Richard A Clarke’s
Against All Enemies:

Inside America’s War on Terrorism

Some Thoughts



By Connie Corcoran Wilson, M.S.



I just
completed Richard A. Clarke’s book, and, with the Bush-dominated media
bashing President Clinton, once again, (claiming he didn’t do enough
against terrorism during his eight years in office), it seems like a
good time to share a few timely quotes from Mr. Clarke, the true
expert, on both that subject and the entire subject of the Iraq War and
its effects on us, as a nation.



Let’s just begin by quoting Clarke from page 272-273:



It is difficult for the world’s sole superpower to be popular, but it is not
impossible.  A superpower has different responsibilities and
perspectives than other nations, but many other nations’ governments
and peoples will understand and sympathize if they believe that the
super-power is a good global citizen that respects the rights and
opinions of other nations.  I thought this was the concept behind
candidate Bush’s call for a “more humble” U.S. foreign policy
(presumably one more humble than the Clinton foreign policy.) 
That thought seemed to be lost quickly after candidate Bush because
pResident Bush. It was not just that the United States objected to the
Kyoto Treaty on the environment, or the International Criminal
Court….it was the arrogance in the way we objected.  At a meeting
with my staff in the summer of 2001, I suggested, “If these guys in
this Administration are going to want an international coalition to
invade Iraq next year, they are sure not making a lot of friends.”

    

No
kidding! Talk about your understatements! When the invasion of Iraq did
come, in 2003, Clarke notes that it “lost us many friends….Elsewhere,
we were now seen as a super-bully more than a superpower, not just for
what we did but for the way we did it, disdaining international
mechanisms that we would later need.”



Adds,
Clarke, “When the United States next needs international support, when
we need people around the world to believe that action is required to
deal with Iranian or Korean nuclear weapons, who will join us, who will
believe us?”



Who,
indeed?  Not many. Not unless we replace the current untrustworthy
occupant of the White House, who is viewed as a loose cannon throughout
the civilized world. And a loose cannon about three fuses short of a
full set.



Clarke
then addresses the problem here at home, as well. “Even more damaging
is the loss of credibility the national security institutions have
suffered among our own people.” He goes on to say that Jeffrey Record
of the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute has called the
Iraq war, “A strategic error of the first magnitude.” Notes Clarke,
“Instead of energetically pursuing the priority of creating an
ideological counterweight for al Qaeda, we invaded Iraq and gave al
Qaeda exactly the propaganda fuel it needed.”



Like
many ordinary American citizens who were shocked by the World Trade
Center terrorist attack, the world, initially, rallied to our side. I
remember saying to my daughter, who was soon to tour Europe with an
Illinois band group, “This time, we will be welcomed with open arms.” I
had been to Europe several times previously, and it was not always
thus.  However, in very short order, as Clarke notes, Bush took
this advantage and completely squandered it.   “There was an
opportunity to unite people around the world around a set of shared
values: religious tolerance, diversity, freedom, and security….It did
not happen. We squandered the opportunity.” (Clarke)



Not only
did we squander the opportunity of uniting against a common enemy of
the civilized world, George W.’s bellicose cowboy pronouncements made
matters much, much worse. Says Clarke, “Our leadership fell into the
trap, fulfilling all of the worst fears of many around the world and
here at home. Rather than seek to cultivate a unified global consensus
to destroy the ideological roots of terrorism, we did in fact lash out
in a largely unilateral and entirely irrelevant military adventure
against a Muslim nation. . . . America pointedly snubbed the counsel of
Arab friends and NATO allies, and sought security through the use of
military muscle. It has left us less secure.”



Again,
Clarke makes this point (p. 286), “He (Bush) had a unique opportunity
to unite America, to bring the United States together with allies
around the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al Qaeda, to
eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations
threatened by radicalism.  He did none of those things.  He
invaded Iraq.” Clarke goes on to say that our efforts, now, are that
much more difficult, like trying to cut the head off the Hydra when
more and more simply grow back.



Clarke
feels, with good cause and as any intelligent citizen would, that the
nation needed thoughtful leadership to deal with the problems of 9/11,
but “instead, America got unthinking reactions, ham-handed responses,
and a rejection of analysis in favor of received wisdom. It has left us less secure. We will pay the price for a long time.”



There’s certainly no mistaking that message from the man in charge as the “crisis manager” on 9/11.



Certainly
there were terrorist incidents, or attempted terrorist incidents during
Clinton’s years at the helm, but Clarke gives him high marks for his
attempts to stem the rising tide of terrorist activity. He tells us, on
page 90, that Clinton approved plans to “use all the resources of any
department or agency that could contribute” to stemming that tide. He
quotes Clinton, who was then President, speaking after the Oklahoma
City bombing attack at the United Nations fiftieth General Assembling,
saying, “This will be a long, hard struggle.  There will be
setbacks along the way.  But just as no enemy could drive us from
the fight to meet our challenges and protect our values in World War II
and the Cold War, we will not be driven from the tough fight against
terrorism today.  Terrorism is the enemy of our generation, and we
must prevail…..But I want to make it clear to the American people that
while we can defeat terrorists, it will be a long time before we defeat
terrorism.  America will remain a target because we are uniquely
present in the world, because we act to advance peace and democracy,
because we have taken a tougher stand against terrorism, and because we
are the most open society on earth.  But to change any of that, to
pull our troops back from the world’s trouble spots, to turn our backs
on those taking risks for peace, to weaken our opposition against
terrorism, to curtail the freedom that is our birthright would be to
give terrorism the victory it must not and will not have.”  



Clinton
asked, on September 9, 1996, for $1.097 billion for
counter-terrorism-related activities and got it from Congress one month
to the day after he filed the request. (p. 128). Clarke goes on to say,
on page 134 of his book, “For the first time in forty years, an
Administration had designed and funded a major program for homeland
defense.” He cites Clinton’s string of major speeches on terrorism: at
the Air Force Academy, Oklahoma City, George Washington University,
Annapolis, twice at the United Nations, twice at the Pan Am 103 cairn,
at the White House, at Lyon (France), and in Sharm el-Sheikh,
Egypt.   On pages 170 and 171 of his book, Clarke details how
Clinton worked tirelessly to seek new funds for counter-terrorism
activities.



Many
terrorist incidents were averted on Bill Clinton’s watch. For one, the
assassination of President George Herbert Bush was narrowly avoided.
Two Iraqi nationals, recruited in Basra by the Iraqi intelligence
service, were given a Toyota Land Cruiser, in which a sophisticated
bomb had been installed. They were to park it near the university in
Kuwait City and then detonate it by radio when President Bush and the
Emir drove by, killing everything up to 400 yards away.  The plot
failed only after the van was involved in a traffic accident and the
occupants were arrested by a Kuwaiti policeman.



If there
is such a thing as a “funny” story in a book so chillingly critical of
the current Bush’s handling of our national interests, it would be the
story of our retaliation in June of 1993 against Iraq for this
assassination attempt against the first President Bush.   In
addition to various diplomatic sanctions, it was decided Clinton
stated, “Well, this may teach him a lesson, but if it doesn’t, we will
have to do more.” And, following that, President Clinton agreed that,
in addition to dire warnings to Iraq about any further terrorism
against the United States by Iraq, the US would take out the Iraqi
intelligence headquarters, in retaliation.



The
ships would move in to firing position and an “execute order” from the
Joint Chiefs to CENTCOM (the U.S. military regional command for the
Middle East and the successor to the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force)
would act. So, Clinton was to go on TV to say we blew up the building,
but he wanted to know, first, that we had really been successful. He
asked whether the missiles had cameras in them. Answer: no. He asked if
he could call them back, once they were launched. Answer: no. The
President, understandably, did not want to go on national television,
saying that the U.S. had blown up a building in Iraq, without knowing
whether, indeed, that building had been destroyed.  

  
 As Admiral Bill Studeman, the number two man at CIA said, “We got
nothin’…the missiles should have hit several minutes ago, but nothing
we have can tell us that…not for a while.” Studeman was consulting
satellite views of the area.

  
 Clinton went ahead and read the short statement, on national
television, without satellite confirmation of the hit.

  
 Clarke said to him, as he showed up in Lake’s office with Vice
President Gore (page 83), “We thought you were not going to go on. We
thought you needed proof that the missiles hit.”

  
 Gore and Clinton were privately laughing over something, and the
answer as to what then came, from President Clinton:

  
 “Okay, okay……I needed relative certainty that the missiles had
hit and none of you guys could give me that…so I called CNN…they didn’t
have anybody in Baghdad tonight, but their cameraman in Jordan bureau
had a cousin or some relative who lived near the intelligence
headquarters, so they called him.”



With
most of the room looking horrified at this news, Clinton went on, “The
cousin said, yeah, the whole place blew up. He was certain…so I figured
we had relative certainty.” Grimly humorous, but true.



Clinton’s
willingness to use force, if necessary, against terrorist aggression,
is documented once again in Somalia in the October Battle of Mogadishu
(now memorialized in the film “Black Hawk Down.)” Clarke says that, in
retrospect, it may very well have been Al Qaeda firing on Americans in
that conflict.  President Clinton is quoted  (page 87) by
Clarke as saying, “Okay, here’s what we’re gonna do. We are not running
away with our tail between our legs.  I’ve already heard from
Congress and that’s what they all want to do, get out tomorrow. 
We’re staying. We are also not gonna flatten Mogadishu to prove we are
the big bad-ass superpower. Everybody in the world knows we could do
that. We don’t have to prove that to anybody.  We are going to
send in more troops, with tanks and aircraft and anything else they
need.  We are going to show force.  And we are going to keep
delivering food. If anybody f&*() with us, we will respond,
massively.  And we are going to get the U.N. to finally show up
and take over. Tell Boutros (UN Secretary General) he has six months to
do that, not one day more. Then we will leave.”



As the
meeting broke up, Clinton said, to Clarke and Lake, “No more U.S.
troops get killed, none.  Do what you have to do, whatever you
have to do.”



So, when
Rush Limbaugh of “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot” (or, as I like to
call him, “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Addict”) broadcasts his normal
untruths as the only commentator currently being carried to U.S. troops
abroad, about how all the trouble started on Clinton’s watch, refer
those young men and women who are fighting and dying in W.’s war to
Richard A. Clarke’s book. It will set him (and everyone else) straight
about Clinton’s many attempts to put a stop to the growing danger of
terrorism in the U.S. It is a fascinating read and you get the feeling
that we certainly would have been much, much better served by the
thoughtful analysis of a Clinton cabinet than the Mayberry
Machiavellis.