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.
Rating:
Summary: Shows Bush as a (...)liar
Review: Excellent book. Bush's lying attempt to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein is exposed as the sort (...) ranting we might expect from the scum bag low life war criminal currently in the White House. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice's private links to the Saudi oil money which funded 9/11 could have been better covered.
Rating:
Summary: Who's Got a Credibility Problem?
Review: Most of the reviews I've seen on Amazon, think that, as I do, Against All Enemies, is a great book. The ones that don't say Clarke has a credibility Problem. I say who has a bigger credibility problem Clark or Bush. It wasn't Clark who told us there were WMD in Iraq and underestimated the guerrilla resistance there. Furthermore Clarke's focus was not entirely on Bush. He also had some criticism from the previous three adminitrations, albeit, not as much. 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 may have had an axe to grind. He was retained by the incoming administration, though his position was downgraded to a staff instead of a Cabinet level position. 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 post. All this does not diminish from Clarke's insightful revelations in Against All Enemies, especially when backed up by former Secretary O'Neil and it seems to answer some of the nagging unresolved questions I had about this administration. It is certainly true that there are undeniable synergies between Against All Enemies and The Price of Loyalty. They describe the same bemused, indecisive, out of their league, White House.
Rating:
Summary: A complete work of fiction
Review: Any factual review of the book versus his testimony (yes, depending on WHICH testimony) does not square. Obviously, he had a bone to pick with the current administration for passing him over for a position he desperately wanted. His next best thing was to trash this administration, even if he had to fabricate most of it. The real standard to look for is his comparison of fighting terrorism by the Clinton administration vs. the current administration. He basically gave a pass to the Clinton administration, which did absolutely nothing except lip service to combat terrorism. For example, each terrorist act committed during the Clinton administration brought out Bill, biting his lip, stating that he wouldn't rest until those responsible were brought to justice. Obviously, he hasn't rested any in 4 years minimum, since he made his appearance, made his statement, and then went back to doing what Bill did best..........posturing. The book Clark wrote took nothing into account except his displeasure of being passed over for a job. Other than that, he has no explanation for the back-stabbing that he is very good at.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis of our failing counterterrorism effort.
Review: This is not a political anti Bush manifesto. It is a well researched historical roadmap of the U.S. failing counterterrorism effort over the past two decades during which the author had a first hand experience as government official. He covers in some depth the administration under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each administration had their weaknesses in this respect. But, in most cases their weaknesses were due as much to flaws within our government intelligence agencies than flaws at the top level of the Administration. Clarke describes in detail the flaws and lackluster performance of our intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, and the NSC. Each lack backbone, drive, courage, and focus. As a result they do a piss poor job of preventing terrorism, protecting U.S. civilians and soldiers both domestically and abroad. They also produce flawed, inaccurate, or meaningless intelligence of no help to the executive rank of the Administration. Clarke supports his theories with extensive description and analysis of actual events over the past thirty years. Occasionally, top rank officials compound the mistakes of the intelligence agencies. This is the case for instance with Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, who has been in denial that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were mortal enemies. The reason for Wolfowitz denial is easily explained when we find out that he had been the strongest proponent of ousting Saddam Hussein in order to dismantle Al Quaeda years before the actual invasion of Iraq. This is an excellent well-written book that the current Administration has failed to discredit. It has also a lot of common points with another related excellent book: "Winning Modern Wars" by Wesley Clark. Both authors advance that our government strategy of dealing with terrorism as a fight between States is deeply flawed. Instead, our intelligence agencies should be more proactive and aggressive in cooperating with their counterparts in Europe, Asia, and everywhere where possible to seize and capture terrorists, treat them accordingly once seized, and dismantle the Al Quaeda network piece by piece. Both Clark(es) recommend a war against terrorism that is radically different than the current neoconservatives strategy of taking over the Islamic World state by state.
|
