Thursday, March 25, 2004
After reading Rich Lowry's column Rich Lowry on Richard Clarke on National Review Online, I had these thoughts on the Clinton Administration's attitude on terrorism:
It is possible that President Clinton was fixated on trying to "Carterize" his legacy by moving the Middle East peace process forward at the end of his administration, and may well have been "distracted" due to his laser-like focus on the process (viewed somewhat favorably from Clinton's perspective) from rolling up al Qaeda. Perhaps his calculation was that an attack on al Qaeda wouldn't go down well with the Palestinians and their Arab allies, potentially sidetracking his effort. After all, the President hadn't really been called on the carpet for his failures to deal with terrorism; why worry now over the lives of a few sailors?
Also, it seems to me that the Clinton national security team was much more focused on process than results. Each new attack seemed to completely reset their deliberations, not add urgency and impetus towards an effective response.
One takeaway that these hearings have left me with is that another of the great failings of Clinton was his lack of faith in his ability to truly lead the American people towards an unpopular goal. Perhaps some of his advisors may have argued for reforms akin to the Patriot Act; some may have argued for more aggressive changes in diplomacy towards Pakistan and the other former Soviet countries surrounding Afghanistan that provided basing and other support after 9/11. He could have fired generals and/or his CIA, FBI and DOJ heads--anyone who wasn't pulling their weight towards solving the problem rather than finding excuses for inaction. He could have ordered a KH-11 to be tasked permanently over Afghanistan to watch for UBL instead of depending on the Predator and its limitations. He could have done a thousand things to demonstrate action over symbolism--his calculus seemed to be that the latter is always good enough for his image.
It is possible that President Clinton was fixated on trying to "Carterize" his legacy by moving the Middle East peace process forward at the end of his administration, and may well have been "distracted" due to his laser-like focus on the process (viewed somewhat favorably from Clinton's perspective) from rolling up al Qaeda. Perhaps his calculation was that an attack on al Qaeda wouldn't go down well with the Palestinians and their Arab allies, potentially sidetracking his effort. After all, the President hadn't really been called on the carpet for his failures to deal with terrorism; why worry now over the lives of a few sailors?
Also, it seems to me that the Clinton national security team was much more focused on process than results. Each new attack seemed to completely reset their deliberations, not add urgency and impetus towards an effective response.
One takeaway that these hearings have left me with is that another of the great failings of Clinton was his lack of faith in his ability to truly lead the American people towards an unpopular goal. Perhaps some of his advisors may have argued for reforms akin to the Patriot Act; some may have argued for more aggressive changes in diplomacy towards Pakistan and the other former Soviet countries surrounding Afghanistan that provided basing and other support after 9/11. He could have fired generals and/or his CIA, FBI and DOJ heads--anyone who wasn't pulling their weight towards solving the problem rather than finding excuses for inaction. He could have ordered a KH-11 to be tasked permanently over Afghanistan to watch for UBL instead of depending on the Predator and its limitations. He could have done a thousand things to demonstrate action over symbolism--his calculus seemed to be that the latter is always good enough for his image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
