Book Reviews
Go To Hopkins & Company Homepage	Go to Executive Times Archives Go to 2004 Book Shelf
Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke Rating: ••• (Recommended)
Click on title or picture to buy from amazon.com
Service Career civil servants like Richard Clark populate the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and fill the air with both self-importance and an intensity of focus on narrow areas of specialization. As a former resident of that area, I often wanted to say “get a life” when I found myself embedded in conversation with someone whose interests started and ended with his or her own work. I’ve had second thoughts. Despite some distracting arrogance and pomposity, I found the tale Richard Clarke tells in Against All Enemies to be a compelling one, and he’s done another service to fellow citizens by writing it. Here’s an excerpt from the beginning of chapter 10, “Before and After September 11,” pp. 227-232: Al Queda planned attacks years in advance, inserted sleeper cells, did reconnaissance. They took the long view, believing that their struggle would take decades, perhaps generations. America worked on a four-year electoral cycle and at the end of 2000, a new cycle was beginning. In the presidential campaign, terrorism had not been discussed. George Bush and Dick Cheney had mentioned the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. They had also talked about Iraq. In January 2001, with the Florida fiasco behind us, I briefed each of my old friends and associates from the first Bush administration, Condi Rice, Steve Hadley, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. My message was stark: al Qaeda is at war with us, it is a highly capable organization, probably with sleeper cells in the U.S., and it is clearly planning a major series of attacks against us; we must act decisively and quickly, deciding on the issues prepared after the attack on the Cole, going on the offensive. Each person reacted differently. Cheney was, as ever, quiet and calm on the surface. The wheels were spinning behind the mask. He asked an aide to arrange for a visit to CIA to learn their view of the al Qaeda threat. That was fine by me because I knew that George Tenet would be even more alarmist than I had been about what al Qaeda was planning. Cheney did make the trip up the Parkway to CIA Headquarters, one of many he would make. Most of the visits focused on Iraq and left midlevel managers and analysts wondering whether the seasoned Vice President was right about the Iraqi threat; perhaps they should adjust their own analysis. In the first weeks of the Administration, however, Cheney had heard me loud and clear about al Qaeda. Now that he was attending the NSC Principals meetings chaired by Condi Rice (something no Vice President had ever done), I hoped he would speak up about the urgency of the problem, put it on a short list for immediate action. He didn’t. Colin Powell took the unusual step during the transition of asking to meet with the CSG, the senior counterterrorism officers from NSC, State, Defense, CIA, FBI, and the military. He wanted to see us interact, respond to each other’s statements. When we all agreed at the importance of the al Qaeda threat, Powell was obviously surprised at the unanimity. Brian Sheridan, the soon departing Assistant Secretary of Defense, summed it up: “General Powell, I will be leaving when the administration changes. I am the only political appointee in the room. All these guys are career professionals. So let me give you one piece of advice, untainted by any personal interest. Keep this interagency team together and make al Qaeda your number one priority. We may all squabble about tactics and we may call each other assholes from time to time, hut this is the best interagency team I have ever seen and they all want to get al Qaeda. They’re comin’ after us and we gotta get them first.” Powell asked extensive questions about what State could do, took detailed notes, and later asked Rich Armitage (who would become Deputy Secretary) to get involved. I met Condi Rice wandering the halls of the Executive Office Building looking for my office. She said that she had fond memories of working in the old building on the White House grounds. I escorted her to my office and gave her the same briefing on ah Qaeda that I had been using with the others. Condi Rice’s reaction was very polite, as she almost always is. I realized when I prepared to brief my former colleague and now boss, that she was the fourth National Security Advisor I had worked for and the seventh I had worked with. Brent Scowcroft had been the lovable old sage, focused largely on the strategic nuclear balance until the First Gulf War came along. Brent, although a close friend of the first President Bush, suffered from the fact that the Secretary of State cut him out and talked, frequently, directly to the President. Tony Lake had been the passionate, thoughtful leader whose professorial image belied the fact that he was a master bureaucratic schemer, always several moves ahead of everyone else. Lake had always won the bureaucratic battles, hut he had not won the President’s heart. Their two personalities did not mesh well and Clinton shifted him to CIA Director in the second term. (Lake withdrew during a bruising confirmation fight in the Senate. Had he been CIA Director, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have relentlessly gone after bin Laden and moved out the bureaucrats who got in the way.) Sandy Berger had been Lake’s deputy, hut also a long-standing friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Initially the assumption on the NSC Staff was that Berger was the political commissar, but his prodigious capacity for detailed work on the tough national security issues won him the respect of the bureaucrats. As National Security Advisor, he had dominated State and the Pentagon. Now Condi Rice was in charge. She appeared to have a closer relationship with the second President Bush than any of her predecessors had with the presidents they reported to. That should have given her some maneuver room, some margin for shaping the agenda. The Vice President, however, had decided to be involved at the NSC Principals level. The Secretary of Defense also made clear that he didn’t care about anyone else’s relationship with the President; he was doing what he wanted to do. As I briefed Rice on al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before, so I added, “Most people think of it as Usama bin Laden’s group, but it’s much more than that. It’s a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over fifty countries, including the U.S.” Rice looked skeptical. She focused on the fact that my office staff was large by NSC standards (twelve people) and did operational things, including domestic security issues. She said, “The NSC looks just as it did when I worked here a few years ago, except for your operation. It’s all new. It does domestic things and it is not just doing policy, it seems to be worrying about operational issues. I’m not sure we will want to keep all of this in the NSC.” Rice viewed the NSC as a “foreign policy” coordination mechanism and not some place where issues such as terrorism in the U.S., or domestic preparedness for weapons of mass destruction, or computer network security should be addressed. I realized that Rice, and her deputy, Steve Hadley, were still operating with the old Cold War paradigm from when they had worked on the NSC. Conch’s previous government experience had been as an NSC staffer for three years worrying about the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Steve Hadley had also been an NSC staffer assigned to do arms control issues with the Soviet Union. He had then been an Assistant Secretary in the Pentagon, also concerned with Soviet arms control. It struck me that neither of them had worked on the new post—Cold War security issues. I tried to explain: ‘This office is new, you’re right. It’s post—-Cold War security, not focused just on nation-state threats. The boundaries between domestic and foreign have blurred. Threats to the U.S. now are not Soviet ballistic missiles carrying bombs, they’re terrorists carrying bombs. Besides, the law that established the NSC in 1947 said it should concern itself with domestic security threats too.” I did not succeed entirely in making the case. Over the next several months, they suggested, I should figure out how to move some of these issues out to some other organization. Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator he a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator he supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of 0MB. She did, however, ask me to stay on and to keep my entire staff in place. Rice and Hadley did not seem to know anyone else whose expertise covered what they regarded as my strange portfolio. At the same time, Rice requested that I develop a reorganization plan to spin out some of the security functions to someplace outside the NSC Staff. Within a week of the Inauguration I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking “urgently” for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent al Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been “framed” by the Deputies. I assumed that meant an opportunity for the Deputies to review the agenda. Instead, it meant months of delay. The initial Deputies meeting to review terrorism policy could not be scheduled in February. Nor could it occur in March. Finally in April, the Deputies Committee met on terrorism for the first time. The first meeting, in the small wood-paneled Situation Room conference room, did not go well. Rice’s deputy, Steve Hadley, began the meeting by asking me to brief the group. I turned immediately to the pending decisions needed to deal with al Qaeda. “We need to put pressure on both the Taliban and al Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, we need to target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the Predator.” Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld’s deputy at Defense, fidgeted anti scowled. Hadley asked him if he was all right. “Well, I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden,” Wolfowitz responded. I answered as clearly and forcefully as I could: “We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al Qaeda, that happens to he led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” “Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example,” Wolfowitz replied, looking not at me but at Hadley. “I am unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed at the United States, Paul, since 1993, and I think FBI and CIA concur in that judgment, right, John?” I pointed at CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who was obviously not eager to get in the middle of a debate between the White House and the Pentagon but nonetheless replied, “Yes, that is right, Dick. We have no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorist threat against the U.S.” Finally, Wolfowitz turned to me. “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.” I could hardly believe it but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue. It was getting a little too heated for the kind of meeting Steve Hadley liked to chair, hut I thought it was important to get the extent of the disagreement out on the table: “Al Qaeda plans major acts of terrorism against the U.S. It plans to overthrow Islamic governments and set up a radical multination Caliphate, and then go to war with non-Muslim states.” Then I said something I regretted as soon as I said it: “They have published all of this and sometimes, as with Hitler in Mein Kumpf, you have to believe that these people will actually do what they say they will do.” Immediately Wolfowitz seized on the Hitler reference. “I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan.” “I wasn’t comparing the Holocaust to anything.” I spoke slowly. “I was saying that like Hitler, bin Laden has told us in advance what he plans to do and we would make a big mistake to ignore it.” To my surprise, Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage came to my rescue. “We agree with Dick. We see al Qaeda as a major threat and countering it as an urgent priority.” The briefings of Colin Powell had worked. Hadley suggested a compromise. We would begin by focusing on al Qaeda and then later look at other terrorism, including any Iraqi terrorism. Because dealing with al Qaeda involved its Afghan sanctuary, however, Hadley suggested that we needed policy on Afghanistan in general and on the related issue of U.S.-Pakistani relations, including the return of democracy in that country and arms control with India. All of these issues were a “cluster” that had to be decided together. Hadley proposed that several more papers be written and several more meetings he scheduled over the next few months. It’s too early to write history of the times Clarke describes in Against All Enemies. In the meantime, accounts like his add to the record, recognizing that any personal perspective always contains biases. Steve Hopkins, May 25, 2004
ã 2004 Hopkins and Company, LLC The recommendation rating for this book appeared in the June 2004 issue of Executive Times URL for this review: http://www.hopkinsandcompany.com/Books/Against All Enemies.htm For Reprint Permission, Contact: Hopkins & Company, LLC • 723 North Kenilworth Avenue • Oak Park, IL 60302 Phone: 708-466-4650 • Fax: 708-386-8687 E-mail: books@hopkinsandcompany.com www.hopkinsandcompany.com