Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened

Rating:
Summary: Is this the best that Bush's critics can do?
Review: Had you ever heard of Richard Clarke before this book was published? Me either. But his book is one of several that are changing my mind about what a terrible job George W. Bush is allegedly doing.

Clarke thinks he knows what the Bush Administration should do to stop terrorism. And he's certainly the man to give such advice: he's a career civil servant who spent _thirty years_ not stopping terrorism. (And then he wasn't picked to be National Security Advisor; Condoleezza Rice got the job instead. The expresssion 'axe to grind' has such a nice metaphorical unity with the expression 'hatchet job', doesn't it?)

According to Clarke, Bill Clinton didn't stop terrorism either, but it's not Clinton's fault. Oh, sure, some CIA guys say Clinton wasn't clear that he actually _wanted_ Osama bin Laden killed, but they must be lying to cover up for their own ineptitude. Heck, after 9/11, Clinton _said_ he'd spent four years trying to take out bin Laden. This explanation will surely have the ring of plausibility to the many millions who regard Clinton as a paragon of clarity and honesty.

Clarke seems to be a little miffed that people didn't listen to him when he warned them about al Qaeda. (This sounds like a bigger deal than it is; even the little thingie on your VCR that blinks midnight is eventually right if you stay up late enough.) But his claims on this point should not be accepted too readily.

He suspects, for example, that Condi Rice had never heard of al Qaeda until he mentioned them to her in early 2001 -- this suspicion being based on her _facial expression_, despite the fact that she had publicly discussed al Qaeda well before that time. It's much more likely that Clarke -- his keen mind honed razor-sharp by three decades of deskwarming -- wrongly thought he was telling people something they didn't already know.

Nevertheless, even assuming _arguendo_ that he was the sole voice crying in the wilderness about the al Qaeda threat (that is, even generously assuming that Richard Clarke was the only person in the entire United States government who knew that al Qaeda was behind a couple of embassy bombings and the attack on the USS _Cole_), I think I can hazard a guess as to why no one listened to him: it's because his advice is colossally boneheaded. Based on his recommendations in the closing chapter of this book, I wouldn't have listened to him either.

For example: he thinks one of the things the Bush Administration _should_ have done is to try to counter 'the ideology of al Qaeda' by 'promot[ing] the real Islam'. Sure. There must be _lots_ of Muslim terrorists who would have taken George W. Bush's word about the True Meaning of Islam over that of their own leaders and laid down their arms if only Bush hadn't squandered his opportunity to enlighten them. Well, maybe it's not too late: we can still deploy Tom Cruise to teach them the Way of the Samurai.

He also picks on John Ashcroft for 'mismanag[ing] the important perceptions component of the war on terrorism' by _coming across_ as someone who was 'attacking rather than protecting our civil liberties'. Yes, you read that correctly. Some people have criticized Ashcroft for supposedly violating civil liberties; Clarke criticizes him for _looking_ like he was when he _wasn't_.

I'd like to know how Ashcroft could have done a better job with the 'perceptions component'. Good heavens, he's the Attorney General, a Bush appointee, a Republican, a Christian, and a Southerner; with that profile, the ACLU's 'perception' would have been that he was attacking civil liberties if he'd wished somebody a nice day. Should he have taken spin lessons from Janet Reno? (Maybe he should have offered to try to get Jose Padilla custody of Elian Gonzalez.)

Clarke has it in for the Bush Administration so badly that he can't even think straight. At one point he notes that Bush said something about the War on Terrorism having begun on 9/11, and thinks this somehow conflicts with Bush's later statement that there was 'no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks'. Where's the contradiction exactly? I can't find a single statement in which Bush has ever claimed that such evidence existed. Whenever Bush says the War on Terrorism started on 9/11, he means the same thing he's always meant: that the 9/11 attack marked a huge change in the U.S.'s antiterrorism policy. Whether you favor invading Iraq or not (I originally didn't), Bush has never claimed the invasion was a direct response to Saddam's possible involvement in 9/11. (And Bush's statement that there was no evidence of direct involvement by Saddam is obviously not, as Clarke's slipshod logic would have it, an 'admi[ssion] . . . that there was no connection'.)

It's tempting to think that Clarke _must_ know this and must therefore be lying. At first that's what I did think. But when I asked myself, 'How could someone who was a civil servant for thirty years be _that_ illogical?' -- I realized at once that the question answered itself.

Basically, what we've got here is a bunch of petulant, incoherent Monday-morning quarterbacking by a guy who's mad about not getting to play -- and still doesn't seem to realize that this sort of nonsense is exactly why he didn't get to play in the first place. I'd have picked Condi over him too.

Read _Reckless Disregard_. Lt. Col. Robert 'Buzz' Patterson has this guy's number.

(And by the way -- ignore the misinformed reviewer who says Clarke voted for Bush. He didn't. He voted for Gore; he said so in a radio interview.)

Rating:
Summary: This man was ignored, by the Bush White House, to our peril
Review: This thoughtful, cogent, analysis of how the United States; culminating in the attacks on 11 September (September 11 or 9/11) 2001 might have been, if not prevented, at least, better handled by the Bush (II) Administration. Although Mr. Clarke cites instances, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, where ineffective responses to e.g., the Cole, Khobar, and Beruit, led to the emergence of groups, like Al-Qaeda; and the unfortunate incidents which "tied up" the Clinton Administration's efforts to "get Osama/Usama Bin Laden" fell short, he describes how the arrogance and ignorance of this Administration (Bush II) help to prevent the capture and killing of Bin Laden and his deputies (a point that has been consistently, and rightly, made a campaign issue of in 2004, by John Kerry) and although nothing might have been done to completely prevent 9/11, the officials of the incoming administration, e.g., Condoleezza (Condi) Rice, might have helped in approaching the problem to "head off" (as much as possible) the potential for attack. Also, Mr. Clarke's analysis that the idea to invade Iraq (led by Richard B. [Dick] Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, became a higher priority than dealing with Osama/Usama Bin Laden [another Kerry point]). It's unfortunate that more people haven't read this book, as well as the 9/11 report, and related books prior to this coming election. If they had, the people who will help reelect (possibly) the same Administration who's action, or inaction, in dealing with Al-Qaeda, and subsequent and mistaken invasion of Iraq, have put this nation on, contrary to Mr. Bush (the younger) and company, a "less safe" world "footing". It is unfortunate they will make the 2nd biggest mistake in recent history (the first being 2000) and it will be unfortunate that this book in hindsight (always 20-20?), like Mr. Clarke, will have gone (largely) ignored, much to the U.S.'s continuing (and then) peril. God Bless [and Help] America.

Rating:
Summary: The Naked President
Review: If you feel safe believing that George Bush is doing a good job against terrorism, you won't if you read this book!
Former Bush White House Terrorism aide Richard (Dick) Clarke's new book Against all Enemies, makes Emperor Bush look like a character in the old fairie tale whose new suit actually leaves him naked.

With the release of this very revealing book, Bush and the White House Staff have been left naked. Clarke has stripped away their cover and exposed them all for us to see. There could be nothing more damning for President Bush than the White House Counter-terrorism co-ordinator, in the aftermath of the most destructive terrorist event in the history of the world, saying in his new book that among other things, Bush and his National Security Advisor did not seem to have a handle on or as least underestimated how dangerous an adversary Al Queda and Bin Laden was and in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Bush and his staff perseverated upon Iraq as co-conspirator, even to the point of trying to get subordinates to find (or invent) evidence of Saddam's complicity. It seems the smarmy Rumsfield was fascinated by the concept of attacking the target rich Iraqis.

Ultimately Bush did the right thing and went to Afghanistan but he obviously never forgot Iraq. Clarke also thinks the invasion of Iraq was a mistake as well, taking valuable resources from Afghanistan, squandering the post 9-11 good will of the world and creating a whole new generation of terrorists by generally enraging most of the Muslims. As Clark puts it, If Osama bin Laden were to have a wish list, this invasion would probably top the list. It has separated us from our allies and world opinion, has given bin Laden an anti America forum and gave him and all terrorists a place to confront the Great Satan head on.

Clarke's focus was not entirely on Bush. He also was not totally happy with the policies or responses to terrorist related events in his previous eight years with the Clinton administration, though just as previous events paled in comparison to the shock of 9-11, the damage to the sitting president is certainly greater, especially in the heat of his re-election campaign. I find what Mr Clarke has to say both convincing and compelling. What he says about his former employers apparent ineptitude, though not criminally negligent, makes the Bush team look very bad.

In all honesty it seems to me that Clarke had an axe to grind. He was retained by the incoming administration, though his position was downgraded to staff instead of a Cabinet level position. I may be wrong but there also seems to be an underlying acrimony between Dr. Rice (his boss) and himself and finally I believe Clarke was unhappy at not being considered for the new Homeland Security Czar.

Conclusion

All this does not diminish from Clarke's insightful revelations in Against All Enemies, especially when backed up by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's recent revealing book "The Price of Loyalty" and it seems to answer some of the nagging unresolved questions I had about this administration. It is certainly true that there are enormous synergies between Against All Enemies and The Price of Loyalty. They describe the same bemused, indecisive, out of their league, White House and many of the things that Clarke worried about are clearly comming to pass.


Rating:
Summary: Narrow and subjective approach to fighting terrorism
Review: The author not only exposes the hidden working of decision-makers that put many innocent lives in danger, but also shows that the author himself has been inflicted by the same inapt thinking and tunnel vision of many politicians, which the he were set to battle.

The author erroneously dates the major birth of terrorism, Al-Qaeda, to Afghanistan war, the Iranian revolution, and the rise of Saddam, all in 1979. That is viewed in the scope of the 30 years of the author's career in the government. The author thus oversimplifies cultural conflicts of very complex and long history.

Clarke's proposition for defeating terrorism entails the following three tasks: (1) overcoming homeland vulnerability, (2) creating counter-weight ideology to Wahhabism, and (3) aiding Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to eradicate fanaticism. Though his approach might rid of many terrorists, it would not eliminate the ideas that drive some people to become fanatic.

First, his views on homeland security reflect his over-reaction to irrational fear. The 20 hijackers of 9/11 would have failed to carry out their plots had the cockpit doors of the four airplanes been securely locked. His obsession with nuclear threat to American cities by terrorism proves his extreme and irrational fear (because nuclear technology is impossible to gain access to without resourceful state's efforts).

Second, his proposal of creating counter-weight to fundamental Jihadists proves his naivety about international history. How could Mr. Clark's proposal succeed in defeating such exuberant appeal of religious altruism? He should have demanded that American politicians to rise above the fray and put the country above their personal greed for money, long-term service, and partisanship.

His third proposal of helping friends in the four troubled Islamic nations would bring more terrorism and instability. That is because America is pro-Israel, capitalist, and has long history of Apartheid and indifference to the welfare of poor majority. America supported many dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and the family of King Saud, in addition to its support to the racist Zionist state of Israel. Thus, any interference by America in the Middle East will bring nothing but more terrorism.

The damning roots of America's troubles are vividly demonstrated in those books. The author, himself, admits that the Apartheid of South Africa is a sin, yet he makes deals with Israel that is founded on Apartheid and supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa (until he pressured his Israeli counterpart to abandon such practice). The author dignifies the advice of Egyptian president for averting the Iraq war (calls him an Arab leader), without the slightest sense that that dictator was not elected by his own people.
Although the war on Iraq is a disastrous conquest of monetary losses and squandering innocent lives, it could have been better utilized, in fighting oppression, as the poor and ruled see it. The greatest mistakes USA made was not going to war, but its double talk, making deals with oppressors and deviating clearly from the American Ideals.