US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

[topics]
biotech

[regions]
united states

[projects]
video
satellite tv
radio
print

[process]
volunteer
tech
process & imc docs
mailing lists
fbi/legal updates

west asia
palestine
israel
beirut

united states
worcester
western mass
vermont
urbana-champaign
tennessee
tampa bay
seattle
sarasota
santa cruz, ca
santa barbara
san francisco bay area
san francisco
san diego
saint louis
rogue valley
rochester
richmond
portland
pittsburgh
philadelphia
oklahoma
nyc
north texas
north carolina
new orleans
new mexico
new jersey
new hampshire
minneapolis/st. paul
milwaukee
michigan
miami
maine
madison
la
kansas city
hudson mohawk
houston
hawaii
dc
columbus
colorado
cleveland
chicago
charlottesville
buffalo
boston
binghamton
big muddy
baltimore
austin indymedia
austin
atlanta
asheville
arkansas
arizona

south asia
mumbai
india

oceania
sydney
perth
melbourne
manila
jakarta
darwin
brisbane
aotearoa

latin america
venezuela
valparaiso
uruguay
tijuana
santiago
rosario
qollasuyu
puerto rico
peru
mexico
ecuador
colombia
cmi sucre
cmi brasil
chile sur
chile
chiapas
bolivia
argentina

europe
valencia
united kingdom
ukraine
toulouse
toscana
torun
switzerland
sverige
scotland
sardegna
russia
romania
roma
portugal
poland
piemonte
patras
paris/le-de-france
oost-vlaanderen
nottingham
norway
northern england
nice
netherlands
napoli
nantes
marseille
malta
madrid
london
lombardia
linksunten
lille
liguria
liege
la plana
italy
istanbul
ireland
hungary
grenoble
germany
galiza
euskal herria
estrecho / madiaq
emilia-romagna
cyprus
croatia
calabria
bulgaria
brussels
bristol
belgrade
belgium
belarus
barcelona
austria
athens
armenia
antwerpen
andorra
alacant
abruzzo

east asia
saint-petersburg
qc
korea
japan
burma

canada
windsor
victoria
vancouver
thunder bay
quebec
ottawa
ontario
montreal
maritimes
london, ontario

africa
south africa
nigeria
kenya
canarias
ambazonia

www.indymedia.org

-->
Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary ::
Fatal Blind Spot
29 Mar 2004
As Richard Clarke's testimony demonstrated, the Bush administration believed their own campaign rhetoric instinctively rejected the Clinton administration's hard-won wisdom as worthless.
Every New President's Fatal Blind Spot
BusinessWeek, March 29, 2004

Partisan fury is flying over Richard A. Clarke's explosive charge that President George W. Bush and his Administration acted lackadaisically before September 11 in response to repeated warnings of a possible al Qaeda attack. The Democrats rail at Bush for pursuing a unilateral, Lone Ranger foreign policy that discounted Clarke's work as a top anti-terrorism official whose White House tenure carried over from the Clinton to Bush. The Republicans bay that Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, would give the U.N. Security Council a veto over how to protect American national-security interests -- exactly the sort of woolly headed thinking on foreign affairs that long has frightened voters.

These campaign caricatures have consequences that go beyond voting on Election Day. They end up distorting the way a new Administration governs, according to former National Security Council officials of both parties. A serious management lesson needs to be learned here, but nobody seems to be hearing it.

MISSING INGREDIENT
The reason the Bush Administration is reacting so strongly to Clarke's charges is that they have a ring of truth to them -- and could be devastating to the President's chances of reelection in November if left unanswered. So let's go back to 2000 -- before the last election -- and see why that's so.

Condoleezza Rice, who became Bush's National Security Adviser, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs that outlined what a Bush foreign policy would look like. Rice served up what was then the Republican attack line against the Clinton-Gore Administration: Foreign policy was an undisciplined, inconsistent muddle that failed to separate the important from the trivial.

What was on her list of important issues? Bolstering America's military, promoting economic growth through free-trade pacts and a stable monetary system, renewing ties with allies, and focusing on Major Power relations, particularly those with Russia and China. The final priority: Dealing with rogue nations and hostile powers. The threat of terrorism? It was briefly mentioned in a subordinate clause, where she noted only the potential for danger. Otherwise, not a mention in a 6,500-word opus on foreign policy.

BASHING BILL
The thrust of the GOP message at the time was that if you take care of the big things, the little problems take care of themselves. Rice and others scoffed that the Clinton Administration's focus on transnational threats, such as AIDS, and on mounting missile strikes against suspected terrorist camps were secondary or tertiary considerations. Their disdain for the Clintonites was visceral -- everything the previous Administration did was wrong. Over the course of the campaign, the Bush team talked themselves into believing their own rhetoric.

When the Bush folks got into the White House, they acted on their beliefs. It's no stretch to imagine, as Clarke charges, that when a Clinton holdover told them something was important, they dismissed it. Making matters worse, once in government, these officials had a lot more information than anyone on the outside. With crushing workloads, they didn't have the time to talk to independent experts -- never mind that they didn't think it would be worthwhile, because those outside experts didn't have the most current data and were thought to be three steps behind.

Result: The Bush team formulated policy in a vacuum, mulling ideas among themselves. This happens with every Administration, not just Bush's, according to those I spoke with who have been there from both parties.

HARD LESSONS
Eventually, it dawns on those in power that the previous Administration may actually have had good reasons for pursuing its priorities. A good example: The policy of strategic ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait, which for years was embraced by Republican and Democratic Administrations. The idea was to discourage Taipei from being provocative by suggesting that in some instances -- for example, if Taiwan went too far toward independence -- the U.S. would not come to the country's aid. And Washington wanted to keep the possibility of intervention alive to discourage Beijing from attacking.

Bush's foreign policy advisers during the campaign loved to castigate Clinton for adhering to the policy. They wanted a tilt toward Taiwan. When they got into office, they initially tried to do that, but they quickly saw the folly and risk of doing so, backed off, and adopted the traditional position. Put it down to a lesson learned the hard way.

In this context, we can see how the Bush Administration chose to ignore the gathering concerns of the Clinton foreign-policy team in the late '90s over what to do about al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Bushies were still on a learning curve when the planes struck the World Trade Center.

KNEE-JERK REJECTION
By the same token, Clarke makes a strong point when, in his book, Against All Enemies, he asserts that any Administration, Democratic or Republican, would have declared war on terrorism and launched attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan after September 11. Once you're inside the bubble of policymaking and fully engaged, the problems pretty much look the same, and the dynamics of policy have a momentum all their own.

Unfortunately, that's the progression every Administration goes through. And these days, with politics a blood sport and partisanship becoming ever more rancid, every policy pursued by a predecessor has to be criticized and rejected. Rhetoric gets overheated, discussions become insular, a new policy is launched, and only later is it reversed.

It's all too predictable -- and costly, in the view of those who have been there. As the stakes get ever higher, this is a dynamic America can ill afford. And unfortunately, if the flap over Clarke is any indication, the situation is getting worse, not better.
See also:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2004/nf20040329_6112_db056.htm

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

9-11 was planned...ON BOTH SIDES!
30 Mar 2004
With all the information on 9-11? There is no way Rummy, Rice, Cheney or Bush didn't know it was going to happen. THEY LET IT HAPPEN.
Bush and his bunch are murderers. They should be put on trial for their ill concieved plot.
As far as the 9-11 commission? Ask the real questions. Why did Ashcroft quit flying commercial jets months before 9-11? (He knew.) Why didn't the administration beef up security at all airports before 9-11? Why did the F-16's fly at one-third their speed, trying to intercept the second jet, inbound, towards the WTC? Why did Rummy want to invade Iraq the day after 9-11...When there was no proof Iraq was involved? Why did Bush sit in a classroom and do nothing after the first jet hit the WTC?
There's much more unanswered questions I could bring up...The 9-11 commission isn't asking none of the substanced questions. The questions that would put these crooks in prison.
I see a travesty of justice for the families of 9-11.