Now that I have my angry post out of the way I want to talk about 9/11 and policing.
The US is a country with one of the largest unsecured borders in the world. It is also one of the most open large societies in the world. This has many advantages: an economy so excellent that people are willing to immigrate to become what counts as poor here, an intellectual culture so vibrant that we make an outsized number of the world’s scientific discoveries, the freedom to move about a huge and varied land mass for almost any reason imaginable. But terrorism exploits this openness.
Let me first be clear about my understanding of 9/11:
I don’t believe it could have been stopped by acceptable levels of increased security. I don’t believe it would have been stopped by the current levels of security, and we are willing to put up with far more than we would have before the attack.
I believe it is highly unlikely that it would have been stopped by ‘increased intelligence’ in any level which we would have found acceptable before 9/11. One of the most intensive intelligence capabilities in the history of the world, employed during the Cold War, still missed Soviet moles in some of our most sensitive branches of government. Long-term undercover agents penetrating our most secretive branches ought to be somewhat easier to detect over decades than the relatively short-term (1-3 years) planning employed by the 9/11 attackers who merely need to get into the country. Yet still there were agents who went undetected for years and years.
But I understand why clinging to the belief that 9/11 ‘could have been stopped’ is so appealing to the Democrats. They are certainly correct that ‘if only we had looked at the right things’ we could have stopped the attack. But it is quite a bit closer to saying ‘if only I had picked the right lottery numbers I would be a millionaire’ than they seem to believe. (See an excellent analysis of hindsight and data mining by Jane Galt.) But it is crucial to Democrats that 9/11 ought to have been stoppable by ordinary police work because the policing approach is their preferred method of operation.
We all know that the Middle East has to be reformed. The crucial question is, how much time do we have? Can we wait for it to mostly fix itself, or do we have to be agressive about trying to fix it? If policing is not particularly effective the Middle East needs to be reformed fairly soon, because we cannot count on policing to stop every terrorist attack (or for the sake of argument nearly every terrorist attack). If we can count on policing to stop almost all terror attacks, we can take our time and wait a couple of decades or a century for the Middle East to (hopefully) sort itself out.
If policing cannot stop most well-planned terrorist attacks, we are led to a more aggressive and overtly interventionalist stance. It might not be precisely what the neo-cons are suggesting, but it would be closer to that than the relatively hands-off approach which most on the left claim to prefer (usually because we don’t want to be seen as hegemonic or imperial).
The policing question also applies to appeals about international ‘cooperation’. Large international bodies are slow to react, slow to change, and slow to accept new realities. And that is slow even compared to governments in general. If policing is very effective against terrorism, we can spend a couple of decades hammering out the international response to it, because very few attacks will be able to get through. Internal policing is also what the international community has expressed the greatest willingness to engage in. They aren’t much interested in dealing with the problem at its source in the Middle East. So going with policing doesn’t take much political capital, and it lets the international community take as much time as it wants.
This is why it is so important for Democrats to use the 9/11 Commission to explain that BUT FOR mistakes made by the Bush administration, 9/11 could have ALMOST CERTAINLY have been stopped. It isn’t just to attack Bush, though they relish that. It is because many of their ideas about international cooperation and soft power are threatened if policing isn’t generally sufficient to deal with terrorism.
Let’s see…if we take out this misnomer:
what is left in this ridiculous partisan rant?
What you’re seeing from the Democracts on the 9/11 commission is not the argument that 9/11 could have/should have/would have been prevented (and such defensiveness is rather revealing in itself), but that we must shake things up, rattle a few cages, bruise a few egos to ensure that the folks in power who are arguing that they were helpless to prevent it last time do not continue to assume they remain equally helpless going forward. Making them “fighting mad” is a good thing for the nation as long as they’re responsible for protecting us.
No amount of charging around the world, invading this country that doesn’t have WMD or invading that country that doesn’t have WMD, is going to make us any safer if our leaders get intelligence and think to themselves, “Fine, the FBI is doing their job, I can go back to my ranch now.”
Actually, it’s yet to be proven* that invading this or that country that doesn’t have any WMD is going to make us safer in the long run at all. Unfortunately, now we have no choice but to hope.
*And before anyone dredges up Lybia again, please note they’ve been trying to woo Western countries and have been sucking up to European leaders for years now. I suspect all this post Iraq-invasion obedience is simply opportunistic grandstanding.
Well-written post. Mostly nonsense, but well-written.
This whole “Dems want Law Enforcement on Terror and Repubs want War On Terror” is such a right-wing invention. Fighting terrorism is not an “either/or” approach — it requires many approaches, many tools, many weapons.
Surely you’re not suggesting that we stop law enforcement-type actions in the U.S. and around the world and just go invade every Arab country and “reform” them?
It is because many of their ideas about international cooperation and soft power are threatened if policing isn’t generally sufficient to deal with terrorism.
Are you aware that the vast majority of Democrats completely support wiping out Al Qaeda through military action?
How about some small international bodies then? I’d be happier with those operating with little to no political accountability to me than I would with the US, which has absolutely no political accountability.
Also, the problem with a country – any country – being the one to take action is that its actions are subject to local politics. Of course, the immediate response is that international bodies are subject to politics from a wider arena, more sources etc.
But, if we had small international bodies whose leaders were not subject to the whims of countries… whose leaders were chosen/elected but then are completely political isolated after that (i.e. not representatives as in the UNSC)… wouldn’t that be better?
This is the dream. Build it with me, people – let’s link arms, that’s a good start. How about a chant or two?
The basic defeatism expressed by so many Republicans with regard to 9/11 is fairly clearly sourced.
Bush did nothing with regard to the warnings his administration received about an al-Qaeda strike in the US. Therefore (to a Bush supporter) doing nothing must have been the only thing to do.
Moe Lane’s claim that even if Al Gore had been President, and the PNAC coterie had never come to power, the US would still have invaded Iraq, is sourced to the same point: If Bush did it, it must have been the inevitable thing to do.
“This whole “Dems want Law Enforcement on Terror and Repubs want War On Terror” is such a right-wing invention. Fighting terrorism is not an “either/or” approach — it requires many approaches, many tools, many weapons.”
Yes, but Democrats have a lot more trouble with the military side of it than Republicans have with the policing side of it. In fact zero Republicans think that we should stop policing. But we understand that policing is merely a stop-gap measure. Many Democrats seem to think that policing is the largest part of the actual solution.
“Are you aware that the vast majority of Democrats completely support wiping out Al Qaeda through military action?”
And this of course is a major problem because wiping out Al Qaeda isn’t nearly enough. It isn’t the only major terrorist organization in the Middle East and wiping it out does almost nothing to stop the jihadist fundamentalism which breeds terrorism.
It is also a vast overstatement. The correct statement is much closer to: “the vast majority of Democrats completely support wiping out Al Qaeda through military action so long as Al Qaeda is found in Afghanistan.’
Edward pretty much proves my point with: “Fine, the FBI is doing their job, I can go back to my ranch now.”
He believes that of course 9/11 could have been stopped if Bush had been doing something .
Please re-read the paragraph on Soviet-era intelligence. Anyone want to respond to that point?
For the most part I agree with the theme of this post, Holsclaw (see Will Baude on names in blogging).
But there is an internal logic that might reduce your partisanship. If policing will not be effective, and reformation of the ME will not be done overnight, we will be hit again…..and the problems will gain clarity. Neither Democrats or Republicans will be able to prevent all successful attacks.
The “job” must and will be done. Frankly, changing administration may allow different ideas and methods to be attempted. We are probably at this point too focused on military solutions…they are my solutions….but a different emphasis for a while might be useful.
“I believe it is highly unlikely that it would have been stopped by ‘increased intelligence’ in any level which we would have found acceptable before 9/11”
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? It is the axiom upon which your entire position rests, and yet it seems to me it’s nothing more than semi-educated hypothesizing (no offense intended. All us yahoos are semi-educated here). It depends on the assumption that increased intelligence is what we needed (when in fact there’s ample evidence that we already had the intelligence we needed) and that acceptability is a function of effectiveness, rather than a function of focus, due diligence, and unintended consequences. It depends on the assumption that a mandated focus and vision from the highest levels of government (which was undeniably lacking) would have had no practical effect on the day to day execution of law enforcement, even under existing strictures and with existing techniques. I, also semi-educated, find that extremely hard to believe.
“Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds.” – FDR
I believe it is highly unlikely that it would have been stopped by ‘increased intelligence’ in any level which we would have found acceptable before 9/11
“Do you have any evidence for this assertion?”
As a matter of fact I do. Mr. Clarke said as much in his testimony. Since Mr. Clarke is pretty much the main attack dog AGAINST Bush in this matter I think such an admission is strong evidence for the truth of my proposition. Clarke’s testimony amounts to ‘more should have been done, but it probably wouldn’t have stopped 9/11’.
Any further objections?
“Mr. Clarke said as much in his testimony.”
Are you sure?
Read Gorton’s question again. He asked if Clarke’s international and foreign policy recommendations in regards to Afghanistan were adopted, if 9/11 would have been prevented. His simple ‘No’ doesn’t allow for much elaboration, but it’s reasonable to assume that it’s for the same reason Tenet previously answered the same way.
” FIELDING: …do you think if you had gotten in any way shape or form bin Laden in the year 2001 you would have prevented the 9/11 attacks?
TENET: Commissioner Fielding, I don’t believe so. I believe that this plot line was off and running…. Decapitating one person, even bin Laden in this context, I do not believe we would have stopped this plot. ”
Their answers were to specific hypotheticals. In no way were they asserting that ‘9/11 was not preventable’. As I mentioned in the last thread, I find that mindset disturbing and borderline offensive. I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, it betrays a certain self-loathing. A belief that America was not tough and resolute enough and that we therefore somehow deserved this 9/11 that fate brought us.
“Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
CLARKE: No.”
Not even the remotest chance.
Why did Gorton focus on these particular issues? Because Clarke used them as illustrations about his most important reccommendations which were not immediately implemented by the Bush administration. They were the best he could come up with as evidence that Bush wasn’t taking Al Qaeda as seriously as Clarke wanted.
But even those suggestions would not have had the remotest chance of stoping 9/11.
That isn’t just my view, that is the view of the Democrats current favorite critic of the Bush administration.
The idea that 9/11 couldn’t have been prevented BY POLICE MEANS doesn’t betray self-loathing or a belief that we deserved it. It is from an understanding that policing is best at assigning blame after a crime, and preventing a particular actor from committing another crime by incarcerating him. It is really awful at preventing the first crime. Relying on police measures to stop terrorism is foolish because it requires absolute perfection from a human institution.
And I note again that no liberal voice on this blog has responded to my paragraph regarding the success of the Soviets in repeatedly pulling off much harder feats than mere one-time terrorist attacks under a much stronger intelligence regime than we have now (or had just before 9/11).
“But even those suggestions would not have had the remotest chance of stoping 9/11.”
Because that is not what they were designed to do. Here are the principles that I believe I can draw, and I think you’d agree with them.
a) Military action is better than police action at preventing terrorism in the rare case where your enemies have situated themselves in such a way that military action is even possible.
b) Once actors are in the country and plans in motion, military action is worthless to prevent it.
a) is responsible for Clarke’s focus and his belief that those were the best solutions available to the broader problem of Al Qaida. b) is responsible for his response to Skeletor. And I note:
“is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?”
Emphasis mine.
“It is from an understanding that policing is best..”
I agree. Police are better at apprehension and incarceration than prevention. This doesn’t have anything to do with the nature of policework. It’s human nature. Action leaves a lot of evidence. Intent, not so much. That fact also affects the military. Why didn’t the military shut down Al-Sadr before this apparently well-coordinated insurrection? Maybe they needed better policework.
To say that A is harder than B is not to say that B is impossible. Crimes are prevented all the time. Terrorist plots are prevented regularly. I still don’t think you’ve risen to your burden of proof that 9/11 was inevitable.
“That isn’t just my view, that is the view of the Democrats current favorite critic of the Bush administration.”
Al Franken believes it? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I believe you’re both wrong. And not because I don’t want to miss any opportunity to blamestorm. You’re welcome to scour the logs here to find out how eager I am to throw blame around for 9/11. But because wrongness about this propagates the pernicious belief that we are helpless if the terrorists aren’t kind of enough to setup easily identifiable camps for Warthogging.
I don’t believe we are helpless. I believe that dealing with the current terrorism problem requires quite a bit of action in territories that are beyond the borders of the United States, and which don’t have effective (or interested in helping us) police forces. I don’t believe that interdiction is good long term strategy. I don’t believe interdiction is a good medium term strategy. In fact I believe interdiction is useful only insomuch as it gives us time to take more direct action in the foreign countries where the terrorists organize, fund, and train.
Trying to use defense as your main strategy here is a losing proposition because we can’t (and shouldn’t) try to watch everybody and everything all the time. (Of course we could aggressively target investigations mainly at Muslims, but even that isn’t palatable).
I’m not against intelligence work, but it can’t catch everything. That is precisely why we must attack our enemies in the countries where they spread their bile. We can’t keep them at bay forever so we must destroy them and foster cultures where they won’t be easily replaced before they can make it through our imperfectable defenses.
Seb,
I agree terrorism demands an extralegal response, I think that the Bush Administration was correct not to pursue the Afghanistan retaliation through NATO, yet I still opposed the Iraq war.
As the example of Iraq demonstrates, nation-building is neither easy nor cheap, despite the predictions of the Bush Administration. The “regime change” model is not one where partial success is possible. The only two outcomes are a strong likelihood of abject failure (which I believe makes Americans worse off, from a security standpoint, if not Iraqis) and a slim chance of success.
What’s more, fostering a liberal democratic culture is easier said than done. What’s worse is that the very act of trying to push a foreign culture on a people is likely to make them resist it. However, now that we’ve started it, we must finish it.
We should at least have the good sense not to try it somewhere else. I believe that the Hobson’s choice you propose between a defensive strategy and one based on the tactic of “regime change” is false. I, for one, wouldn’t mind a return to some of the extralegal tactics employed during the Cold War, the same ones, I concede, that were denounced by liberals at the time.