September 11 stormclouds
UNITED NATIONS Ñ A barrage of criticism has been directed at the White House concerning possible "missed signals and warnings" linked to the catastrophic September 11th terrorist attacks on America. The charge? "Did the President know the Terrorist attacks were coming?" The threat in recent years has been genuine and the evidence has been credible, yet the specifics and the scope of Al Qaida's terrorist capability has been fuzzy at best. Was there and thus a credible threat with a specific target, date, etc? The answer is very likely no.
But as with the plethora of conspiracy theories still surrounding Pearl Harbor, September 11th will take on a life of its own as innuendo and winks replace hard facts
The fact that the intelligence agencies and the government had non-specific information Ñ probably too much of it Ñ is the issue but sadly does not crack the proverbial code. What I'm saying is that if there's a credible threat against a US airline over say a ten-day period that Islamic militants will hijack a plane from Boston or Newark, (and that would be already VERY specific) do we then close the airports, cause panic and chaos and then when nothing happens, have the sanctimonious pundits tell us that our overfunded intelligence agencies got it wrong again and probably can't tie their own shoes?
Specific threat profiles may be part of action thrillers but in real life seldom appear so neatly packaged. The FBI says that in 1996 there were vague warnings about such a jetliner attack and in 1999, again warning signals that Al Qaida would try something spectacular . Former President Bill Clinton admitted that those 1999 threats were vague at best and offering little specific information. The fact remains that nebulous warnings are always out there; when something DOES happen, such threats then suddenly become brilliantly transparent with the clear hindsight of 20/20.
With an information overload, intelligence agencies have to sift through a sandstorm of information. The threat of hijackings was certainly credible Ñ but yet people thought in the terms of the hijack meaning militants seizing a plane to Cuba or Cairo, and after a few harrowing days, the drama ends. Hijack with the intent to use an airliner as a missile and hit a specific target was simply not foreseen, as National Security Advisor Condi Rice told reporters. Do we then act on this sketchy circumstantial evidence, close all American airpsace for the summer, put F-16's over Manhattan, and wait for some kamikaze to fly an explosives-laden Cessna under the radar?
If September 11th had been the subject of a Tom Clancy novel, nobody, even cynics, would have believed the size and scope of what happened that frightful September day.
Democrats in Congress, desperately seeking the magic political silver bullet for the Fall elections, may look to the lead up to September 11th as the issue to prove what they like to describe as the "bumbling nature" of President Bush. Desperate to find a foil for the upcoming elections, they are bringing a dose of high octane partisanship into proceedings and giving the unspoken nod that somehow "we knew it was coming." This also plays well into a fertile conspiracy theory culture in many Arab lands and may I say even among many Americans weened on the pseudo-history of Oliver Stone or supermarket tabloids.
The campaign of innuendo and hearsay may replace hard evidence and give the impression that somehow the Administration "knew all along it was coming."
In a sense, terror warnings are a bit like California earthquake predictions Ñ you know there will be some but you really don't know when, where, or how severe. While planning can minimize casualties and damage, can we ultimately prevent the "Big One??" That's the scary question. Thus when Vice President Richard Cheney concedes future attacks on America are not a matter of "If" but "When," there's an issue of realism but fatalism too. FBI Chief Robert S. Mueller warns that "suicide bombers" may hit American cities.
Now the media has whipped up a collective angst over what we should have known before September 11th and transposed today's terror threats to New York landmarks such as the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, and the United Nations into a heightened state of both alert and queasiness.
While everyone speaks of poor coordination and cooperation among the CIA, FBI, and police agencies, what called colloquially not connecting the dots Ñ there's even a deeper issue rarely mentioned. One of the real pre Ñ September 11th problems concerns intelligence, not so much foreign gathering but the inability of domestic intelligence to have legally monitored these suspects before a crime had been committed. Under past Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, American domestic security was both hamstrung and emasculated. In fact while such terrorist groups were active in the USA and Canada Ñ and very likely still are Ñ the FBI could not legally go after them until a crime had been committed. This slipshod approach translated into a lack of genuine inside information which may have provided vital specifics about impending attacks.
Tragically we were napping on September 11th, but America's defense will not be enhanced by a partisan Washington "blame game" but rather bi-partisan support for a serious and synchronized effort aimed at security for all Americans.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense
issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
See current edition
of
   |
