by Steve Bleiberg | The 9/11 Commission doesn’t get the War on Terror.
In late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission, was created to “prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” The Commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, has interviewed senior members of the Clinton and Bush administrations as part of its investigation. Despite this seemingly fair approach it seems that the partisanship of some commissioners is turning the Commission into a vehicle to blame the President. It is now a popular theory that President Bush failed to prepare the country for a large-scale terrorist attack and that September 11 is a result of this failure. This narrow view misses the big picture of the War on Terror. In fact, it is this kind of failure to see the big picture on the part of government officials that made September 11 possible.
President Bush took office in January 2001, just eight months before the September 11 attacks. The Bush Administration is being criticized for not using that time to adequately implement measures to prevent terrorism in the United States. Armed federal marshals on all US flights would certainly have deterred terrorists from hijacking airplanes. However, it must be kept in mind that the use of airplanes as missiles had never been attempted before 9/11. There were many other possible attack methods that the US was also unprepared for. For example, Amtrak does not currently search its passengers. It would be relatively easy for a terrorist group to plant bombs on trains connecting major metropolitan areas or in heavily trafficked train stations. Had the Bush Administration implemented an air marshal program, today we might be talking about 2001’s Amtrak bombings. Without knowing what the terrorists are planning, it is difficult to anticipate the next kind of attacks. Additionally, the United States Government was not traditionally engaged in enacting preventative anti-terror measures. After all, the Clinton Administration had eight years to plan for terror attacks and did not put in place a program that anticipated the events of September 11. In fact, according to 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman, the Clinton Administration established a policy “to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning.” This rule, though intended to prevent undue racial profiling, undermined airline security.
The focus on preventative security measures overlooks the bigger issue: the War on Terror. After September 11, President Bush realized that the United States was at war. However, the war did not begin on September 11. The conflict originated at the end of the Cold War. The old paradigm of world politics had been torn down and it was not obvious what would replace it. During the Cold War, the US could not concentrate all of its efforts on dealing with enemies in Iran and Libya; the Soviet Union was its main concern. After the Cold War, the US did not have one concentrated threat to deal with. The first test of the post-Cold War world order was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The first President Bush led a multinational coalition to liberate Kuwait. Despite this victory, the coalition was not willing to undertake the task of regime change in Iraq. Even so, the liberation of Kuwait provided a message to rogue states: there is a world order that cannot be challenged.
It was not long until Islamist terror groups associated with Osama bin Laden challenged this order. In February 1993, the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center. Clinton viewed the attack as a law enforcement issue and was unwilling to go to war to take out terrorist leaders. In October 1993, Somali gunmen believed to be bin Laden affiliates killed 18 US soldiers working in a UN peacekeeping operation. Clinton responded by pulling US troops out of Somalia. President Clinton’s response to the “Black Hawk Down” incident provided bin Laden with reason to believe that Americans would not support a war if they saw some of their troops killed.
In August 1998, al Qaeda bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Clinton was still not willing to go to war. In December 1998, Clinton responded to Saddam Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors by firing a few missiles, saying, “Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.” Although Hussein did not comply after the missile strikes, Clinton would not call for war. In October 2000, the USS Cole was bombed by al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Again, President Clinton did not call for the United States to dismantle al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda’s multiple attacks on the United States were acts of war. The United States simply refused to admit it. The Clinton Administration’s reluctance to go to war to defend American interests encouraged al Qaeda to engage in bolder acts, including the events of September 11. Luckily, in the days since September 11, President Bush has fought back. The Bush Administration has led the way in dismantling al Qaeda cells, overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq’s Ba’athist regime, and in replacing tyranny with freedom. This is the conclusion the 9/11 Commission should reach.
Mr. Bleiberg is a senior majoring in Quantitative Economics.
Comments