Rating: 
Summary: Love Him or Hate Him, He's Got It Largely Right
Review:
You cannot discuss 9-11 or Iraq, and be credible, without having read this book carefully and thoroughly (many of the other reviews strike me as glib, superficial, and not representative of having actually read the book).
Clarke begins by pointing out that four US Presidents, not one, are responsible for the over-all failure. Clarke strikes out at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, throughout the book. Clarke confirms both all the reports of CIA failing to tell FBI, FBI leaders ignoring their own field reports and consequently failing to tell the White House clearing house on terrorism, of any and all the indicators and warnings received from June 2001 to September 10 2001. Clarke confirms that as of January 2001, despite a decade or more of Al Qaeda activism, "most senior officials in the administration did not know the term." The historical review, going back to the Iranian revolution of 1979 (which overturned a CIA coup much earlier) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which mobilized global jihad), is quite helpful. The failure of the White House to kill the Republican Guard in the first Gulf War, and the post-Gulf War decision to put thousands and thousands of US contractors into Saudi Arabia, thus further inflaming Saudi dissidents, and the related misadventures in Lebanon as well as over-tolerance for Israeli aggression on the Palestinians, are all put into useful context. The book begins with a solid meticulous review unlike any other I have found. CIA and FBI both take substantive and deserved beatings. The CIA Directorate of Operations--with the full backing of the DCI-- cannot be considered to be anything other than "chickenshit" in the manner in which it blocked just about every proposed initiative including the arming of the Predators and the insertion of language-qualified personnel into Afghanistan. Clarke lists four strategic mistakes: 1) CIA becoming overly dependent on the Pakistani intelligence service; 2) CIA importation to the Afghanistan jihad of Arab extremists it did not understand; 3) USG's quick pull-out from Afghanistan without flooding them with water, food, medicine, and security first; and 4) US ignorance of and failure to help Pakistan stabilize itself and survive the deadly mix of millions of Afghan refugees and thousands of radicalized Arab Muslims. The Saudi government's sponsorship of Bin Laden as a religious revolutionary with a global mission beginning in 1989 cannot be denied. The book documents what we knew and when we knew it, and how we chose to ignore it. 1993-1994 were clearly turning point years--both the 1993 World Trade Center car bombing, and the discovery of a network of suicidal terrorists based in the US and tied to the blind Muslim preacher in Brooklyn, should have but did not lead to a nation-wide cleansing and appropriate border controls and foreign intelligence measures. Al Qaeda was formed in 1990. It would be five years before CIA and the FBI would realize this. On page 84, Clarke makes my day by providing the ultimate OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) story. After ordering a strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters, Clinton refused to go on TV until it was confirmed. The $35 billion a year intelligence community could not confirm it--no spies or agents on the ground, satellites out of position, etcetera. Bill Clinton, without telling anyone, called CNN, CNN called its Jordan bureau, whose cameraman had a cousin who lived near the intelligence headquarters, who confirmed the strike." Got to love it--all money, no eyes. When will Congress get it!? Clarke confirms the many ugly stories about CIA's operational incompetence in Somalia (professionals will recall we sent old dogs without language skills, two of whom went nuts, literally, afterwards). The following quote should be hung in CIA's entryway until we get a serious clandestine service: "They had nobody in the country when the Marines landed. Then they sent in a few guys who had never been there before. They swapped people out every few weeks and they stayed holed up in the U.S. compound on the beach, in comfy trailer homes that they had flown in by the Air Force." Sure, there have been some improvements, but as CIA operations super-star Reuel Gerecht says, until diarrhea is accepted as part of the job description, the DO will never be real. Clarke sums up the Clinton era by saying that policy was good, and intelligence bad. The bureaucracy was not willing to take terrorism seriously nor to work as a team. He sums up the Bush the Second era by saying that both were bad. Clarke slams George Tenet repeatedly, identifying 1994 as the year in which he blew the chance to nail Bin Laden and the Saudis early on. Clarke fails Congress for failing America in 1995, when its oversight should have identified the failures of the past two years, and moved to correct them. The Atlanta Olympics stand out as a major success story, and I emphasize this to note that there were successes, and there were extraordinary new means developed of planning, of inter-agency coordination, of rapid response. The Secret Service emerges from Clarke's book with its reputation much enhanced. Saudi mendacity and Canadian complacency (the latter fixed since 9-11, the former not) get special mention. Prince Bandar is labeled a liar on more than one occasion. There are many other important points raised by this book, including specific recommendations for addressing our global vulnerability to terrorism, and they will not be listed here. Buy the book. One final comment: this is a very intelligent man who has actually read books and done some cross-cultural historical thinking. He laments the fact that politicians with power tend to view visionaries with knowledge as nuts (page 131). This is a brilliant book that should be read in detail, not--as Rich Armitage confessed to the 9-11 Commission on C-SPAN--the way Washington reads: checking the index for one's name. Washington has become stupid. Richard Clarke is not.
Rating:
Summary: If you read just one political book this year, this is it
Review: Clarke is an insider who has first-hand knowledge of Bush and his advisors. He breaks the biggest rule there is (never tell tales out of school)to inform the American public about the war on terror. His thesis is that Bush et. al. either used intelligence or ignored it to further an agenda that may increase our threat from terrorism, not diminish it. This is a startling criticism. Not much has come out of Rice's testimony. Not much will probably be revealed before the next election. If you are looking for sources of information, at least read this and decide for yourself--either Clarke is sounding a klaxon of alarm, or he is furthering a cynical agenda of his own. It's up to you to decide which is true.
Rating: 
Summary: One man's view from the inside
Review: One of the first things one might note when starting this book is that, at least in the beginning, it is very readable. Hearing of events from someone who was there is very mesmerizing, especially when those events are ones that have affected everyone in this country. However, as one gets further into it, there are more than enough redundancies to be slightly frustrating. Still, Clarke's style is largely readable and straight forward and makes for a quick read. The essence of the book, the story it tells is disturbing, even maddening at times. We like to think that America has the best of everything including its intelligence gathering abilities, and the strength to take of itself and its own. We found out on 9-11, of course, that isn't always true. Clarke's book doesn't make us feel any better about our government's handling of issues leading up to that horrific day. He immediately faults the second Bush administration for putting too much emphasis on Iraq. He admits to being a bit short sighted at times, along with his peers. He defends the Clinton administration while faulting the FBI, CIA, military, etc., for hindering the efforts of the President and Clarke's committees to deal with al Qaeda. In his view, when Bush two comes into office, every advance is destroyed or limited such that 9-11 is nearly inevitable. There is no doubt that Clarke has his own axe to grind and his words are to be read with a certain amount of suspicion. Even so, his story alerts us all to the failings of our government to be as fully informed as they should have been to the threat from al Qaeda. This work should help everyone decide where we go from here, what is necessary to fight the terrorists, and, hopefully, to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Read this book, then read others on the same subject, to form a balanced opinion on the mistakes that were made.
Rating:
Summary: ¿Terrorism is the enemy of our generation, we must prevail"
Review: This book is packed with insightful and thoughtful accounts on the history of terrorism and Clarke is quite critical of our efforts to combat terrorism domestically and internationally, particularly after September 11th. Much has been made in the media over the past few months about Clarke's assessment of the current administration's attitudes towards Al Qaeda; but what I liked about this book is the way in which Clarke gives an incredibly informative and detailed historical chronology of the Middle East, the events leading up to 9/11 and also the current war in Iraq. The two fundamental themes of the book are that by going after Saddam and invading Iraq immediately and unnecessarily after 9/11 - usurping resources from the fight against Al Qaeda - that George Bush and this Administration has haphazardly allowed Al Qaeda to "morph into a many headed" monster that has now become infinitely more difficult to defeat. And also those members of this administration deliberately tried to take advantage of the national tragedy of 9/11 to promote their own agenda about Iraq and calculatingly fostered a "go it alone, hell bent for war policy." The second fundamental theme is that this Administration were incurious, and almost complacent about the threat of Al Qaeda, and did little or nothing about the threat before 9/11, preferring to concentrate on missile defense and China. After 9/11 they consistently tried to connect that tragic day to Iraq, relentlessly spinning stories about weapons of mass destruction and manipulating the truth about the "imminent" threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Clarke is probably right that most Americans had never heard of Al Qaeda, and most senior officials in the current Administration did not know the term when they were briefed in January 2001. The central part of the book is probably the most interesting, yet while the substance is good, Clarke does have a tendency to go off on tangents and pack the narrative with unnecessary detail. He does a good job, however, of showing the general distrust and animosity that existed between the Democratic White House and the Republicans in Congress, which, in turn, prevented Clinton from obtaining much of the money, he wanted for a comprehensive counter-terrorism policy. Clinton was able, however, to sign the Presidential Decision Directive and heed the warnings about the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear materials. At the heart of this book though, is the question of whether the government could have done anything to stop the September 11th attack, and Clarke makes it perfectly clear that there were fundamental failures to get information to the right place at the right time. There were also failures in organizations such as the FBI, along with earlier failures to act boldly, and to reduce or eliminate the threat. Whether readers agree with the current Administration's policies or not, they are still going to find much to appreciate in this riveting, educational, and engaging treatise on the war on terror. Mike Leonard May 04.
Rating:
Summary: A Self-Aggrandizing But Plausible Account
Review: By the end of the first chapter of "Against All Enemies," which acts as what they call in television a "teaser" for the book, Richard A. Clarke has portrayed himself as the rootin' tootin' macho he-man who almost single-handedly kept the government from falling apart on September 11th. I have to admit that I found this opening chapter a little offensive. This tawdry reveling in unabashed self-glorification detracts from what eventually becomes an engrossing and serious narrative, which ominous implications for American foreign policy. It's best to admit at the outset that Richard A. Clarke is clearly a hot dog and a bit of a blowhard. The trouble is he seems to have been right about the threat of terrorism when a lot of other people were wrong. So with a lot of this book you have to pay attention to the message and keep the conceited messenger in the background. Clarke also is not as infallible as he would like to think and does make the occasional error of fact in this book, including one so early and so egregious I can't believe that it made its way into print without anyone at his publishing house spotting it: on page xiii of the Preface Clarke states that in the Constitution there is an oath that the President should swear. "Forty-three Americans," he writes, "have done so since." This is incorrect. Grover Cleveland, who served two non-consecutive terms at the end of the 19th Century, is counted as two separate presidents, so forty-two men have sworn that oath. Clarke's cultural references tend toward the clunky ("Tarnak farm looked more like Gunga Din's fort than Dorothy's farm in The Wizard of Oz"), and the endlessly self-congratulatory tone does get wearisome after awhile. On page 176 Clarke includes a scene where he acts with such James Bond-ish macho nonchalance when he finds out that Usama bin Laden [as Clarke spells it] wants to have him killed ("'Well, that's an interesting way to start the day,' I joked") that it becomes unintentionally funny. All that, however, merely obscures the inescapable fact that George W. Bush's administration dropped the ball on homeland security and 3,000 Americans are dead as a result. And as if that wasn't bad enough, that administration is currently involved in an unnecessary military adventure in Iraq that has killed hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians while permanently scarring our image and credibility abroad - a foreign policy disaster that will most likely take generations to repair. If you want to know about the string of bad decisions that got us to this place, Richard A. Clarke's book is a clear and convincing account of how this disastrous period in American history has happened. For that reason alone this book is worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: A relatively unbiased review of America's national security
Review: If anyone is in the position to give the discerning reader a review of the national security policies of the past four presidential administrations it is Richard Clarke, who worked under each of these presidents. His closest relationship was with Clinton, who Clarke felt was the first president to recognize the full potential of al Qaeda and set up a homeland security program to respond to it. Additionally, Clarke notes, Clinton saw the devastating potential of al Qaeda in Bosnia, after it had effectively helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, and he did everything in his power to stop al Qaeda from determining the government of the war-torn country. This book counters many of the prevailing conservative arguments that Clinton was asleep at the wheel. Far from it, Clarke states, Clinton was very active in regard to combatting terrorism both at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the scope of the terrorist activities was so broad that it was virtually impossible for Clinton to address all the weaknesses in our national security system. Clarke is at home in describing the make-up of the national security system, the extent to which his department was tracking Usama bin Laden and other suspected terrorist leaders, and helping to organize a better net of security services for high profile events such as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. However, Clarke opts for some pretty heavy handed approaches when it comes to responding to terrorists abroad, favoring punitive strikes on supposed bases in retaliation to strikes against the US. He was sharply critical of Reagan for not responding to the attack on a US marine base in Beirut that resulted in the deaths of over 200 American soldiers. Clarke felt that Reagan and H.W. Bush did not put a high priority on terrorism in their foreign policies, and that W. Bush pretty much adopted the same line until the fateful 911 attack. However, Clarke felt that W. Bush incorrectly shifted the focus from Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria to Iraq following the attack, essentially letting bin Laden go when he had the chance to apprehend him and other key members of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The book is well written, covers a lot of ground, and provides perhaps the most accurate appraisal of our national security to date. Clarke gives high marks to Clinton for making terrorism a high priority in American foreign policy.
Rating:
Summary: a riveting narrative from an insider and hero
Review: Richard Clarke acted as an anti-terrorism operative under four US presidents, and here he offers a compelling and revealing narrative of one of the most important periods of our lifetime. The book begins with a fascinating chapter that covers the events of September 11th, 2001. Tellingly, Rice leaves Clarke in charge of post-WTC bombing operations, and she goes to the bunker with Mr. and Mrs. Cheney while Clarke and his colleagues stay in the Situation Room, working even as they believe that they will likely be killed in a further attack. The next chapters discuss events in the Middle East, the rise of terrorism and the American response to terrorist acts during the administrations of Reagan, Bush the elder, Clinton and Baby Bush. The book documents the distinct responses to terror threats by the Clinton and Bush administrations: Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1995 designed to go after terrorist funding and another in 1998 specifically to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda, tripled the FBI counterterrorism budget, pushed for Saudi cooperation in terrorist investigations, gave major speeches about the threat of terrorism, secured additional funding for counterterrorism, intervened in Bosnia to undermine efforts by bin Laden to establish a foothold in that country, bombed al Qaeda facilities, issued orders to have bin Laden killed, created the Counterterrorism Security Group, reinforced American embassies worldwide, held dozens of Principals meetings, foiled a number of Millennium plots, and asked for a Pol-Mil plan for al Qaeda, which included planning, goals, resources, timelines and responsibilities, and was later given to Condoleeza Rice in January 2001 though it was adopted by the administration until AFTER September 11th. By 1996, knowing that al Qaeda had a presence in over 50 countries, Clinton and his people "were preoccupied with it". Clarke states that "[Clinton] had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the major new threat facing America, and therefore had greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs." In contrast, during a time of increasing alerts and chatter, George Bush went on vacation. Clarke resigned his post in frustration, and his replacement quit after a few months because the administration was still not going after al Qaeda but was instead concentrating on Iraq and was "using the War on Terror politically". More importantly, they have not been effective in making us safer since 9-11, have weakened our military capabilities, underfunded first responders, reduced civil rights, and squandered the opportunity to unite the American people and build international alliances. While firefighters dug through the rubble of WTC, Bush & Co. were already plotting to use the horrific event for their own political ends. Prince Bandar, in the news recently due to Bob Woddward's book, makes some interesting appearances here, as do Louis Freeh, George Tenet and many others. The FBI and the Pentagon come off especially badly here, but Clarke also gives a lot of credit to individuals who worked hard on this threat, including FBI agent John O'Neill, the counterterrorism expert who is the subject of Frontline's "The Man Who Knew", an excellent documentary about an agent obsessed with al Qaeda and bin Laden, who quit the FBI in frustration, went to work as head of security in the WTC and was killed on 9-11. What critics do not give credit for is that Clarke was a government employee who had built a solid 30-year career and who operated behind-the-scenes. He gave up his privacy and his livelihood, knowing full well that the Bush Slime Machine (aka Karl Rove) would try to destroy his character and his life, but he still came forward because he thought this information was so important. Furthermore, his contentions have been corroborated by other insiders. We all owe this man a debt of gratitude for his actions -- before, during and since 9-11. One thing I've not seen anyone mention is the incredible implication of the title. After dedicating the book to the murder victims of 9-11, Clarke uses the preface to discuss the Constitution. He states that the President, naturalized citizens, bureaucrats, and FBI and CIA agents all take an oath swearing to protect the Constitution "against all enemies". He says that this is our first mission, "not unnecessary wars to test personal theories or expiate personal guilt or revenge. We must also defend the Constitution against those who would use the terrorist threat to assault the liberties the Constitution enshrines . . . It is essential that we prevent further attacks and that we protect the Constitution . . . against all enemies." Wow. So Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft are some of those referred to in the title. And I couldn't agree more. What are we defending if we allow ideologues to change the essential nature of our way of life? if something is wrong, I want someone to step up and point it out, and if I were ever in trouble, I would want Richard Clarke beside me. He is a remarkably brave, competent and articulate individual, and a true hero. Incredible tale with many interesting revelations. Essential reading. Highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: This is a book about the future
Review: Richard Clarke has been engaged - it may be fair to say obsessed - with protecting Americans from terrorist attacks for thirty years. He was served four presidents, three of them Republicans, in that capacity. The Bush administration chose him to head up its own antiterrorism efforts. Except perhaps for Sandy Berger, who is a somewhat more political figure, there is no one on the planet with more certified expertise on the subject. Agree with him or disagree, he has earned the right to a hearing. The appearance of his book, at a time essentially chosen by the White House, set off a firestorm. That's because the book is critical of the Bush administration, both in the way it downgraded terrorism initially, believing it to be a relatively unimportant hobby horse of Clinton's, and - more important, though much less discussed - in the way, as Clarke believes, it botched the war on terrorism after 9/11, by clinging to various preconceived ideas. It became politically necessary, therefore, for the White House to undercut the book ,with a full-court press across all the media attempting to sabotage Clarke's character and motivations. Notably, they did not attempt to sabotage any of Clarke's statements of fact. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission included a great many general conclusions diametrically opposed to Clarke's. What she did not include was a single denial of any of the facts Clarke presents in support of his conclusions; or much in the way of any factual details in support of her own. All this is beside the point. Clarke has plenty of criticism for other entities: for three other presidents, for the FBI, for the CIA, for the Justice Department. They haven't raised an outcry, because they're not facing the challenge of getting re-elected. The point of the book is twofold: first, to give a straightforward, insider's view of the history of the faceoff between the US and Al Qaeda. On this level, the book is indispensable. I found nearly every page illuminated a headline that had been obscure, or exploded a cherished talking point or conspiracy theory, whether of the left or of the right. Unlike with, say, Bob Woodward's upcoming book, we are getting the account first hand. We don't have to play a guessing game of "which Washington figure gave this version of events to the author, and what were his reasons for telling it this way?" Richard Clarke was there. And his motives are plain as glass: he wants to see America protected better in the future. And that is the second point. Because this is, ultimately, a book about the future, not a book about parcelling out recriminations. You can find two very different theories about the nature of terrorism in the public square. The neoconservatives in the White House believe that terrorism is the creature of rogue states, that Al Qaeda would be powerless if only America could attack and destroy every Muslim country whose government wishes America ill. Those, like Clarke, who have made antiterrorism their career, subscribe to the alternate theory that Al Qaeda derives its power from its religious ideology, and that conventional military operations against stable foreign governments are, at best, irrelevant to defeating that ideology or the groups that embrace it. These two theories lead to different strategies for defeating the enemy. The White House theory of terrorism has led to the Iraq war as the "central theater" in the War on Terror. If Clarke is correct, we need to change theories. In his final two chapters he spells out a three point program for countering radical Islamic terror: a massive effort at homeland protection (including protection of ports, nuclear and chemical plants, increased funding to local first responders, and a domestic equivalent of MI5 small enough to be effective); an ideological offensive to undercut the jihadist ideology where it lives (a long term project, but one that must be started immediately: forging links with moderate Islam, finding ways to mold it into effective political parties, working hard to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not slaughtering any more innocent Muslim civilians than we absolutely have to); and improve relations with friendly or neutral Islamic governments (not just for their cooperation on intelligence, arrests, and following money trails, but also being sensitive to their PR needs, nudging them toward greater openness, and providing them with the kind of economic aid that strengthens their support from their own populaces.) This looks like a common sense prescription. But the Bush administration has ignored many of its articles, done the opposite on a few of them, and placed the rest on a back burner because of the higher priority placed on the Iraq war. From the point of view of the Administration's rogue-state centered theory of terrorism, that different order of priorities makes sense. But it matters whether the Administration's theory, or Clarke's theory, is correct. Al Qaeda is in earnest. We cannot afford to get this wrong. Accordingly, we ought to be having a full, open, public debate on the source of Al Qaeda's strength: is it rogue state sponsors, leading to a policy relying primarily on a military response? Or is it a religious ideology, leading to a policy relying more on diplomacy and soft power? We need *that* debate, not the silly present one over whose eyes were more tightly closed before the planes struck the WTC. And because Bush and Kerry advocate these two different approaches, we need the debate before November 2004. Clarke's book opens that debate. That is why, whichever finally wins the argument, every American should read it. Our future depends on whether we manage to think this through together.
Rating:
Summary: Bush Ignored Terrorism For Months ...
Review: Dick Clarke's gripping tale of the issues of terrorism in the Bush White House, the Clinton White House, and even the Bush '41 and Reagan White House and its evolution or lack thereof within the government are astonishing. While concerns were expressed and started to be dealt with as early as the Reagan and Bush '41 Presidencies, the urgency of the situation did not come to the top of the pile, until the Clinton administration. Clarke indicates that Clinton was obsessed with terrorism. In addition, Clarke clearly indicates that Clinton had NO reservation about using military force or other methods to combat terrorism, and he did so on many occasions. Interestingly, he was constantly criticized by the public, the Congress and the Press as over-reacting to the situations. Now, it seems people think perhaps he could have done more. The book starts with Clarke's exquisite narrative of how he basically ran the country on 9/11/01. With authorization from the Vice President and the President, it was Clarke running the crisis, ordering the different departments to do what needed to be done, getting the stock market back in shape to open, etc, etc. This part of Clarke's book is a wonderful tale, a gripping experience. It appears it will soon be a movie as well. The rights were recently purchased. But the roller coaster ride than Clarke and his counterterrorism team lived through in the day of 9/11 and several days afterward was extraordinary. The other thing that Clarke's makes perfectly clear, was that he was not satisfied with the level of response of anyone. But, he was most satisfied with President Clinton's handling of it, as he did see it as a real and present danger to the United States of America, and made Clarke a cabinet level advisor. It is also clear, that despite vast efforts to the contrary, by the Clinton transition team and subsequently, by Clarke himself, the subject of terrorism was not a priority in the Bush White House, and that Condoleeza Rice was really not interested or informed on the matter prior to 9/11, by her own choice. She felt the real problems would be with Russia and China. On terrorism, she was focused on the old style enemy regime terrorism, not the new Al Qaeda method of internet cell manufacture. She did not consider it a significant problem. This viewpoint seems to be born out by almost everyone else's comments, books and testimony except for Rice, Bush and Ashcroft. It does seem to be the general opinion of everyone else. It surely is the opinion of Richard Clarke. The book portrays the incredible machinations that even urgent problems are subjected to in Washington, and the failure of so many to coordinate in the "War on Terror." But Clarke felt the real travesty was that even after 9/11, the Bush '43 administration was still not really serious about fighting terror. Within 2 years of 9/11, Clarke had left his job at the White House and went into private industry, after a career in public service spanning over 20 years. Readers should get this book because it lifts many curtains of the methods of operation in Washington. It is truly an eye opening experience.
Rating: 
Summary: A Creditably Problem
Review: Interveiwed by the Washington Post, Jan 23 1999, this same Richard Clarke stated that there was intelligence information showing that the aspirin factory in the Sudan had Iraqi scientist assisting in the production of nerve gas. It is a small wonder that the American people believe that there is a connection between Al Quida and Iraqi. He contributed to this belief. How can you believe he can give you any thing credible when he specifically stated that he will present what ever is politically expendient. He either lied to the reporter 2002 or he lied to commission. He is selling a book and it would not sell if it was not controversial.
|
