifically *named* above; nevertheless, several were referred to by their specific actions.

This text being (as its title indicates) a strategy, rather than a history text, I think it's misplaced criticism to complain that it didn't *name* each terrorist group. The point was that *no* terrorist group would be allowed to continue unimpeded.

Would it be reasonable to criticize an extensive discussion of the current President's actions, on the grounds that "George W. Bush is not mentioned at all"? (I.e. he is always referred to as "the President", not by name.)

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I19164-2004Apr16

Cheney, of his 'foreign war service' in Nam:
"I had more interesting options than combat."

How can two premier leaders who both dodged the draft have even the slightest comprehension of how to put together a policy against terrorism?

Like sending two 13-year old virgins into a biker bar, with a black nanny for an escort.

Raven, thank you for beating me to the punch with respect to tbrosz.

Bruce, i have come to think, in recent weeks, that the very best choice kerry could make for vice president is...gary hart, essentially for the reasons you imply.

bakho, patrick (actually like tbrosz) is arguing that whatever the issue, whatever the concern, by simple definition, bush is doing the right thing, which clinton never did.

"why give Sharon essentially everything he wanted?"

I suspect the answer at least partially involves the recent transfer of 120 armoured Hummer vehicles from Israel to Iraq, driven by the fact that "Israel understands the operational needs of the Americans in Iraq".

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/415271.html

Of course, perhaps it is too cynical to really believe that Bush sold himself out for a couple of trucks.

Only because Bush had probably already sold himself,out of a mistaken belief that 'nothing's too good for Israel', and out of a cunning belief that the religious right believes the same thing.

"I am not sure what Patrick is arguing."

As usual. The point being missed, is that this thread is based on a paper in Foreign Affairs published almost a year BEFORE Rice became NSA. Almost a year BEFORE Rice was briefed on the specifics of the Al Qaeda threat by Sandy Berger and/or Richard Clarke. Further, there is nothing by any other foreign policy professionals published in this journal indicating anyone else foresaw the Al Qaeda threat.

Joshua Marshall is arguing from HINDSIGHT. Condi Rice didn't have that luxury in writing her article.

Btw, here's another voice that seems to believe Richard Clarke isn't being candid now:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101fareviewessay10229/ellen-laipson/while-america-slept-understanding-terrorism-and-counterterrorism.html

"They profile Clarke with affection and respect, recognizing his 'preternatural gift for spotting emerging issues' and his tenaciousness once on an issue. He was also a master of bureaucratic politics. But when they judge that he sometimes 'needlessly alienated people who might have helped him,' it reads as a bit of an understatement. I share their view that Clarke and his talented proteges were formidable bureaucratic players and exceedingly hard working and productive. But I am not as sure that the personality problems can be so easily dismissed; many government officials shied away from participating in Clarke's crisis-mode working groups, and others resented his dismissive attitude toward any bureaucratic effort that he was not leading. A more inclusive, consensus-building approach might have helped forge the interagency synergies that the authors found so elusive."

"Mommy mommy, he don't play well with others, so we're not going to listen to him, even though he's one of the few people who's been at this long enough to know what the fuck he's talking about..." Good god! UNBELIEVABLE the amount of whining and fingerpointing this administration, these conservatives, fall into CONTINUOUSLY. Will it never end! They are actually far worse than liberals!... Not even Clinton: you can imagine: "Weren't my fault, people--Monica held me down!" At least he just lied, didn't blame somebody else... On no wait--Hillary said there was a big conspiracy! Quick! Somebody mention that next, to prove the other guys are still better!

Interesting that the paper tbrosz links has over 10% of the content devoted to terrorism. Given all the other economic and military concerns of foreign policy, 10% is quite a big chunk.

The terrorism creeps over into other sections on WMD and their potential delivery my non-conventional means and preparations necessary if an event does occur. Much of the concern about WMD in the FSU is directly related to preventing those "loose cannons" from falling into terrorist control.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040419/ts_usatoday/noradhaddrillsofjetsasweapons

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

Howard: "Bruce, I have come to think, in recent weeks, that the very best choice Kerry could make for vice president is...Gary Hart, essentially for the reasons you imply."

Except, that, alas, in the eyes of Joe Average (aka Joe Ignoramus), Hart is still a laughing stock. I saw it in the polls during that brief period when he was mulling over a presidential run this time. Sam Nunn might conceivably make a workable substitute -- except that Nunn's pretty hard-line conservatism on all other matters would make him an oil-and-water mixture with Kerry.

I wonder if Kerry has considered the possibility of naming Rand Beers as his running mate? There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the VP from taking on another Cabinet job as well -- there have been occasional proposals to name Colin Powell both VP and Secretary of State for that reason -- and I see nothing to keep Beers from serving as Kerry's VP and NSA simultaneously. And if, as Kerry keeps insisting, he wants a running mate with "national security experience", he could hardly do better. On top of that, I would dearly love to see a TV debate between Cheney and Beers...

Online Casino Directory