Against All Enemies

Political Update: Remember my comment that the congressman guilty of vehicular manslaughter is already out of prison? Well, his seat was just filled by a Democrat, Stephanie Herseth, probably pending a recount. Given the stiff competition Sen. Daschle is facing, including campaigning against him by Sen. Frist (apparently, a breach of usual senatorial courtesy), gaining a seat in South Dakota is particularly beneficial. Meanwhile, Dana Milbank has a good column today about President Bush's strawman rhetoric style.

The right war was to fight for the elimination of al Qaeda, to stabilize nations threatened by radical Islamic terrorists, to offer a clear alternative to counter the radical "theology" and ideology of the terrorists, and to reduce our own vulnerabilities at home. It was an obvious agenda. ...

When [President Bush] focused, he asked the kind of questions that revealed a results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem. Once he had that, he could put energy behind a drive to achieve his goal. The problem was that many of the important issues, like terrorism, like Iraq, were laced with important subtlety and nuance. These issues needed analysis and Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom.

-- Richard Clarke

When I began Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, I posted the "about the author" c.v. to suggest that this is a man we might want to listen to instead of allow others to define in their partisan way. The book itself reaffirms the sentiment. After a first person account of the crisis manager at the White House on 9/11 (yes, Richard Clarke), we get an overview of the war on terror during last twenty five years by an important career civil servant involved in that fight.

Though an incomplete account, it surely is not just some brief against the current occupant. This is suggested by page count: a book of about 300 pages, the prologue is thirty five pages, then we have about 200 pages that span c. 1980-2000, and sixty on 2001+ (two thirds focusing on suggestions for reform). The final section does have some bitter words for the Bush Administration, but by then, we get the idea that it isn't just some personal dislike for the guy or anything. We might expect it to be a better book in some respects, but it's a useful read that is not just some attack effort.

[The history section is revealing. What responses were made to terrorist acts during the Reagan and Bush Administrations? The lackluster support supplied by Saudi Arabia in the fight against terror, along with the lacking FBI leadership of Louis Freeh. Our inaction as Saddam Hussein cruelly put down rebellions after we chased his forces out of Kuwait, which is now used as proof he had to be overthrown. The moves made, not made, and threats prevented during the Clinton Administration. And so on.]

Some suggest Clarke is too supportive of President Clinton. His focus on the Clinton years suggests two things: (1) it is the height of his government service and (2) Clinton did do many things right, including building a foundation to build upon. As noted, the book doesn't really spend much time directly on the Bush Administration, including surprisingly little on what he did before 9/11. The final chapter is called "Right War, Wrong War," which suggests Clarke doesn't just criticize the war on Iraq, but explains what we should be doing. This too perhaps should have been expanded a bit, but it does make it harder to stereotype the guy.

The true reason people like Clarke are just a tad bitter is that they spent their careers trying to prevent and control threats to our nation and have determined that "the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem" doesn't quite work. The issues are "laced with important subtlety and nuance," even if certain individuals feel the answers are obvious, and their ready made answers are enough.

The core problem, perhaps, is that the dissidents have spent years on the issues, spending tons of effort and resources, and know when some group comes in and isn't providing what it takes to get things done. We ignore that this is not just some personal politically based vendetta at our peril.