This was the center of the controversy. Clarke is the most informed insider when it comes to the federal government's response to and planning for terrorism. He should know. As the White House anti-terrorism Czar he was in a central position from the 90s to 2003, and was in the business for 30 years, covering the presidencies of Reagan, Bush the first, Clinton and Bush 43. He says that the incoming Bush administration was so contrarian about Clinton that they ignored the plans and advice proffered by the outgoing experts. He describes Bush as completely uninvolved, and apparently uninterested. Seen as a Clinton holdover, Clarke was moved down an organizational notch, and deprived of cabinet level interaction. He says that they dropped the ball, that there was no real urgency in the administration despite the fact that CIA Director George Tennet was giving Dubya daily briefings that included daily alarms about al Quaeda.


Richard Clarke - image from The Paladin Group

I found it occasionally difficult to follow some early parts of the book, sections that dealt with US policy in the 80's, but overall that area is quite strong. He shows how various actions and events contributed to the growth of contemporary extremism.

Richard Clarke made his share of mistakes while in positions of authority or influence in administrations of both political stripes. But he knows a lot about what went on, what information was available, and what intel was willfully ignored in the service of a political agenda. Against All Enemies lays out the case that the Bush Administration not only dropped the ball, but grabbed the ball, took it home, and hid it in the garage. While, today, the book is old enough to serve as a bit of American history, it is hardly ancient history. Many of the same players, or their younger avatars are still about in this world, and if we do not all learn from mistakes that were made in the past, there is no way to avoid repeating them in the future. This was quite a fascinating book.


=============================EXTRA STUFF

Links to author’s Twitter and podcast pages

Other Clarke books I have read
----- 2005 - Scorpion’s Gate
----- 2007 - Breakpoint
----- 2010 - Cyber War
----- 2017 - Warningsamerican-history nonfiction terrorism ...more124 s1 comment Scott Porch38

Fucking scary. Clark had the curious fortune of heading counterterrorism in both the Clinton White House and the Bush White House. The latter was worse by a gigantic margin. The day after 9/11, Bush was pacing the Situation Room beneath the West Wing asking everyone whether they thought Iraq had anything to do with it. He certainly thought so, as did Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. Or not. It’s hard to tell the difference between the dishonest and the misguided in the Bush Administration. Either way, the White House has made a terrific mess of things.

Iraq was a horrible place to be sure, and there have been times in the last decade when invading was a seriously considered option. But six months into a war in Afghanistan wasn’t the most opportune time to divert resources to Iraq. Now we have a resurging Taliban in Afghanistan and a huge political vacuum in Iraq. Nice work, Dubya.

Perhaps the biggest travesty Clarke highlights is that Bush squandered an opportunity to make a positive and lasting impact on Islam’s own internal conflict between peaceful religion and the theocratic loony bin. Bush failed to seize the moral high ground by reaching out to moderate Islamists; instead, he sent a misguided message that America will vanquish the “evil-doers,” whether they’re in Iraq or not.
8 s Derrick30 39

Another clear-cut critic of George W. Bush's policy on terrorism or lack of it, an assessment on the bureaucracy, internal wrangles and politics within various security agencies in the US, and the build-up that led to September 11 and its aftermath. Clarke, an "insider", who has worked for both the two Bushes and Bill Clinton in the White House, provides a bird's-eye view on the challenges that bedevil the US on its war on terror but, un some of his predecessors and successors who have written on the subject, he presents solutions:

First, the President would have engaged in a massive effort to eliminate our vulnerabilities to terrorism at home and strengthen homeland security. While his first point is debatable, it's hard to argue with his second and third; Second, he would have launched a concerted effort globally to counter the ideology of al Qaeda and the larger radical Islamic terrorist movement with a partnership to promote the real Islam. Third, he would have been active with key countries not just to round up terrorists, end the sanctuaries, dry up the money, but also to strengthen open governments and make it possible politically, economically, and socially for them to go after the roots of al Qaeda- terrorism. But all Bush had in his arsenal was bombs, bombs and more bombs which would have worked, partially, should they have been aimed at the right target instead of Saddam Hussein.

The question one might want to ask is, would the September 11 attacks have happened under a different president other than G.W.B, and the answer is yes. Osama bin Laden was a bomb whose time had come and it was just a matter of when not how. What would have been different probably is the subsequent terrorist attacks on US. It's shocking to realise that there have been far more major terrorist attacks by al Qaeda and its regional clones in the thirty months since September 11 than there were in the thirty months prior to the momentous event. America, as Bill Clinton once said in one of his famous speeches, will remain a target because it's uniquely present in the world, ..and because it has taken a tougher stand against terrorism.politics6 s Jrobertus1,069 31

a must read for the limited number of intelligent americans. clarke relates his history as a presidential advisor from reagan to w bush. the pace is brisk and breezy, a thriller, but crammed with fascinating facts about government operations. the payoff is that w appears as a gullible dimwit manipulated by fossilized cold-warriors unable to realize the dangers to a post soviet world posed by terrorists. i could go on at length.5 s Kurt587 66

A fascinating, riveting, and compelling indictment of the Bush administration. Its obsession with invading Iraq and its refusal to seriously address and deal with the al-Qaeda problem are brilliantly described by Richard A. Clarke - a terrorism expert and White House insider. No one has more or better experience or credentials to write a book this than does Clarke. He speaks with authority and conviction; we ignore him at our own peril.

He writes: September 11 erased memories of the unique process whereby George Bush had been selected as President a few months earlier. Now, as he stood with an arm around a New York fireman promising to get those who had destroyed the World Trade Center, he was every American's President. His polls soared. He 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.

Our nation needed thoughtful leadership to deal with the underlying problems made evident on September 11. 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. current-events non-fiction4 s Alexandra609 25

"[after September 11, 2001] There was an opportunity to unite people around the world around a set of shared values: religious tolerance, diversity, freedom, and security. We squandered the opportunity."

Richard Clarke's name popped up in many of the materials I've read or watched over this year regarding 9/11 and its lead-in and aftermath. He's also portrayed rather prominently in the Hulu adaptation of Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower." I felt it was time to read his own story, in his own words.

I ?am very glad I did.
?
Despite being written in 2004, "Against All Enemies" is still painfully relevant today. Clarke is clear that his book is based on his memory and experiences, and his experiences take us through various intimate positions throughout 4 presidential administrations, so his knowledge is varied and extensive. He is passionate and confident but not hysterical, and his representation of the facts as he saw them unfold is sharp and even-keeled.

I thought this book was insightful, well-organized, and poignant. It sets the stage well by telling a minute-by-minute experience of what the morning of 9/11 was , and then devotes ample time to the build up, the missteps along the way, the focuses and nuances of different administrations, and finally the bewildering and frustrating aftermath. Clarke strikes me as an honest person who is a reliable authority on these things and what's more, he strikes me as a good man overall. Clarke details his story without any overt malice or giving the impression that he has an axe to grind: he's an educated, experienced national security professional who is offering information and analyses for the public to know -- just to know.

This book is a holy grail of information on 9/11 and its aftermath, it still holds up today, and despite my having "unlearned" a lot of damaging things I'd been taught to believe about the Iraq war, it did leave me reeling in many respects; it is often difficult for me to analyze how the nationwide trauma of 9/11 affected my political coming of age, and how the Fox-News heavy, conservative swamp I grew up in further damaged by view of the world until I could pick it apart and re-examine it. It should be a stable on any national security reader's bookshelf, and any American with any interest in the politics and particulars of the response to 9/11 should read it -- and annotate it.

Because they're some of my favorites, I want to include Richard Clarke's opening statement before the 9/11 Commission, a handful of words which were both sincere, humbling, and true:


"I have only a very brief opening statement.

I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.

I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.

To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.

And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to take your questions.”3 s Diana Gangan54 55

This book is at the same time a captivating tale of USA's involvement in the Middle East that started during the Soviet-Afghan war and a scathing indictment of Bush the son and his moronic, ineffectual, demagogue 'advisors' - Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice.

It is useful and educational to understand more about terrorism before the day the twin towers collapsed on live television and before many in the US or around the world even heard of terrorism, al Qaeda, or bin Laden. Sadly, the book ends on a tragic note, highlighting the outright tragic and colossal burden that our generation has to bear not only in eradicating terrorism, radical Islam, and the corrupt, violent theocratic ideology that serves as their foundation, but also in dealing with the catastrophic effects of an illegal, disastrous, counterproductive, and devastating war in Iraq.

Sadly, at the time of this review, none of those who bear responsibility for the invasion of Iraq - Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, or Rice - have been brought to justice or face that possibility in the foreseeable future.favourites history non-fiction ...more3 s Gavin537 40

Late to this book, but Richard A. Clarke has a better understanding of our enemies than both the GW Bush and BH Obama administrations. Hence, why things are about to get really bad in the Middle East and Europe.

I'll be honest, yet again, I have to say the slam dunk was predicted for the wrong team, but an easy block could have changed the world.

3 s Marshall67

An excellent non-fiction tale of America's counter-terrorism policy from Presidents Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. Very good. Highly recommend.2022 american-history history ...more3 s Erik Graff5,059 1,215

I wonder if it is possible to find any books about the workings of the executive branch of government under George Bush which is not negative. This one focuses on their willful blindness to the threats which culminated in 9-11 and how, even after that event, they went on to pursue a primary agenda which had nothing to do with what they so reminiscently-of-the-Nazis called "homeland security".history2 s Emmet Sullivan97 5

It’s simultaneously self-congratulatory and ass-covering throughout, and theres a palpable desire for some score-settling and post hoc cheap shots at other agencies that are evident too. Nobody in real life says “who the shit?”, so there seems to be an effort by the author to make his work seem more cowboy-ish, but only when things worked out for the better. Nearly the entire book is written in the tone of “if only you had listened to me, things would’ve worked out so much better”, which is honestly a shame because some of the author’s points do have some merit to them.

But it does trace the roots of the war on terror back further than 9/11 in a way that’s thorough and insightful. 2024-february1 Ashley Lewis215 125

Small review to come later.

Really interesting to see the other side of the war, after having read two books dealing with the Muslim world.1 Benton Bair4

Clarke my guyyy1 Book Shark767 145

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror by Richard A. Clarke

"Against All Enemies" is a fascinating book about the recent history of terrorism during the presidential years of Bush senior, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush from the point of view from insider and counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke. This 352-page book is composed of the following eleven chapters: 1.Evacuate the White House, 2. Stumbling into the Islamic World, 3. Unfinished Mission, Unintended Consequences, 4. Terror Returns (1993 - 1996), 5. The Almost War, 1996, 6. Al Qaeda Revealed, 7. Beginning Homeland Protection, 8. Delenda Est, 9. Millennium Alert, 10. Before and After September 11, and 11. Right War, Wrong War.

Positives:
1. A well-written page turner of a book from a true insider. It reads a great spy novel.
2. A fascinating look at the history of recent terrorist acts and our responses from the inside.
3. The book starts off a great action flick but one based on the tragic reality of 911.
4. A critical look at our nation's intelligence apparatus.
5. An interesting look at the contrast of approaches between Presidents. Very few people have this kind of insight and are able to share this kind of information in a direct, even handed manner as well as Mr. Clarke has.
6. This is truly an enlightening book and worthy of a true insider with knowledge.
7. Mr. Clarke is critical but he is also respectful. His criticism is based on policy, and not on ad hominem attacks.
8. The strategic mistakes of the Bush administration come to light.
9. Based on other books that I have read in the past, this book is quite credible and reasonable. The information provided seems to be the best based on corroborating evidence provided by other subject matter experts George Tenet for instance.
10. The interesting yet flawed obsession with Iraq.
11. So many missed opportunities...including eliminating al Qaeda when the opportunity was there.
12. Interesting history of how bin Laden came to be.
13. A history of "lessons learned" from past policies, including during the Reagan years.
14. Interesting revelations. Including one in which the Ambassador in Kuwait which stated that the Kuwaitis were covering up a plot that they had foiled consisting of an attempt on the life of Bush.
15. The real skinny behind political decisions.
16. Some conspiracy theories debunked.
17. How the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran ended, irony indeed.
18. Some presidential misconceptions debunked.
19. Follow the money...
20. The threat of biological weapons.
21. A detailed account on how a multi-agency exercise results in interesting lessons.
22. "Wag the Dog" strategy.
23. An FBI that was not well equipped...interesting.
24. Al Qaeda defined.
25. The evolving politics of going after al Qaeda.
26. A comprehensive counterterrorism agenda defined. Excellent.
27. The birth of Homeland Security and the trials and tribulations of defining it.
28. The surprising lack of funding to assist cities after the 911 attacks.
29. Sound and logical criticism of the approach to go after Iraq instead of the Taliban backed al Qaeda and the ramifications of such decisions.
30. It's clear, Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
31. The understanding of how the invasion of Iraq increased support for al Qaeda.
32. Interesting read from cover to cover.

Negatives:
1. The biggest negative of this otherwise insightful book was the lack of a notes and bibliography sections.
2. Perhaps some unnecessary shots taken at George W. Bush at the end of the book but overall I felt the book was fair.
3. Books this will always favor the author's perspective. Very few times where the author takes blame for mistakes he has made.
4. The author appears to hold a grudge but is careful to be fair of the historical accounts.

In summary, "Against All Enemies" is a fascinating historical read. I highly recommend this book. Mr. Clarke has written one of the most insightful books about terrorism.
politics-economics1 HR-ML1,184 47

Gave this hardback non-fiction edition 4 stars.

Richard Clarke, hereafter "the author" or Clarke, served
under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton & George
W. Bush, as National Security Council staff member. He
noted good and bad aspects of each POTUS concerning
national security. He voiced that George W. had a poor
rationale for starting his war against Iraq. And his
unjustified actions turned more Arabs against the US.

The author asked Condi Rice under George W. Bush
on 01/25/2001 to have an "urgent" meeting w/ the POTUS
to discuss national security IE al Qaeda. Condi needed to
study this with her staff first. Clarke was granted this
meeting w/ the POTUS on 09/04/2001. George W. and
most of his Cabinet considered Iraq and Pakistan as the
terrorist threats. Clarke said that was an inaccurate
assessment.

Clarke compared Pres. George W. to Pres. Clinton. He said
of George W. "From the interactions I did have with Bush,
it was clear that the critique of him as a dumb, lazy, rich kid
were somewhat off the mark. When he focused, he asked
the kind of questions that revealed an results-oriented
mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper-
sticker description on the problem." Whereas Clinton
looked at a problem from all angles & "he'd exhaust White
House and departmental staff, university staff & other
sources. " (Both pg 243.)

Clarke indicated if Americans were attacked in the US,
oversees w/ our military or our embassies, the POTUS
and his team, should ID the culprit & then retaliate.

The F.B.I & C.I.A. had been taught to defend against Russia
and others during the Cold War era. Al Qaeda was in 55
countries and their strength was growing. US agencies
were not 'up-to-speed' on this threat. The F.B.I. focused
on drugs & organized crime. They lacked computer support
& Arabic or Farsi translators. Starting in the 1970s they had
stricter guidelines b/c of their former Director J. Edgar
Hoover who kept FBI files on people/ groups for no apparent
reason. Hoover later blackmailed some of these individuals.

The author spoke of agency competition, especially the F.B.I.
and the C.I.A. Some C.I.A. Directors were risk-adverse & did
not want agents killed or the POTUS or Congress to complain
of a bungled mission. He thought the Dept. of Homeland
Security disorganized and law enforcement/ office holders/
Americans didn't understand the color-coded system, a
risk assessment for that particular day. Homeland Security
was intended to oversee 22 federal agencies.

Clarke gave some suggestions for preventing another 9/11
including strengthening US ties with our Arab allies and
ensuring that first responder's had training/ resources in
the event of a chemical or nuclear attack. As of this writing
major US cities that Clarke quizzed, thought the federal
government would take the lead in such an event. He wanted
the US to be preventative rather than responding to a crisis.
An interesting book.non-fiction politics1 Paul1,362 17

Richard Clarke has worked in the area of national security for the past 30 years. He was head of counterterrorism affairs for Presidents Clinton and Bush II. In this book, he severely criticizes the current Bush Administration for its lack of interest in terrorism and al Qaeda before 9/11, and its disastrous decisions afterwards.

He first explores the Reagan and Bush I reactions to events Lockerbie, TWA 800, and the Beirut bombing that killed over 200 American soldiers. The word "terrorism" had not yet entered the American lexicon. Whatever else is said about the Clinton Administration, at least President Clinton took the threat from al Qaeda very seriously, and tried to do something about it.

There were several opportunities to get Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years. Unfortunately, the reports that he was in a certain building at a certain time were never rock solid. Even if they were totally reliable, it takes time to get the report from Afghanistan to Washington, and for the appropriate orders to be sent to the ships or planes in the area. No senior al Qaeda figure, especially bin Laden, was going to stay in one place for any length of time. If the US had bombed innocent people, it would have been a public relations disaster.

The second Bush Administration came into office much more concerned about Iraqi terrorism than about al Qaeda (according to Clarke, for no good reason). When he tried to impress upon senior White House officials the seriousness of the threat from al Qaeda, he was met with bureaucratic delay after delay. Bush's decision to invade Iraq (again, according to Clarke, for no good reason) gave al Qaeda a propaganda coup of immense proportions.

After 9/11, the Bush Administration should have worked to improve relations with the frontline states, Iran and Saudi Arabia, that are most vulnerable to al Qaeda. It should also have worked to improve relations with Islam, in general. These things were not done. Officially, there was no federal money available to fix the gaping holes in America's domestic vulnerability to terrorist attack, but there was plenty of money to invade Iraq.

Could 9/11 have been prevented, even if all parts of the intelligence community were running a well-oiled machine (another area of criticism from Clarke)? Perhaps not. If a major attack didn't happen on that particular day, it would have happened some other day. This book is a huge wake-up call, and it is very highly recommended for all Americans. If I could, I would give this book three thumbs up.

1 Stefanie Robinson1,916 8

To begin, I will provide a little background on the author of this book. Richard Clarke was born in 1950. He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with a Bachelor's Degree in 1972. He began working for the United States Department of Defense in a management role, while obtaining his Master's Degree in management. He worked for President Reagan in the role of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. Under President Bush, (George H. W.), he was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. He coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990–1991 Gulf War and security arrangements. President Clinton kept him on staff, even though he was a Republican, and he served as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the National Security Council. He was also still serving during the administration of President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001. He left service in 2003.

I feel that it is important to note the author's career of service in several different roles in the government. He had Cabinet level access to multiple administrations. His education and experience gave him a unique understanding of the issues regarding cyber security and counter terrorism. He worked closely with President Clinton on terrorism, and was ready to meet with President Bush about the same al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but President Bush did not grant him a prompt meeting. They were obsessed with Saddam Hussein, who was also a miscreant, but as we all know now, bin Laden had some horrific plans. The author made some really scathing comments about the Bush administration, and I cannot say that they were not well deserved comments.

This book was really eye opening. We never know what kind of nonsense is going on behind the scenes. I suppose it is the same way at any job, one lower level person knows what they are talking about, and the higher ups think they know everything and do not listen, or listen to people who are sucking up to them. It is unfortunate that the decisions made my the Bush administration cost so many lives, and that there were underlying schemes going on as well. This is a good book, and the content should really be carefully considered food for thought.

gulf-war1 May Ling1,073 286 Read

A very fast paced account of the last twenty years of terrorism politics, Clark's account is very informative and insider. This is the first book I've read on the topic. It clearly paints the GWB administration in a bad light for it's poor decision making and it's focus on Iraq vs. finishing the job in Afghanstan. I would be interested to see what others think about what happened.

Some of the interesting highlights:
1. Clinton vs. Bush Jr. -> While both entered the White House underestimating the problem, it really Bush seem flat out self serving vs. Clinton who - while self-serving - actually considered the complexities of international relations.
2. The risk aversion of individual player appears to have clouded decision making. Namely, the penalty for taking action is greater than the penalty for not taking action. This suggests a certain problematic bias within the system.
3. Can a large organization such as the United States, hope to defend itself against Terrorism which exploits the slowness to act and necessitates long drawn out consensus campaigns?
political-science1 Lim44 1 follower

What did Reagan and Senior Bush do, that were key factors leading to September 11? Clarke will tell you. Was Condoleeza Rice at fault? Clarke seems unwilling to say so, upfront. This book offers an interesting and juicy insight into the workings of the different turf battles in the US decision-making machinery, showing us why the 'enemy' at question in the title "against all enemies' could also be their own internal politicking culture.

Not to mention passe Cold War paradigms and the "what now" attitude towards post-war challenges.

If the above fails to mesmerize you, at least you will definitely remember the caricatures of the different high-profile figures - Bush Junior who doesn't read, Clinton who reads, Rumsfeld who wouldn't budge, Cheney who was obstinate, Powell who was half-hearted, Rice who wasn't receptive until much later.

Now where are those Armed Predators again? 1 Hubert756 58

A bit dated, but really good first-person account of the fight against terrorism leading up to and slightly beyond 9/11. Clarke does at times seem as if he's trying cover his ***, but he puts out a fair account of his bosses' (i.e. presidents') competencies with regards to their understandings of the terrorism issue. In his view Iraq was a clear distraction, based on some discredited theories of their purported involvement in the '93 World Trade Center bombings. It's interesting reading this material 14 years after publication; much of what he predicted still survives, albeit in different forms (e.g. ISIS).american-studies politics-economics war1 Pam Rasmussen47 8

I should have read this book when I first received it, in 2005 -- and before so many other writers commented on this subject. Now, in 2008, so much of the content seems "old" and even perhaps a bit superficial. A better book for truly understanding Al Queda, for instance, is The Looming Tower. (Clarke seems more preoccupied with documenting and covering his own tracks.) However, Clarke's book DID bring home strongly the warnings we had prior to Sept. 11 and the hard work that many put in trying to stop it -- if only we had listened to them, and connected the dots. 1 Anne89

Reading this concurrent with Donald Trump saying about Obama, ". . . ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS, he's the founder of ISIS, the founder . . . .", even if he meant it metaphorically regarding Obama's policies & responses - which Trump, by the way, denies meaning - the book makes him look uninformed & foolish. Good book. Informative. Helpful in placing terrorism today in a context that makes the history meaningful. Clarke is open about his perceptions being his, his biases being his own. Glad I read it.1 Dirk EichhorstAuthor 1 book4

Written by Richard Clarke, former National Security Council member who served under three US presidents, this book is fascinating to me. Clarke was one of the very few people in the US government who took the al-Qaeda terrorists seriously before the 9/11 attack. He said, "Are we serious about dealing with the al-Qaeda threat?" This book is an excellent account of the war on terror following 9/11. 1 Les Aucoin40 18

In this authoritative account of the U.S.'s rash rush to war in Iraq, the US's former chief counter-terrorism adviser describes in searing detail the fool's errand that Bush and Cheney sent us on in their war of choice, not necessity. Written by one who was there, and wasn't listened to. Read it to help ensure this never happens again.favorites1 Will1,575 58

Great inside view of the events of 9/11, as written by Richard A. Clarke, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council under Clinton and Bush.
9-11 afghanistan bush ...more1 Patrick563

It must be hard to be Clarke who has such influence in government but no one knows what he does and why he does it. I am convince the reason he wrote this book is to brandish his legacy as someone who did something for the US. Although I this book, it is largely a confirmation of what I already knew that Bush's war on Iraq was based on his ideology rather than on facts. He does make a convincing case that the war in Iraq makes America less safe rather than more safe.

Clarke states that government is still not being coordinated adequately to prevent another terrorist attack instead the Iraq war is being waged that in his view was a mistake. Clarke also believes that the war in Iraq was badly executed since the Pentagon did not have a plan for post-war Iraq. He predicted that the Iraq war would be rightly a breeding ground for terrorists (ISIS) and we are losing the ideological war with radical Islam by our terrorist raids on Iraqi's homes. He is encouraging a vigorous analytical debate in order counteract the onetrack mind of the Bush administration.

Clarke admired Rice self-confidence in knowing that she had no business chairing a counter-terrorism task force so she allowed Clarke to chair it. He tells of the quick response time that Bush had on what he wanted done. He tells of how a heroic bunch of high level bureaucrats made sure contingency plans were made during 9/11 while their lives might have been on the line. Clarke also says that Cheyney was a soft spoken man with a wing-nut idea of national defense. Clarke tells of how he instructed the FAA to ground all planes and calm the markets and protect the stock exchanges electronic servers. He coordinated FEMA efforts for 9/11. When 9/11 happened, Bush found his voice. Bush's first priority was retribution for the attacks followed by the saving of lives followed by the reopening of the markets so that American commerce could thrive again. Clarke was begging for an audience with Bush during his inauguration but did not get it until after 9/11. For all the greatness that W showed post 9/11, Wolfowitz and Rumsfield obsession of a link b/w Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda just b/c they wanted to see a regime change in Iraq filtered down to Bush. From that moment on, Bush asked Clarke to find a link b/w Iraq and Al-Qaeda which of course has given rise to ISIS. Bush created ISIS as the Caliphate that Al-Quaeda could only dream of by declaring it a haven for terrorist.

He asserts that Reagan's obsession in crushing the Soviet empire via outspending Moscow militarily, confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the US military in the Persian Gulf, and strengthening Israel as a base, he unwittingly led to the rise of radical Islam and its dream to have a global caliphate. Reagan was drawn into middle east politics by the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah taking over Iran. Since everything was seen through the prism of the cold war having a military presence in the Persian Gulf was seen as a must for the US. The Saudi government welcomed the US which caused resentment to some Saudi Muslims who thought that a foreign infidel army should have no presence in Islam holy sites. Terrorist only understand devastating crippling destruction of their operation and Reagan focusing on the cold war did not respond to the bombing in Beirut giving Islamic terrorist the license to kill. We should always seek to destroy states who declare war on us but seek a cultural change in states that are neutral. Reagan was the first president to formally ally the US military with that of Israel initially as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and later against hostile Arab countries. Although Clarke believes Israeli-American alliance was the right move for both countries, it led to radical Islamist to declare America as the enemy of Islam for being a strident backer of Israel. In Afghanistan, Clarke was responsible for getting the stinger missile to the muhajadeen. When at all possible, we should always use local forces to fight our global war on terror.

Although Clarke believes the US did the right thing by draining the Soviet finance as the death blow to the regime by overextending it financially, he does state the cold war moves of overreliance on ISI, not having a back up plan post Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, relied too heavily on Saudi recruitment of mujahadeen that would later be Al-Qaeda's backbone, pulled out of funding Afghanistan; thus allowing a civil war with a huge refugee problem in Pakistan and destabilize a nuclear Pakistan with radicalism, eventually caused radical Islam to be a force in its own right.

Clarke state Bush Sr still steeped in Cold War posturing was reluctant in engaging a war with Iraq even after they invaded Kuwait but was convinced when made to realize that the megalomaniac Saddam Hussein would take Saudi Arabia oil fields and thus would dictate US foreign policy via oil. There was a vigorous debate within the Saudi royal family whether to let American troops in or not since Islam forbids infidels from setting foot in the Kingdom. Whereas Bush Sr rightly pushed for a international coalition to push back Iraq, Cheney was against it b/c he thought Americans could do it alone. While he might be right in terms of military action, he is wrong in what it means post-war. While Bush Sr. was concerned on American image abroad in Arab countries, Cheney was only concerned with military efficiency. I agree with Clarke that we should have destroyed the Republican guard but what if we did destroy the guard? What effect would that have on region stability? B/c Saddam Hussein remained in power, that necessitated to have a residual American force in Saudi Arabia which in the end went against the promise that Americans withdraw after the Gulf War I. It also enraged Islamic fundamentalists especially Bin Laden.

During the '93 bombing, it should have been clear that America is facing an Islamic terrorist problem. When Clinton ordered a bombing of Saddam Hussein's intelligence compound for an attempt on Bush Sr. life, Iraq never sponsored terrorism after that fact. Although Clinton responded responsibly to the Mogidishu issue, it emboldened the Islamic militants by claiming victory in a world that we did not want to be in. Clarke ushered the reign of linking terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. The insular nature of the FBI prevented the sharing of information. Unfortunately, terrorism in the mid-90's was made a partisan issue by Republicans so the law against funding terrorist was not passed nor were laws preventing bomb making materials from being bought which was brought by the 2nd amendment.

The focus on state-sponsored terrorism started by Iran who sponsored Islamic terrorist to attack US and Israeli targets. The Olympic Games of '96 forced US dept to work with each other to prevent acts of terrorism. The group was later re-christened National Security Special Events group. Iran sponsored terrorism in Bahrain to overthrow its government, home to the US naval 5th fleet. Even though Iran plotted against Saudi Arabia on their own soil, the Saudi's did not want to be embarrassed by not being able to control the disgruntled Shia so they hid the information from the US government. Whereas the US places an importance on transparency so they will learn from past mistakes, the Saudi's fear the loss of control of their affairs from transparency. The Saudi's also feared that the US would bankrupt the country if the US went to war with Iran. Meanwhile the FBI director distrusted Clinton. Since Clinton understood that the terrorist threat was paramount threat facing America, I am sure that Hilary will do a good job to responding to any terrorist threats facing the US. Clinton and the deficit reducing Congress did

not have the political will to change things to prevent terrorist threat that to that point was theoretical.

Bin Laden used front charities to provide funding for his jihadi programs. Although Al-Qaeda failed to extend their Caliphate to Bosnia, thanks to the Clintonian policy of defending Bosnia, they were able to take advantage of Europe's lax immigration policy to set deep roots into Western Europe. How Western Europe handle the radicalization of its Muslim population will hold a key on how we should treat our Muslim population. Apparently, Clinton approved every covert operation that Clarke wanted to get done and the military leaked that it was the Clinton did not want it done. Clinton was especially vulnerable politically of innuendos of being a weak leader b/c of all the sexual picadillos in his closet. Arab governments were not helpful in capturing Islamic terrorist. By the late '90's, Clarke was raring to go after Al-Qaeda. It seems Clinton's prodigious reading habits caused him to look forward in how terrorism could be prevented. Clarke was the first person who targeted terrorist financing and the first to come up with interdepartemental bickering as impediments to combating terrorism. The terrorist moved funds via Islamic charities and NGO's. The Saudi's were the #1 financiers of terrorism and within the US turf battles were the #1 impediment to progress. Bush distrust of anything Clintonian in its multinational approach combined with his pro-finance stance meant a decrease in priority on terrorists money-laundering enforcement.

The Soviet Union and Iran will lie so in order to decrease and degrade their weapons capability, we need to continuously verify their capabilities. I now understand why Clarke is so bitter towards W administration b/c whereas Clinton raised his status in national security matters in terrorist and cybersecurity issues, W demoted his status just b/c he reflexively disagreed with Clinton's style in leadership. This is a lesson that even though you may not your predecessor, one should never throw out the baby with the bath water W did b/c he ideologically opposed Clinton's way of doing things. Although Clarke was designated the terrorist czar, he did not have the power of enforcing his policy just being able to coordinate the efforts of other departments. Unfortunately, his efforts on calling attention to himself was right in predicting terrorist attacks of 9/11. They wanted to use an attack on embassy in Africa in order to decimate Al-Qaeda's leadership. Unfortunately, Clinton was battling the Lewinsy scandal and was thus hampered politically. Clinton's Lewinsky scandal made his attempt to get rid of the Al-Qaeda leadership a "wag the dog" proposition thereby relegating terrorism as a right wing political casualty. Although Clinton wanted Bin Laden dead, there were some legal issues preventing him from accomplishing it such as a previous ban on assassination attempts that interestingly did not apply towards American military.

Although the government knew about Al-Qaeda and its sleeper cells, perhaps 9/11 needed to happen in order for the public to give politicians the political will to make changes in order to better integrate America's defenses against terrorism.

Clarke made sure that the embassies were secured. The UAE and Saudi's broke off diplomatic relations with the Taliban after they rebuffed pressure on giving Bin Laden over to the US but Pakistan still had the Taliban's full support. CIA as an institution does not want to be involved in fad National emergency b/c they know that anything bad that happens will get blamed on them while anything good remains covert and thus no one knows what there agency does. Clarke warned that there was going to be a millennium attack on the US so he increased the awareness of such a case. Even though Clarke was aware that there were sleeper cells in the US, the FBI largely were concerned with domestic threats and unconcerned with Al-Qaeda. From all the bureaucracies that were slow to respond to Al-Qaeda, the FBI was the worst and the most skeptical.

While Clinton focus on Al-Qaeda was largely overshadowed by his sexual escapades, Bush did not think Clinton's focus on Al-Qaeda was good and as much of his other policy priorities was reversed. Although Clarke made clear that Iraq was not behind the terrorist attack, Wolfowitz would not let go of the idea that Iraq was the heart of state-sponsored terrorism. Together with W's revenge for his father's assassination attempt by Iraqi terrorist and Rices' obsession with Cold War tactics, W NSC focused wrongly focused on state sponsored terrorism such as Iraq. This underscores the importance of not allowing ideology to dictate policy, rather it is important to allow policy to be based on facts that backs up certain ideology. On the CSG meeting before 9/11, Clarke and Tenet focused on Al-Qaeda while Wolfowitz and Rumsfield continuously harped on Iraq.

To the chagrin of Clarke, the US only responds to real threat and so 9/11 was necessary evil to galvanize the forces to move quickly against Islamic terrorism. He thought post 9/11 would see the focus towards 1) eliminating al-Qaeda 2) stabilize nations threatened by radical Islam 3) to offer an alternative ideology to radical Islam and terrorism to vent their grievances 4) reduce our own vulnerabilities @ home. Bush administration did not understand that Al-Qaeda was the problem and not Iraq. Rove used the War on Terror as a political tool to run against the democrats instead on uniting the country. W and his administration were ideologues who preferred quick answers to subtleties. Clarke claims that by invading Iraq, we gave Islamist the propaganda tool to grow larger and create their dreamed of Caliphate (ISIS).

Clarke states that instead of the misguided war on Iraq, Bush should have 1) engaged in a massive effort to eliminate our vulnerabilities to terrorism at home and strengthen homeland security; 2) launch a concerted global effort to discredit radical Islamist ideology in favor of a more peaceful Islam that coincides with the West 3) create alliances with key Middle Eastern countries to dry up funding and support of Islamist terrorists. Initially, the creation of Homeland Security created confusion where clarity should have reigned. B/c of the misguided Bush tax cuts, Homeland Security was mandated to create cheaply. He prescribes making an American version of the MI-5 but foresees opposition from both ACLU and NRA as well as the FBI. In reality though, he advocates a MI-5 within the FBI that is well funded and has real power. As a result of the Iraq war and the resulting lack of funding, FEMA was weaker and could not attend

to mass casualty situations. Since W was ideologically opposed to domestic spending, federal response to emergencies were lower than defense spending. Secondly, he states the importance of counter-acting the Islamist propaganda. He believes that "the only way to stop [the Islamist ideology] is to work with leaders of Islamic nations to insure that tolerance of other religions is taught again, that their people believe they have fair opportunities to participate in government and the economy, that the social and cultural conditions that breed hatred are bred out. Instead we gave Islamist terrorists a calling card in Iraq. He believes the unilateral decision to destroy Iraq was a big mistake that we will pay for in the future. What the neocons wanted to have happen, Iraq being the beacon of democracy b/c the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Iran and Saudi Arabia had more in common in helping Al-Qaeda than Iraq ever did. Besides the negative popularity the US received by its war with Iraq, we lost international backing with the way we said no to coalition building.

In Afghanistan, we should have had the policy of search and destroy all terrorists instead of simply a regime change. B/c of Iraq, Afghanistan is still a huge refuge for terrorist b/c of the lack of funds. He advocates stabilizing Pakistan by economic development so it will not become a hate filled terrorist state with nuclear capabilities. He wants us to be concerned with the future and stability of Saudi Arabia so that it will not be a haven for terrorists. Furthermore, he advocates us to actively advocate for strong pro-democracy forces in Tehran without making them seem the puppets of the CIA. He also wants us the Arab world to us by attacking Al-Qaeda's ideology in favor of the Western ideology. To that end, he wants regional Islamic friendly governments to aid in our ideological messaging versus Islamic radicalism. This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.Show full review Laura146 10

Richard Clarke was a counterterrorism official in Washington before it was cool. He was sounding the alarm about al Qaeda for years before 9/11 and was frustrated that his warnings were not taken seriously. On the morning of 9/11 he assumed the role that the yet-to-be-invented Secretary of Homeland Security might, coordinating with different agencies to ground planes, close national monuments, and mobilize first responders.

The book documents how he feels terrorist threats should have been handled both before and after 9/11, and how the Bush administration got sidetracked with invading Iraq.

I really struggled to write this review. On the one hand, I personally think invading Iraq was one of the dumbest fucking things ever, so I am going to be sympathetic to his criticisms on that front. On the other hand, there is serious liberal bias going on here, so I really hesitate to let it fully massage all of my own preconceived notions.

For one thing, President Bush is noticeably absent from the author's description of the response to the events on the morning of 9/11. Now, I can't stand that guy, and I'll be the first to crack jokes about the first grade storytime episode, but I find it completely impossible to believe that after leaving that classroom, the man literally hid in a bunker and did not interact with any other government officials for the next 12 hours, which Clarke's account heavily implies.

In recounting previous terror attacks, he refers to the attacks on the Marine barracks and the attack on Pan Am during the Reagan Administration, and then throws in a side comment about how nothing on this scale occurred during Clinton's tenure. Which strikes me as kind of complete and total bullshit. Clinton had 8 years to take down al Qaeda and failed, but Bush gets all the blame for the attack that happens less than a year into his presidency? And it's nothing more than random chance that the attack on the Marine barracks was far deadlier than the attack on the USS Cole, which DID happen during Clinton's term. ("Luck" seems the wrong word to use. Maybe "the stochastic nature of the universe" or something.) Also, for the record, neither of those events are acts of terrorism. They're just plain old boring war. He also pulls a Monica and spends a whole page sucking Clinton's dick about just how much the man did for counterterrorism. Which may be true but the whole section is just so chock full of boot-licking it's hard to take it seriously. Clinton did everything he possibly could! Everyone was against him! The media kept digging into his personal life! Even when he sent armed forces against terrorism, as in Somalia, "the military had made mistakes and blamed him." I've also heard his shit doesn't stink.

According to Clarke, Clinton urged the incoming Bush administration to focus on al Qaeda. When Bush took office, Clarke and his colleagues kept pushing for a meeting with the President and his senior advisors to brief them on al Qaeda, but the administration thought Clinton was overreacting and kept pushing the meeting back. It finally happened on September 4, but Clarke was unimpressed with the reaction. Those present didn't seem to want to make counterterrorism a priority.

When he was proven right just a few days later, the focus almost immediately swiveled to Iraq. Clarke reports that on the evening of Sept 12, 2001, President Bush asked him to look for a connection to Saddam Hussein, which, if true, is pretty fucking infuriating. And I "want" this to be true because it would reassure my deeply held preconceived notions about how terrible 43 was, but between my own bias and the author's, it's damn hard to evaluate it critically. I just honestly don't know if I believe him.

Of course, then he swings to some conservative bias and weasely wording, when he blames Attorney General John Ashcroft for presenting the Patriot Act poorly. Stripping Jose Padilla of his civil rights and debating with librarians about the right to access reading records (which would ly never even be necessary) damaged the government's reputation "at a time when we need greater citizen trust in the government so that we can adapt to the terrorist threat." In other words, John Ashcroft fucked up the propaganda message about the PATRIOT ACT. If only he had been a better bullshit artist, an even greater percentage of our cowardly citizens would give full-throated support to the removal of their liberties. Okay.

He also quotes himself as saying to another government official on 9/11, "Mike, I told the President about the minimum wage rent-a-cops doing screening of passengers and carry-on. He understands that will have to end." I don't think there's an onomatopoeia strong enough for the scoff I made at reading that. Yeah, having the government take over totally changed THAT situation. Anyone who thinks the government taking over airport security actually accomplished anything is someone I am not going to be able to take seriously.

After 9/11 Clarke trots out all the same arguments against the stupidity of the Iraq War. That the only way to stop Islamic terrorism is to "work with leaders of Islamic nations to insure that tolerance of other religions is taught again…Rather than seeking to work with the majority in the Islamic world to mold Muslim opinion against the radicals' values, we did exactly what al Qaeda said we would do. We invaded and occupied an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to us...We delivered to al Qaeda the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable and made it difficult for friendly Islamic governments to be seen working closely with us."

He also rehashes how we didn’t seem too concerned about actually catching bin Laden before changing course and setting our sights on bin Laden.

We did not send in ground troops but relied on the Northern Alliance to take ground. "More than a month after the U.S. opened the military operation, the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, still alive and well, ordered his forces to pull out of Kabul and move to the mountains. No U.S. troops gave chase." Ground troops were not inserted until November 25. "The late November operation did not include any effort by U.S. forces to seal the border with Pakistan, snatch the al Qaeda leadership, or cut off the al Qaeda escape."

His most damning lines are his last.

"September 11 erased memories of the unique process whereby George Bush had been selected as President a few months earlier. Now, as he stood with an arm around a New York fireman promising to get those who had destroyed the World Trade Center, he was every American's President. His polls soared. He 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."

For the record, I agree with all of these points. I mean damn do I agree with that closing paragraph. But I’ve heard them before, and Clark’s status as a counterterrorism expert and Bush Administration insider add nothing to them.

This would be just another political hack job, if not for the valuable account of the rise of terrorism in the 80’s and 90’s. I wish the author had just stuck to that instead.

*******************Bonus Summary of Actual Unbiased Stuff from this Political Nonsense Book*******************

Since I personally greatly appreciated the account of the rise of terrorism in the 80’s and 90’s, I’ve summarized it below for my own education. There's an interesting phenomenon where people tend to know the least about the history that directly impacts the world around them. There's stuff that happened before you were born - you might learn about it directly in school or indirectly through books, movies, and TV. Then there's stuff that's happening now - you are immersed in it, see it happening, and have an emotional reaction. But how did the world get to that state? It's a mystery to you. The world as you know it now is defined by what happened during your childhood- events recent enough that it feels it should be common knowledge, but old enough that it's difficult to get up to speed. And not so old that it's cool to make it into a TV show yet. Sure, you were technically around, but not really paying attention or capable of understanding. For me, that period is 1987 to 2001, bookended by the Lockerbie bombing and the WTC attack. The whole period where terrorism was growing in size and scope and political importance is lost to me, so I did appreciate getting something of a primer of that period out of this book.

The first Gulf War ended when Iraqi forces left Kuwait. Some US officials thought the US should have kept the pressure on, which would have ly led to Saddam's downfall. Others thought that Saddam would fall anyway, since the average Iraqi was none too happy about this defeat coming swift on the heels of the devastation that was the Iraq-Iran war just a few years earlier. They were half right. The Shi'a majority revolted, and were slaughtered by the Republican Guard units which the US has kindly allowed to retreat back home. "Years later, the Shi'a would remember how Washington had called on them to rise up, but then did nothing as they were slaughtered."
Also, since parts of the Republican Guard were still intact, some US forces remained in Saudi Arabia to aid in its protection. One Usama bin Laden was none too happy about this. Growing more critical of the King's acquiesce to US troop presence, he eventually fled to Afghanistan with other disgruntled troops whom he had recruited and led in battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan several years before.

"In 1989, in the middle of such a firefight with Iranian small boats [part of the Iraq-Iranian war, in which the US was attempting to keep the oil trade from being disrupted by the fighting], the USS Vincennes had mistaken an Iran Air passenger plane for an attacking Iranian fighter plane, and shot it down, killing 290 civilians." Holy shit, so you mean that thing that Russia did 2 years ago that we were so outraged about....we have actually done that exact same thing in the past? How is this not common knowledge? It's almost history class in school is purposefully useless!
al Qaeda was involved in the war in Bosnia. They saw it as Muslims being oppressed by a Christian government. They hoped to get involved, win the war, recruit new members, and use it as a base to begin their Caliphate. Bosnia was grateful for the support but became uneasy about their extreme methods. Eventually the US threated to withdraw support if Bosnia did not expel these people (whom they did not yet identify as anti-American terrorists as well as vicious mercenaries), and Bosnia made halfhearted attempts to do so.

Apparently there is evidence that al Qaeda trained the fighters (the militia of warlord Farah Aideed) in Somalia who became involved in the Black Hawk Down incident.

Clarke discusses but doesn't dismiss the conspiracy theory that Terry Nichols (OKC bomber) was trained in bomb building skills by Ramzi Yousef or Kahlid Sheik Muhammad. Apparently, Nichols' wife was Philippina, and he had been in her small hometown of Cebu at the same time as both terrorists. He continued to call back to that town long after his wife was no longer there. His visit coincided with the time when he suddenly seemed to figure out how to make his bombs work.

After being kicked out of Saudi Arabia, bin Laden moved to Sudan, where the government leadership was friendly to terrorists and bin Laden in particular. Meanwhile, Pakistan had helped to install the Taliban in power in Afghanistan after the Soviet puppet government collapse in the wake of Soviet withdrawal. The leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, knew bin Laden personally and shared a similar philosophy. By 1996, the US had identified al Qaeda as a terrorist network. Bin Laden moved to Afghanistan around this time and the US developed a possible plan to "snatch" him. Ultimately the plan did not go forward because he was living in a heavily defended complex and it seemed a risky operation, ly to fail in its objective while killing CIA assets.

On August 7, 1998, terrorist simultaneously struck US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. 257 people were killed. Around this time, White House officials devised a plan to attack al Qaeda at various bases and training camps of theirs around the Middle East and Africa. The attacks were successful, but bin Laden was not killed. Officials were surprised by the negative public reaction to these bombings. The media accused the Clinton administration of orchestrating the attack to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and generally everyone and their mother had an opinion about various things that had been done wrong. This public reaction made it more difficult to get consensus among leaders for future attacks on al Qaeda assets. (Again I take the pro-Clinton slant of this version of events with a grain of salt. I was eleven, I don't remember this shit.)

In December 1999, officials intercepted intelligence that al Qaeda was planning a bunch of attacks at the turn of the Millennium. A man trying to enter the US from Canada was captured by customs agents. He had a car full of explosives and a map of LAX. This break led to the discovery of other terrorists in cells in Montreal and New York. The only attack that wasn’t disrupted by the US was an attempt to bomb the USS The Sullivans, a U.S. Navy destroyer. However the boat that was to carry out this mission was overloaded with explosives and sank.

Counterterrorism began using Predators to perform surveillance on al Qaeda in September and October of 2000. This was cutting edge technology at the time. It felt something out of a movie. "The Air Force had been intending to experiment with placing small rockets or missiles on the Predator, with a view to possibly having a working capability in 2004. We asked them to have it ready for the late spring of 2001."

Clarke
Autor del comentario:
=================================