A rchive Date
[ 22-09-2002 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington.html
A history of dealing with terrorism
Sept. 11 was a failure, in part, of intelligence - but a greater failure of political will
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
September 22, 2002
Prime Minister Jean Chretien thinks poverty is a cause for terrorism; Transport Minister David Collenette regrets the Soviet Union isn't still around to check what he calls American "bullying"; Foreign Minister Bill Graham thinks just because Saddam Hussein is nasty is insufficient reason to take him out.
Good grief. These are guys who guide Canada!
First of all, poverty and terror are unrelated. The terrorism the civilized world (i.e., America and Britain) is at war against mostly comes from countries that have oodles of oil money, little of which trickles down to the people. Really poor countries are mostly passive.
If Collenette thinks the U.S. is a "bully," he's never met a real bully - which is what the USSR was in its quest to dominate the world. The U.S. seeks to save the world, and by its example dictatorships have virtually been eliminated in the Western hemisphere, except for Cuba.
Terrorism is the flavour of our times, but often misunderstood. For starters, our above-mentioned "leaders" might peruse a new book that's an excellent primer as to why Sept. 11 happened, who is to blame, and what to do about it. The War Against the Terror Masters is by Michael Ledeen, a scholarly "expert" who has worked in the State Department, Pentagon, National Security Council, and is now with the American Enterprise Institute.
Myths punctured
Ledeen punctures many myths and shibboleths about terrorism, and how to thwart it. Everyone now acknowledges that Sept. 11 was a failure, in part, of intelligence. But it was a greater failure of political will. Starting in the 1970s, the CIA was told that the assassination of presumed enemies was taboo. CIA agents were forbidden to deal with unsavoury characters as sources.
The FBI wasn't even allowed to keep news clippings of groups proclaiming their intent to destroy America. Little in the way of intelligence analysis and documentation was done, nor was there co-operation or exchange of information among various U.S. security agencies.
When Jimmy Carter became president, the quality of intelligence deteriorated, and by the time of Bill Clinton, the U.S. had no agents in places like Iran, Iraq, Syria. All terror states.
Under Clinton, the U.S. decided there was no such thing as "state-sponsored terrorism." Terrorism was viewed as a criminal act, not a strategy of war. Even though every president since Gerald Ford has declared "war" on terrorism, none linked it directly to a particular state.
As for Sept. 11, there were all sorts of warnings and hints about Osama bin Laden which were ignored. The Italians had hard information - disregarded. Several times Sudan, of all places, warned the U.S. about the impending attack on embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, hoping to return to America's good graces. Sudan offered to turn over bin Laden who, even then, was on the U.S. wanted list. The State Department shrugged - and Clinton bombed a Sudanese Aspirin factory.
No communication
By the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, neither the CIA nor the FBI were communicating, and neither followed evidence that indicated this was not a "crime" by individuals, but a sponsored act of war. Signs pointed to Iraq's involvement, as well as Iran's and bin Laden's.
Some in U.S. Intelligence insisted (still do) that Sunni, Shiite and secular Muslims are so mutually hostile that they cannot co-operate in terror - which is transparent rubbish. Secular Iraq, fanatic Sunnis and Wahabbi Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt co-operate against Israel and the U.S. when conditions dictate.
If the Iraqi connection had been pursued in 1993, maybe 9/11 would have been short-circuited. It now turns out that Mohammed Atta, a key figure in Sept. 11, met Iraq's intelligence chief in Prague prior to the attack.
Terrorism is a cancer that requires surgery. Faint hearts who deplore military action against Saddam Hussein (on behalf of Iraqi people) resemble those who warned going to war in Afghanistan would unite Afghani people against America, would unite the Muslim world, would be a graveyard for the U.S. army, would mean victory for Russia and so on.
All wrong. The opposite happened. As for Russians controlling Afghanistan, U.S military bases are now solid in what used to be southern regions of the old USSR.
If Saddam is eliminated, the Middle East spawning grounds for international terror will be diminished.
Playing both sides
The Iranian regime is vulnerable and could topple to a fairly substantial opposition that's ready and waiting. Syria will be isolated and the U.S. will be able to get tougher with Saudi Arabia, where the disgraceful Saudi royal family plays both sides for its own self-interest.
Contrary to some views, the world seems safer today than it was prior to 9/11. Bush sees it as his destiny to make the world safer, and since Sept. 11 U.S. intelligence agencies have been revived and co-ordinated, so little happens anywhere that the Americans don't know about. Another state-sponsored sneak attack is unlikely, as the security network spreads and becomes more vigilant.
No longer are warning signs ignored.
Ledeen itemizes Machiavelli's five rules for successful political and military action, which are as pertinent today as they were in 1532 when he defined them: 1. Evil constantly wars against the good, and those who want peace - an abnormality - must win wars; peace is ensured by the gun barrel. 2. Winning is the only important thing, and by winning it is the right thing; 3. If unpleasant things must be done - do them all at once, decisively, quickly and ignore diplomats who always advise going slowly; 4. Being feared (respected) is safer than being loved. People are fickle with those they love, consistent with those they respect; 5. Never underestimate "luck," which can be good or bad and is uncontrollable; 50% good-luck is sufficient if other factors fall into place. Unlike his father, this President Bush is decisive, driven, has convictions and has people around him who don't vacillate, as his dad did when he urged Ukraine not to become independent, and Boris Yeltsin not to replace Mikhail Gorbachev.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA]
|