Loose ends in the 9/11 Commission Report

[Adrian II]

I think the 9/11 Commission's decision not to apportion blame was a genuinely political decision, not some bi-partisan ploy to cover up criminal negligence or lack of judgement on the part of the President, his predecessor or any particular institution. If anyone has proof of any evil doings leading to this decision, I would be interested to hear it.

By taking this decision, the Commission created a great opportunity to address structural failure in the U.S. approach to terrorism, particularly wrong thinking - as opposed to wrong practice - about terrorism, its origins and its repercussions. The Commission then blew this opportunity in two ways.

1. It failed to properly investigate the modis operandi of the 9/11 attackers, and it admitted as much on page 172:

"To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

Come again? It is one thing to state that the origin of the funds could not be established. It is quite another to state that this matter is of 'little practical significance', i.e. not worth pursuing.

2. The 'blowback' effect is explicitly touched upon in various hearings, but the Commission only mentions it implicitly, for instance with regard to the original U.S. financing of Al Qaeda (page 56) or the continuous U.S. support for successive Pakistani dictatorships. Yet there was enough reason to go beyond such opaque statements. Individuals have had the guts to do so, for instance Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 10, 2008:

“We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because of mistakes this government made -- mistakes I among others made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago.”

These two shortcomings may have been intentional or they may not have been intentional. I can't gauge the answer to that question from the Commission's texts or any other sources. In any case, these loose ends allowed the Commission to evade an important political question. Given the facts that the 19 perpetrators, their organisation and their finances mostly originated in Saudi Arabia, an American ally, and that they operated out of Afghanistan where the regime has been installed by Pakistan, another American ally, the Commission should have asked: What the hell is wrong with our foreign policy?

I don't think the answer would be quite as scoffing or as radical as Rory suggested. But a rethink couldn't hurt.

On the other hand, and despite the blind spots in the 9/11 report, I think the U.S. establishment has managed to send a clear message to the worlds' islamist terrorist handlers: this time round only Kabul was bombed, but if there will ever be a repeat of this sort of attack, then Karachi and Riyadh will be bombed. Maybe that explains why there has been no repeat up to to date. Don't ask me to prove it though.

P.S. It is interesting that the Cuban/Soviet conspiracy theory about the Kennedy murder is a variety on the blowback theme: Lee Harvey Oswald shooting Kennedy at the urging of Fidel Castro's agents in response to the Kennedy brothers' insane urge to have Castro assassinated.

[Vladimir]

Back...

Wedge. Read it if you want to know why there was a "cover up" of the JFK thing. As Adrian stated millions of lives and untold destruction were at risk; something which is worth more than one man's life. Oswald is also another reason why CIA doesn't "do" assinations anymore (we just use bigger, exploding bullets ). I also have it on good authority that Neither the Cubans or Russians were actively involved in the assination.

As far as US financing of terrorists: Look to the Soviets if you want to learn how a real superpower finances and trains them. America's election cycle policy decision making process was and will continue to be what leads to these sort of questions; not some ZOMG conspiracy by teh eval Bushies. Also Pakistan wasn't much of an ally. Our foreign policy in the 90's was poor to nonexistent and at best they were a counter to a Soviet/Russia friendly India. For Saudi Arabia it's important to note that we actually receive only a small percentage of our oil from them and it's still a global market.

Adrian if you think we were bad about tracing funding in the 9/11 comission, we'd make you sick now. Borderline subversive organizations like the New York Times compromising those collection efforts is only one concern. I'm not sure exactly why we don't do all we can to trace the money but it's a government wide problem. No doubt "larger concerns" like for JFK are factored into their decision not to agressively track terrorist finances. You cold think of it in medical terms: Should we amputate the arm or undergo multiple, expensive, and painful surgeries to get it working again?

[KukriKhan]

I like that analogy

You cold think of it in medical terms: Should we amputate the arm or undergo multiple, expensive, and painful surgeries to get it working again?

For me the fatal flaw in the Commission Report is that it doesn't state the obvious: Bush was POTUS, it happened on his watch, it's his failure. Period.

And he knows it. And his admin team knows it. I think that knowledge is what drove them to seek such extreme retaliatory measures - to be seen as forcefully doing something, anything, so as to side-step responsibility.

The Commission report blames a systemic failure, a series of small, seemingly unrelated bureaucratic snafu's. Leadership is about being able to over-ride such inevitable governmental chaos, and with clear vision, find, state and solve problems.

bin Laden still lives free. That is unacceptable. Unless, of course, he wasn't really responsible - but that gets into Adrian II's eschewed conspiracy-side stories, so I won't go there.

[Adrian II]

Back...

Good. Interesting views, bro. Your insights surprise me every time.

Wedge is on my buying list as of now.

I have heard many stories about FBI/CIA rivalry, but never seen it treated in systematic fashion, let alone pinpointed as a systemic failure in US national security. Interesting stuff. Though I am somewhat wary of American authors projecting highly idealised visions onto their political apparatus and then finding it wanting on all counts. The flipside of American optimism and can-do mentality is a refusal to accept certain inherent shortcomings of government. The main shortcoming in this instance being bureaucracy. I fail to see how a democratic country with the size, economic weight and military prowess of the of U.S. could improve its institutions in such a way that lapses like JFK or 9/11 can ever be prevented. People who think so live in Lalaland and should never get their hands on any policy buttons.

On the JFK thing, I think it is obvious that nearly all parties concerned felt that thay had something to hide. Hence the Warren Commission's shortcomings. This started at the local level. Dallas was a total zoo, let's be honest. The locals couldn't get anything right and there was a huge potential for conspiracy against the President's life there, even among the police force itself. Kennedy knew this when he told Jackie: "We're going to fruitcake city." In the words of former FBI agent James Hosty who was tasked with observing potential right-wing risks:

Believe me, believe me, there were a lot of nuts in Dallas. You may quote me on that. If we had picked up and watched everybody who had reason or wanted to kill Kennedy, we would've had to hire half the people in Dallas to watch the other half. It was a hotbed of right-wing extremists, and there was all sorts of murder-mouthing going on all around Dallas.

Then there were the FBI, the CIA, military intelligence and the Secret Service who were all deeply embarrassed because they should have had Oswald in their sights.

But I beg to differ with you that this bureaucratic rivalry would explain the Warren Commission cover-up. I believe that the powers that be - Johnson, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, even Robert Kennedy, and of course Warren and his commission - worked together to prevent any Cuban/Soviet leads from becoming public and causing an incontrollable international situation. In order to do this, they had to blame Oswald and no one else. I believe that none of them knew what had really happened, that is why they were afraid to pursue those leads, and that is why they overcame their traditional rivalries in that particular situation.

Whether the Cubans or the Soviets indeed set up Oswald or even send a second shooter to back him up, I have no idea whatsoever. I find that theory the most plausible of all because (a) it is backed up by serious documents and statements, and (b) it explains all of the major hullabaloo surrounding the murder, and this in accordance with Occam's razor.

But plausibility does not equal proof, and any opponent might rightfuly add that 'You, Adrian II, are no Earl Warren.'

For Saudi Arabia it's important to note that we actually receive only a small percentage of our oil from them and it's still a global market.

Whether the U.S. receives major barrelage from Saudi Arabia is not the crux, the control of the flow of oil is the crux. Just ask the Chinese...

Since WWII Iran and Saudi Arabia were the twin pillars of U.S. control over Middle Eastern oil. Iran was 'lost' in 1979, Saudi Arabia is on the verge of being lost since 2001. Against this background the destruction of the Twin Towers by mostly Saudi terrorists was doubly symbolic.

[Vladimir]

But I beg to differ with you that this bureaucratic rivalry would explain the Warren Commission cover-up. I believe that the powers that be - Johnson, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, even Robert Kennedy...

Ugh. I demand you to never utter that name in my presence!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Anyway, with me you'll find a helathy dose of the "can do" attidude with "you did what!" It's been a year or so and can't remember the general tone of the (rather thick) book but it made me pretty mad at times.

The important thing about the report is what we're doing as a result. CIA isn't doing much but the ONDI is taking a lot of steps in a positive direction; too bad they don't have as much authority as the former.

[Adrian II]

Ugh. I demand you to never utter that name in my presence!

James Jesus Angleton.

There, I've done it. Please tell me why you hate the name? I mean it.

Oh, and is it true he possessed those pics of Hoover and Tolson engaging in, well, you know..?

If so, can I borrow them?

[Vladimir]

James Jesus Angleton.

There, I've done it. Please tell me why you hate the name? I mean it.

1965-1975. Whenever you have the term "Dark Ages" applied to your professional history it's not an endorsement of your career. Yea there were other factors involved but I take it kinda personally. Hate isn't the right word, mostly disgust at his later years.

I totally agree, apparently I wasn't being entirely clear. What I said was actually meant as an oblique criticism of Vladimir who seemed to hold up the former Soviet Union as an example of a 'real superpower', at least when it comes to security matters. But emulation of the SU is undesirable for host of reasons (something to Vladimir will no doubt subscribe) and emulation of its security policy with its unitary command structure and total lack of democratic checks and balances is abhorrent. No one in their right mind would envisage such a watertight national security arrangement for the U.S. Given the advanced state of modern means of bureaucratic surveillance and control, it would spell the end of democracy.

The FBI-CIA rivalry is part of a system of checks and balances, some intended, some grown spontaneously over the years, that is necessary and inevitable.

OMG!

**Warning** Recently read several book about these guys hence the overreaction!

John J. Dziak's Checkisty: A History of the KGB. Can't find it on line now but finished it yesterday. If you want to know how a real superpower runs an empire, read it. America was an accidental superpower; a happy accident to be sure. Perhaps it's less an endorsement of the Soviet Union and more of a refection of how I view (expansionist) empires (and imperial presidents). Third Rome indeed.

The latter is mostly the responsibility of one man who forged an empire himself. While also a real empire but in a different sense, it was an empire none the less.

[Adrian II]

**Warning** Recently read several book about these guys hence the overreaction!

I understand. I am far too delighted with the fact that we share some 'exotic' interests to hold such poetic license against you.

The best thing in this vein which I ever read was a 1987 book by French historian Hélène Carrère d'Encausse. She had specialised in Russian and Soviet History (she was née Hélène Zourabichvili, nuff said) and wrote very critically of what she perceived as western laxity with regard to Soviet expansion. Her Ni paix, ni guerre: Le nouvel empire sovietique, ou du bon usage de la detente ('Neither peace nor war: The new Soviet Empire, or of the proper uses of detente') described in detail how the Soviet Union - under the guise of detente - was cutting and nibbling away at western influence in Africa, Asia and Latin America, day by day, step by step, minor crisis by minor crisis, in an effort that required major long term planning and subtle, consistent execution. Her book showcased Angola, Mocambique, the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan. The chapter titles are as brilliant as the book's title (chapter 1 is entitled 'Brezhnev the African' ). Anyway, what it demonstrated was that there was a concerted, long-term expansionist effort from the Soviet Union which required much more than secret service activity; in fact the entire Soviet state and the states of its satellites were mobilised and harnessed for it.*

Indeed, compared to that campaign, western imperialism was a silly picnic.


* Leaving same state open to failure in other departments, notably the economy, which contributed to its undoing a few years after the book appeared.

[KukriKhan]

The flipside of American optimism and can-do mentality is a refusal to accept certain inherent shortcomings of government. The main shortcoming in this instance being bureaucracy. I fail to see how a democratic country with the size, economic weight and military prowess of the of U.S. could improve its institutions in such a way that lapses like JFK or 9/11 can ever be prevented. People who think so live in Lalaland and should never get their hands on any policy buttons.

You make a good point there, but I think you may have over-stated it. Setting aside a minority of 'nanny-state' enthusiasts, I think yanks know their government is limited in what it can accomplish - in fact we design it that way, and get suspicious when it tries to expand its reach.

Our hero-myths laud the guys who can get things done outside of, or in spite of, or in addition to, teh gub'mint. Like the Flight 93 passengers.

Immediately after 911, Bush had the support of most of the world, and the whole of his nation. Everybody here stood ready to do whatever it took to fix this problem. Instead of an inspired plan, what we got was: "Go shopping and buy stocks to restart the economy." and "We (gov't)'ll handle it, go on with your life as normal."

And here we are today, broke, with an almost broken Army, with the problem not fixed.

Leadership failure (with some credit given that 911 didn't happen twice - yet).

[Adrian II]

You make a good point there, but I think you may have over-stated it. Setting aside a minority of 'nanny-state' enthusiasts, I think yanks know their government is limited in what it can accomplish - in fact we design it that way, and get suspicious when it tries to expand its reach.

I totally agree, apparently I wasn't being entirely clear. What I said was actually meant as an oblique criticism of Vladimir who seemed to hold up the former Soviet Union as an example of a 'real superpower', at least when it comes to security matters. But emulation of the SU is undesirable for host of reasons (something to Vladimir will no doubt subscribe) and emulation of its security policy with its unitary command structure and total lack of democratic checks and balances is abhorrent. No one in their right mind would envisage such a watertight national security arrangement for the U.S. Given the advanced state of modern means of bureaucratic surveillance and control, it would spell the end of democracy.

That's why I said that a democracy like the U.S. couldn't have a much better system than what it has. The notion that a major reshuffle would lead to both far better security and far better oversight is a pipe-dream. Bureaucracies will be bureaucracies, no matter how long you reshuffle them.

If you guys would would streamline your national security more or less along Soviet lines (or some other draconic example) this would destroy the core values of the nation. The FBI-CIA rivalry is part of a system of checks and balances, some intended, some grown spontaneously over the years, that is necessary and inevitable. This means that (dramatic) lapses due to undue secretiveness, competition, lack of oversight and local incompetence are inevitable, too.

[KukriKhan]

Gotcha. You're right: I misunderstood your thrust. Me thick-headed sumtimes. :)

[Adrian II]

Me thick-headed sumtimes. :)

Far from. I told you before that you are the American Orgah with the best understanding of the differences between American and European political sensitivities, and therefore of the resulting fubars we have sometimes in this forum. You are also the most forgiving when it comes to European prejudices about the U.S. and consequent stupidities in threads. You may want to use your license to kill a bit more in such situations.