People often ask me how they can learn more about national security and foreign policy — in particular, how the U.S. has gone so far astray in those critical areas of governance and leadership. The problem is, a good overall examination of these issues, an explanation for neophytes as well as political junkies, has been hard to find.
Until now.
Richard Clarke’s new book, Your Government Failed You, is an insightful, comprehensive, and accessible guide to how U.S. security, intelligence, and military policies and practices got to where they are today. His groundbreaking Against All Enemies was an insider’s guided tour through the U.S. approach to — and failures with — terrorism, and established him as a reality-based voice long before such criticism was in vogue. In this current follow-up, Richard expands his sights, shedding light on our entire security apparatus, from the halls of power in Washington to the dusty alleys of Baghdad to the flood-ravaged streets of New Orleans.
The phrase "Who could have predicted . . ." has become something of a sarcastic running joke in the progressive blogosphere, reflecting the fact that far too often, problems are in fact predicted in advance, they just aren’t handled properly. Richard warned of the immediate dangers of terrorism before 9/11, he warned of the dangers of Iraq before the 2003 invasion, and now he’s warning us of future mistakes and disasters, aided and abetted by inertia, ideology, and incompetence in much of our national security apparatus. We would do well to listen.
In my book about my time as an intelligence analyst (which, full disclosure, is cited approvingly in Richard’s book and which, as many of you probably remember, he hosted a discussion of at this very site just a few months ago), I argued that the intelligence business should pay more attention to the track record of individuals and offices, rather than rewarding those who parrot the administration line no matter how often it’s wrong. Richard is a living embodiment of why that’s so important at all levels of the bureaucracy – someone with his experience, judgment, and track record should be running things, not being ignored or overruled by ideologues.
Beyond laying out the structures and processes of intelligence and security in a way that is both accessible to newcomers and still fascinating for experts, the book is tremendously engaging. It’s filled with anecdotes from Richard’s long career of civil service, from his first intel meeting as a 24-year-old staffer in Vienna to the early days of the Iraq war. The compelling narrative mixes entertaining insider accounts with edifying explanations of a host of complicated issues and problems, and the writing style will be a relief for those used to near-impenetrable nonfiction but digestible even for anyone more accustomed to summer thrillers. It also strongly affirms many of the values progressives hold dear – opposing torture and wireless warrants, demanding an end to politicized and partisan security processes, and much more.
Many readers will find Richard’s book something of a call to arms. He persuasively makes the case for participation in government, especially for those of us in the reality-based community, and his career is, frankly, an inspiration. Even in describing the barriers to entry in the national security world – difficulties I vividly remember experiencing when I decided to pursue jobs in that arena – he remains passionate and optimistic about our government’s potential for good. Not to go overboard with a self-flattering comparison, but I can relate to those sentiments. Even after having a very mixed experience working on Iraq for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and writing a book critical of my time there, I’m now spending this summer back (proudly, happily) working for the federal government. At a much higher level, of course, Richard is back in the policy world as an advisor to Senator Obama’s presidential campaign. There is vital work to be done, and as Richard notes in the book, it all comes down to individuals.
Perhaps most importantly, Richard doesn’t limit himself to explaining the problems – he offers point by point suggestions for making our national security processes work. Doing so wouldn’t be an easy task, but he describes many relatively straightforward adjustments that could go a long way toward improving the current situation. Roughly half of the book focuses on intelligence, with particular attention to terrorism and Iraq, and the other half details homeland security challenges, ranging from cyber-security to borders to energy policy. It is a manifesto that serves triple duty as a brilliant introduction for a layman audience, a treasure trove of information and anecdotes for those of us who follow these issues closely already, and, best of all, a blueprint for the reforms of the next administration.
Now when people ask me what one book they can read to better understand the current status of national security, the answer will be easy. Without further exposition, it’s my pleasure and privilege to introduce Richard Clarke, 30-year veteran of the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council, and White House, and author of Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Richard McCormack, Editor of Manufacturing a Better Future for America
- Richard Clarke Reminds Cheney and Condi of Their Incompetence
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Dr. Steven Miles, Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Chris Mooney, Unscientific America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Bradley Graham, By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Richard, Welcome to the Lake.
AJ, Thank you for Hosting this Book Salon.
Thanks very much AJ. Good to be with you.
Good afternoon everybody, and welcome! This is just up, so I’m sure it will be a few minutes before everybody settles in and gets comfortable, so I’ll start with a few questions I’m curious about, and Richard has joined us, as y’all can see.
Richard, in your book you present many suggestions for helping to right the ship on security issues in the U.S. government. In what order, or with what set of priorities, would you implement those changes? That is, what would be your top few changes if you could make them on January 21, 2009?
The point of this book is that the 9-11 failure is part of a pattern since then, and somewhat before then. I try to identify solutions to break the cycle, in the military, intelligence, homeland, terrorism, cyber security.
i also try to find common threads line over politicization of national security, out sourcing for profit, lack of professional standards, the absence of real analysis.
Welcome to FDL AJ and Richard.
And thanks once again for your great efforts in bringing us such fine books to talk about Bev!
Richard, just to start out (and I have not had an opportunity to read your book) but what is your perspective on the recent FISA revision?
Full disclosure: I have not read the book yet…but Mr. Clarke, let’s talk about FISA. Was the original law that was passed a good enough tool? Did the Administration really need what they put the screws to Congress to get?
Welcome Richard and AJ. This is truly one of the most astonishing books I have read in a long time. Each chapter could be its own book salon. There is so much material here it will take a couple of rereads to get it, if then.
the FISA law improved slightly but is far from ideal. i believe there is no reason to avoid prior court review.
AJ, back to your question. The most serious failures were those connected to Iraq. getting out helps, but the failures could reoccur unless we make institutional changes.
Richard – thank you for coming to FDL for this discussion!
Fascinating book – this should be a neat discussion.
Do you think the centralized power of military-related industry is so great that it cannot be rolled back? Have we missed the window from Eisenhower’s warning?
Second question, I know you want to encourage people to enter government service. How do we provide that encouragement in an era when it looks like so much is going wrong with government? Where to begin. Thank you.
As Iraq proved, it is too easy for a president to go to war without any real structured review. Congress should consider passing a law that requires a review along the lines of the Powell Doctrine. Iraq would have failed such a review.
Richard, AJ, welcome! Glad to see you both back at the Lake.
About halfway through the book now–and I agree with what AJ says. One thing I loved about Against all Enemies–and it continues here–is the juxtaposition of loads of no-nonsense wisdom and good judgment with sardonic impatience with the problems of our politicized govt.
There is something I’m not sure I totally understand. Richard, you describe how Bush decided to use the creation of DHS as an opportunity to cut the collective budges of all the agencies that got lumped into DHS. Yet you also talk about the proliferation of homeland security contractors that accompanied the formation of the Department.
Did Bush succeed in cutting the budgets? Did he just cut staff and infrastructure budgets, but expand overall expenditure, with the difference going to cronies in contracting companies? Or did some of the homeland security contracts go through other agencies (DOD?), effectively lowering DHS budget but keeping the money overall still higher?
The revolving door has been such a problem with DHS, I’d love to have a better understanding of what the budget reality of it all is.
Welcome to FDL, Richard, and thank you for your important service to our country. After 20 years military and 2 tours in Iraq, my brother, a Black Hawk pilot, has joined Graystone, a Blackwater subsidiary, to my dismay. How do you view our “private military” in all of these challenges?
Welcome back Richard, and thanks for the great intro AJ
Will we see any accountability?
Richard, why do you think BUSHCO are so into control (edited out the words: such fascists) and why did half the Dems fit that characterization, as well.
The military industrial complex has grown and now includes a huge intelligence community complex of private sector companies. And homeland security.
But no, its not too late to roll it back. Congress will need some cover, however, from a bi-partisan board.
Mr Clarke, thanks for joining us today to chat about your extraordinary book, which I am still reading. I particularly savored your discussions about military planning, where it seems our armed services not only plan to fight the last war but also plan NOT to fight it. It always seemed odd to me that Petraeus’ vaunted recent stateside gig was writing the counterinsurgency manual. When commentators would say, “Well, this General just wrote the BOOK on counterinsurgency!” I often asked, “Didn’t we already have one? Especially before making war in Iraq?”
But now I understand, thanks to your book.
Can you explain how you imagine General Petraeus might change his views of our occupation now that he’s been promoted to head CENTCOM? Do you think he has the capacity to grasp the larger conflict on his plate? In recent testimony he has studiously avoided speaking above his paygrade, so we don’t really know what he might do, do we?
Thanks again for this great book!
Bush tried to cut the homeland budgets when the department was created but Congress started porking it up and the Administration joined in.
what do you think of the Baker/Christopher report from the National War Powers Commission?
Richard when/if Bush leaves office how hard is going to be to bring integrity/honesty back to our intelligence agencies? I think we have a lot of work to repair what has been done by the Bush/Cheney Neocons and we as a country will have a very hard time getting the rest of the world to believe anything we say!
Recent polls suggest that Obama is outraising McCain from self-described military-connected donors.
I’m wondering if you think the failure in Iraq will be enough to wean the military from its belief that Republicans are the military’s political party? And if so, do you think that a legitimate competition for military votes will fix some of the military problems?
I am not sure Patreaus will change his views. He should shift forces to Afghanistan and he could, but I doubt he will do so fast enough.
Great question, Teddy. The man’s not an idiot. He just looks like one when Bush uses him as a puppet.
Are we operating under Continuity of Government now?
In Congressional testimony, some people have testified about being “read into the Program.” What program?
Thank you.
If military voters haven’t figured out by now that the GOP uses them and abuses them, then they never will. I think there is real hope that this year the military vote will split.
On War Powers, Baker says drop the law because its not enforced. How about the opposite, enforcing it?
Thanks for being here today, Richard and AJ. We always appreciate your presence here, and you tag team well.
I echo egregious’s question — Fairfax County is now the wealthiest county in the country. The enormous amounts of money being pumped into the region and going into “homeland security” and defense are unprecedented.
Is the tail irrevocably wagging the dog here?
On repairing the Intel agencies after Bush, much depends upon who is appointed to run them, whether the Congress reasserts its role, and whether the President institutes structural reforms to keep them out of politics.
Do you think it will be hard in the future to get people to serve on Blue-Ribbon commissions after the current President so disrespected the Baker-Hamilton commission?
We are spending way more on Intel and homeland than we need to and misdirecting much of it. We need to cut back first on the out sourcing, but also find a way to measure what we are getting for our money.
WOW! Enforcing the laws as actually written? What a concept! /s
Seriously though, it seems there are large portions of the US Code that are not enforced unless it is convenient for BushCo (and other admins) to do so for whatever political point they desire to make.
How do we re-capture the laws from the powers that abuse the law and us?
Perhaps the greatest sell job this Administration ever did was that “No one could have predicted.” Rather than being excoriated for their pre-9/11 performance, they were able to turn it into the bedrock foundation of their extra-Constitutional and extra-rational forays into unnecessary wars and excessive surveillance. You can give the Bush Administration all the power it wants to do whatever it wants but you will never make it effective because power is not a cure for stupidity.
That said, I have 3 questions:
Do you think the Administration successfully spiked the 9/11 Commission by precluding any assignment of blame?
What is your opinion of the FISA Amendments Act and your stand on the 4th Amendment?
How likely do you think an attack on Iran is, i.e. either by us or by Israelis backed by us?
Sorry if any of these have been asked while I was typing this up.
We have ads on TV by an independent group of (apparently) soldiers, (apparently) Iraq vets, who say something about “change we can believe in” means staying in Iraq “until the job is done.”
The media is really pushing the meme that “the surge has worked, and more time is needed to finish the job.”
We know that Afghanistan is worsening, what is your assessment of Iraq and how will you help Obama on this issue?
Getting people to go into government or to serve on blue ribbon panels will be made easier if the next president is Barack Obama. He could really inspire a new generation to government service the way JFK did.
Can the senior, conservative folks who were pushed out at intel and DoJ for not acquiescing to demands to stretch the law be brought back in? How can this be arranged?
Just to echo the 2:11 comment, when I was at DIA I was really surprised by how much of a difference individual people make in these processes. The structural stuff is obviously vital, but those issues are created and maintained by . . . people. I’m not necessarily a huge fan of Secretary Gates, but the improvement over Secretary Rumsfeld has been significant at DoD. And that makes me optimistic for repair by the next administration by putting some good managers in charge of these departments, agencies, and practices.
On Iran, I think the military was told Bush that they will not stand for a US initiated strike and I think he gets that. Israel, however, could trigger a war and drag us in. Its not in their interest to do so, but I do not know whether they could be stopped once they decided to do it.
Music to my ears. I am a strong supporter of the Powell Doctrine as the basis for any consideration of the use of force by our country.
Back on FISA, even with this law we could have better oversight by adding some controls thru an Executive Order.
On Sec Gates, you are right. He has turned out to be surprisingly good. I think he is part of the group trying to stop an attack on Iran.
Afghanistan is worsening, you are right. With Iraq, its hard to tell whether this is a pause or that things are going to hold at this kind of level. I suspect we will see troop pull outs of some size announced before the election.
Petraeus is a political general. That kind does not solve problems but passes them on.
I agree Petraeus has become a political general. It will be interesting to see therefore how he adapts when there is a new, hopefully Democratic, president.
Richard,
As I said, I haven’t finished the book yet, but I did hear you on Terry Gross (or was it Rehm) talking about cyber-security. I’ve followed the revolving door of cyber-security advisors as closely as the sparse press coverage has allowed. Do you address specifically why so many people left? What authority weren’t they (you) getting that the job became unworkable?
The point, however, is taking the window of opportunity afforded by a new president to make institutional changes to prevent the kinds of abuses and failures we have seen in the last 8 years.
The recent difficulties in Afghanistan reinforce, obviously, the point Richard has made in both books that our government’s eye isn’t on the ball in terms of the most realistic threats from terrorist actors. The book singles out this issue, of course, as well as internet security — something I knew relatively little about and found absolutely fascinating. I imagine this audience would be particularly interested in those issues and challenges.
On cyber security, the Bushies never really understood it. They were afraid to use any regulation to fix the problem, afraid of spending any money on it. Their January 2008 directive is aimed purely at fixing government networks, but you have to fix the entirety of the problem.
I have been talking to Hispanic voters today. The older ones in particular have some racist tendencies. McCain appeals to some of them. The others, though they have hard core Democratic tendencies may just decide not to vote for President.
I hope Obama will find some means to reach these folks. The newspaper headline today says Obama wants our children to learn Spanish. This may be one idea, I hope others will follow.
I’m not so certain
… errrm, he has no more elections to think of
Actually, that raises a good question–I’ve been raving about that content (based on the radio interview) to mr. emptywheel for weeks. But he doesn’t read dead trees–just Audible. Richard will this book be coming out on an MP3 format like Audible?
To the extent that your books offer some criticism of the current administration, have you been treated as if you have turned your back on them?
Loved Scorpion’s Gate — please write more.
I’ve always imagined it’s an ideological problem, a complete unwillingness to require corporations to do anything. Is that part of it?
The regulation fear is not limited to cyber.
The Republicans have made regulation a dirty word.
They have appointed people to regulatory bodies who will not regulate.
A lot of our vulnerabilities could be mitigated by smart regulation. But it offends their ideology.
Someone should ask Bush why God never tells anyone from the Bush family to go serve in these God-initiated wars.
How do you feel about DNI Mike McConnell and Michael Hayden at CIA? Personally, I would fire both of them. McConnell is a serial liar and is somebody who has been pushing to increase surveillance of Americans and to privatize intelligence operations. Hayden too is a noted dissembler with an ignorance and disregard for the Constitution that is both staggering and scary.
Welcome back, Richard and AJ. Wow!
Considering what we know about hiring practices inside the DOJ and some odd stories about much of Air Force and fundies, do you think this has happened with respect to hiring practices inside the intel community, in either the 16 government agencies or private contractors?
Probably the most telling argument for electing Obama and Democrats is the belief that government is created to serve the citizens. Republicans tend to believe that government can’t do any thing right and then set out to prove their point by egregious incompetence in every department they can think of.
Richard, would you be willing to serve in an Obama administration? I’d sure like it if you would!
I think it would probably be wise for the new president to put civilians in to the DNI and CIA jobs and have a clean break from what has gone on, rather than trying to figure out who did what
Agreed. Some parts of the non-government sector, like ATMs, are pretty secure and reliable. Other parts resemble our voting machines in that regard.
To echo Ellen, we may be jumping the gun, but . . . regarding those vital institutional changes, you rather famously said before the 2004 election that you were not looking to work in government again. Has that changed? Would you be interested in working for an Obama (or, heaven help us, a McCain) administration? And if so, in what capacity?
There are reports that political appointees are beginning to “burrow” which means they are converting to career status so they can stay on when the Dems take over. This could be a real problem because many of them are unqualified. especially in places like Justice and Homeland Security.
Having brought up cyber security, can you have secure networks and privacy? Also since Afghanistan has been mentioned, what about Pakistan, a much larger country, a very unstable country, with a history of corrupat and/or repressive governments, and with nuclear arms?
We hear whispers of a comprehensive data base on Americans who are not affiliated with terrorists and who have not committed any crimes. Our tax dollars are being used to collect personal information which is then analyzed by private contractors. Every time we think TIA has been destroyed it rises up again like something unholy.
Do you think Congress has the will to push back against this? Or, alternatively, are these rumors utterly wrong.
I did 30 years in government. Surely, that’s enough.
What I have found, though, is you can contribute on the outside by writing, speaking out, etc.
Obama will need people on the outside who can speak up to support the changes he will need to make.
well, as long as you’re going to stay involved…
How can this be stopped? Or how hard is it to fire these people once they’ve achieved career status?
I would wager that he also needs honest people on the outside to call BS on him and keep him honest when he moves for expedience.
Pakistan scares the shit out of me.
The new government is doing deals with the Taliban and the al Qaeda like groups.
The FATA has become a sanctuary for attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda is training people again, this time in Pakistan.
The $6 billion in military aid we gave them has been used to buy weapons for the stand off with India.
There are rules against burrowing within some many months of a presidential election, but I think they started it early enough to get away with it.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/sp…..unter.html
Right, if you don’t work in the Administration you don’t have to publicly support everything it does, you can say what you believe. As an appointee, that’s hard to do publicly.
Completely agree. And I’m not finished with it yet.
Cyber security actually enhanced privacy if you do it right. the key is having privacy advocates involved in formulating the plans.
Burrowing or borrowing, nothing like drowning the government, eh?
As someone who pays for my own health insurance, there is nothing like the public sector for perks and job security.
In Pakistan and elsewhere, we have to help governments to learn how to deal with terrorist threats without being repressive…which just helps the terrorists.
Do you agree with claims that their nukes are safe? And what do you make of recent posturing surrounding AQ Khan? Was that just an expected result of the election?
The public sector jobs may sound good, but we can’t attract good graduates because the pay is SO much less than they would get in the private sector AND they realize now that their analysis will be ignored in favor of pre-conceived ideological conclusions
Hello Mr. Clarke,
You are a great patriot. We actually met several years ago on a rainy Monday night when you were doing a book signing in White Marsh, Maryland, where I tried to get you to say something about what a nice guy Dick Cheney was :)
Anyway, one of the points that you made in Against All Enemies, and also, when you made television appearances, that the Clinton administration was much more competent in regard to anti-terrorism than Conventional Wisdom within the Beltway would leave one to believe. (Another example of this is the whole issue when Clinton was interviewed by Chris Wallace)
Do you think that part of the problem is that the Democrats, who believe in government and some proper regulation are seen as the “mommy” party by the great unwashed and the GOP by the “daddy” party? It appears to me that the Democratic consultants still have not figured out that changing that perception is a winning strategy that would benefit the entire country.
My guess would be that most of the folks doing the “burrowing” are working under the assumption that they have a doG given right to be paid as a GS14/15 or SES just because. They will have to show some level of competence in those jobs in a new admin so may be flushable through bad performance reviews.
Or I may be an id10t.
Their nukes are most likely very secure. But there is every reason to believe that AQ Khan did not act alone and some in the government approved his nuclear technology sales.
AJ, as always, thanks for such a thoughtful piece and for doing the intro today. And Dick, thanks so much for being here. The book is so incredibly detailed and, even better, incredibly blunt. We need a much more blunt, honest, and direct approach on these issues or we are never going to dig out of this hole of spin and pivot with not much long-term thought in which we find ourselves these days.
Sorry to get here late. We have company and I sneaked away for a few minutes…
Thank you for being @ FDL today, Mr. Clarke, & taking the time to field questions here. Just took the opportunity to order a copy of Your Government Failed You via this site.
A quick question- if you were briefing the President of 01/09 in the same capacity you were in as advisor when GWB took office in 01/01, what would you be emphasizing to that future Pres. Obama (or McCain for that matter)? Where would your priorities lie in your advisor’s capacity to the President of Jan. 2009?
This has been a long time pet issue of mine, someone is going to have to literally identify and track down a host of Republican appointees and middle managers who have long since “burrowed in” and will continue the policies of this administration until ordered to stop.
Have you encountered many of Cheney’s hand picked staffers?
What are our chances for peace in our time if McCain manages to win this election? I see it as all war all the time.
I’m afraid that Pakistan has looked on AlQueda/Taliban as a cash cow to milk so that they can diddle about in Kashmir. No motive to clean ‘em out….the money would stop flowing. Meanwhile, the Afghanistan front is the step child of the chest thumpers who prefer romance of Baghdad to the cold, bleak, bone crusher that is Afghanistan. I don’t think any of the neocons has read a lick of history of either place.
Adding to the 2:41 comment, not only is the pay terrible (relative to other jobs most of the people we’d want doing this stuff could get) and politicization an issue, but the idea of government “recruiting” is totally misunderstood. You apply to these jobs, and maybe hear back several months later from, say, one of the ten separate places you applied, and if you’re lucky enough to get a conditional offer, most people have to sit around for around a year while the security clearance process goes through.
It’s just a lot to ask, and I have to imagine it could be streamlined. Maybe, in terms of people who want to do it right out of college, by having them apply as juniors instead of seniors? But it should also be streamlined for older folks as well.
In that regard, there has been talk of increasing economic development and opportunities in the Tribal Areas. I am concerned though that we may have poisoned the well in the way we have been dealing with Pakistan for the last several years and that any future Administration will find its work there much harder. And then there is the ISI.
The Republicans are trying again this year to say that the Democrats are soft on terrorism.
McCain noted that Hamas had said nice things about Obama. There is the whisper campaign that he is Muslim. They love using his middle name.
If this keeps up, we have to call them on it big time.
It is pure crap that the Republicans do a better job in fighting terrorism.
McCain was for invading Iraq even before 9-11, then again right after it. That made the problem of fighting terrorism much worse.
Have you talked with Obama about this? What do you think of the role played by Jay Rockefeller in FISA?
The economic aid to Pakistan’s tribal areas can’t be delivered because of the security situation.
That’s why we need a bargain with the pakistan government that addresses the economic development issues and the security problems.
You are right. Its very hard to find out how to get a national security job and the clearance process makes it almost impossible. You have to go flip burgers for a year while you wait for a clearance.
There has to be a better way of recruiting, training, and clearing people who do want to go in to national security.
That reminds me of Jessica Stern’s article The Protean Enemy
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/…..enemy.html
Away from the subscription firewall
http://www.geocities.com/munic….._enemy.htm
This sounds like the problem we have in Iraq also.
It is always an honor to be in a conversation with Mr. Clarke, one of the very few patriots to have served in the Bush administration
Mr. Clarke, one thing has troubled me from the very start of this president’s actions toward “terrorism”
We know as a fact the president was warned (by you among others) that invading Iraq would help the terrorists, it would galvanize them against us and it would make the point for their cause
We also know as fact the president was informed how many troops he would need for success, he also ignored that sage advice
We know he was given precise intel converning the impending attack on our land, he was told when, (within months), where, (new york and washington, how, (highjacked commercial airliners), and the specific targets ( politicala and eocnomic structures)
we know as a fact the president took vacation and refused to act, even though all agencies were so alarmed, “everyone’s hair was on fire”
we also know as a fact clinton was given an almost identiclee pdb, (I believe it is in the report on page 128) and we knew you and clinton engineered a template to avert that attack and your template proved to be a success
it becomes brutally obvious, if these events were written in a novel it would be considered trash because american’s would easily recognize the traitor in their midst
it looks as though this president has the play book of bin laden and is doing exactly what meeds to be done for bin laden to have more success then he could have possibly hoped
is it me?
or isn’t it brutally obvious the man in office is an enemy of our country and her constitution
What would I tell a new president/ You mean after “get the hell out of Iraq?”
A new president has to simultaneously worry about the immediate challenges like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel-Palestine….and build the institutions back so that government works again.
How many people who would not pass security clearance would apply for a job like that in the first place? I mean, before all else, there is a level of self-censorship, don’t you think?
Perris,
It sure sounds like they intentionally ignored al Qaeda when you put it that way, but not even the Bush_Cheney-Rove group wanted us attacked …they just tried to take advantage of it when we were…advantage to justify the invasion of Iraq…advantage of it to use as a partisan issue in 2002 and 2004.
Boy, I hope someone puts this comment in a time machine, because I think ten years from now it’s going to be something that people will shake their heads over in disbelief.
It’s yet another example of ‘… who could have predicted…?’
And speaking from experience, you can lose your clearances if you are TOO honest. (I had Secret level and was undergoing TS background investigation. As part of that I was interviewed and asked if I “would protect all classified information?” Since this was right after Iran/Contra I said “Yes, but…” with the specific caveat of feeling I had a duty to say something if I became aware of an operation that was against the law. They didn’t like that answer and all my clearances were yanked although without “prejudice” which meant I didn’t have to be fired by my then employer, Booz, Allen & Hamilton).
Sounds like the security check needs to be fixed. Those things operate mostly as job security as far as I can tell. Most countries don’t take anywhere near that long. Couple weeks. Month for a top security clearance.
Thanks for your excellent books Mr. Clarke.
My question is whether you think that AIPAC should be registering as a foreign lobbying organization?
Mr. Clarke:
I’ve always felt the best way to combat terrorism is to “kill them with kindness.” A massive humanitarian aid program in regions that have a high Muslim population would change anti-American sentiment for generations. Locals that benefit from these programs would eventually take care of the terrorist elements themselves in my opinion.
Military and “intelligence” operations are almost always chosen first, I assume because of the massive industries that profit greatly from perpetual war.
Do you think this idea of killing terrorism with kindness would be effective?
Heh. I can tell you I was probably the only one of my friends who could have passed.
The problem with having semi-shady stuff in your past isn’t that it itself disqualifies you, but that someone could use it to blackmail you if they found out (e.g. an affair, debt, stuff like that). So there is some self-selection. But, there are also still plenty of people who would be great contributors to this part of the government who are clean as a whistle but still don’t get the opportunity because of bureaucratic red tape (among other things).
Speaking of Pakistan, what are your thoughts on the threats posed with the insurrection with Taliban and al qaeda loyalists near Peshawar. That region has always been volatile but, to my knowledge, until recently government payments and other incentives have kept it to a low simmer — with the boiling point tending to spill over across the border in Afghanistan. This latest threat within Pakistan itself — a result of an assertion of more power, weakening of Musharraf, or is it a weakening of US influence allowing them to move into a perceived power vacuum?
Would love either of your thoughts on this.
Mr. Clarke: The phrase during your testimony “Your Government failed you” was one of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen. Thank you for that. Thank you for your honesty.
Question; I ask Harry Reid who from the telcos were talking to him about FISA. He said he didn’t recall the telcos talking to him but was briefed several times by the CIA.
Do you know what the CIA was telling Reid and other Senators about what happened during the warrantless wiretapping and if they had suggestions on how they should vote on FISA?
I would also like to know how on earth the 9/11 attack is called some kind of “intel failure”
it seems to me the intel for the attack was not only precise, it was recognized for what it was, a grave warning of impending doom
intel that precise is almost impossible to aquire, and the way it was compiled is crtstal clear, I am amazed the inteligence agencies do not go balistic whenever someone suggests there was some kind of intel failure, their was no failure of inteligence
Friend of mine works in Canadian intelligence. He has rather emphatically told me that he doesn’t want more US troops (I was surprised).
His top two were:
1) He wants more money for Afghani salaries/aid, etc…
2) He wants a properly unified command, with jurisdiction problems sorted out. Especially when it comes to air missions. Very frustrated about how airpower has been used.
The Peshawar round up was directed against a mafia like group that had been doing kidnappings for money.
The overall problem with US policy toward Pakistan is that we have not tried to make a strategic deal with the new civilian government and the fact that we backed Musharaff too long adds to the problem.
When I was in the clearance world, Secret could take 2 to 3 months and that’s just basically checking the police files in where ever you might have lived to see if you have a record.
Thank you all for participating.
I hope to see some of you next week at NetRoots Nation in Austin.
AJ…over to you
I’m abut 3/4 through your book. Very well written.
Have you received any feedback on your various proposals to reform the DNI, Homeland Security, etc.? Any idea of the chances they will be enacted?
It seems like blindered, short-sighted planning is far too much of a problem across the board these days, not just in our response to Pakistan. But AJ and I have chewed that one over far too many times… *g*
Thanks for yr. response. Do you have any opinion on Ryan Crocker- how he’s doing his job, either pro or con?
Richard, thank you so much for being here. Truly a privilege.
Richard, we know about that pdb, we know how you and clinton reacted to your pdb which was almost identical
how can we look at those two almost identical warnings, compare the polar oposite responses, and not wonder how on earth bush and cheney could possible do nothing unless they welcomed the attack
I would also like your opinion on the following, it has bothered me for some time;
the president knew we were under attack on the way to the grade school, he was insured we were under attack while at the grade scool, this was a pubblisized appearance and everyone would know where the president was going to be
yet the president was not spirited to an undisclosed location, he remained for some 45 minutes in the venue known for weeks
it’s as if the ss were absolutely certain the president was not a target and this school would not attacked
that to me is simply unbelieveable
I think like everything else, the Bush foreign policy is faith-based. I sure don’t see any logic in any of it.
Thanks again to Richard, and although he has to head out, I’m sticking around for the next hour or so and am happy to dive into more of this.
I should also say that for those of you who will be at NN in Austin next week, he and I are both signing copies of our book on Friday afternoon at the Progressive Book Club library, so please come by and say hello!
And how much of that is (still) because Dick Cheney was in charge of our Pakistan policy? There was a NYT story that reported that some while back (as well as pointing out that Richard Boucher is totally unqualified for high-level Pakistan work). Is that still true?
Secret clearance is pretty easy to get — it’s basically just a criminal background check. Top Secret is vastly more complicated (and lengthy); I had old friends and neighbors from years past calling me to ask me if I was in trouble! It’s a weird thing to have Men in Black types come knocking about an old acquaintance, I guess . . .
Thank you both for your time.
it is exceedingly rare that average Americans can get unscripted answers anywhere, anymore.
I probably would never want a job that required a security clearance. My life has been pretty uneventful but I would still resent people I didn’t know rooting around in it.
On a lighter note, security clearances can’t be all that difficult to get. Karl Rove had one and look how long he kept it.
Richard, do you think the president will catch Osama and bring the war on terror to an end?
digg this and
upvote this on reddit
Teddy, I get the idea that he’s a very smart man who is bored stiff with his work. Yet, it pays big. A dilemma I wish I had. ;o)
Regarding Christy’s question on Pakistan, it’s an important one, and, not surprisingly, there’s no easy answer. The new government isn’t running very well, and it seems like the country has, in many ways (with regard to foreign relations), ground to a halt. With our election heating up and their government struggling to operate, there’s a window of opportunity for bad guys to exploit the power vacuum.
Our continued problems in Afghanistan are directly related to this, of course.
I think you underestimate what an engrossing read “My Pet Goat” can be.
Thanks for coming by, this was a great Book Salon
Thank AJ,
and Bev -as always
Richard, Thank you very much for stopping by the Lake, and spending the afternoon with us.
Yeah, but even then, it takes months to get the Secret just because of the backlog.
Thanks to both of you for being here today, & thanx for sticking around, AJ. Same question as @ 115 to you, then-
Do you have any opinion on Ryan Crocker & how he’s doing his job, either pro or con?
Bush was EAGER to be the smartest kid in that classroom!!
AJ, thank you for continuing on and answering our many questions.
Had a low level clearance when I was about 20, in Canada. It went through pretty fast. Mind you, it was the bottom clearance possible, iirc.
Which was funny, because as a security guard in the Public Works HQ I had access to essentially every single desk and file in the place. Although I didn’t really realize it at the time, there was some very valuable (though not “security related”) information in some of those desks.
Yes, I wish to add my thanks for Richard Clarke’s appearance today.
By all accounts, Crocker is an honorable guy, but he’s in a rough position and he’s acted in a partisan way in at some crucial junctures. I wonder if perhaps he would be effective under a different set of circumstances. Still, the conditions are what they are, and the Iraqi government continues to fail to get any kind of popular legitimacy, to deal appropriately with the Sadrist movement, to bring Sunnis into the fold, etc etc, so it’s hard to give him much credit.
In the US, there are officially three levels of clearances; Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. In reality though the Top Secret is meaningless as at that level it is all alphabet soup/clearance shred outs based on job and “need to know” for “Special compartmentalized information.”
And then there’s Barnacle and his drive to create his own clearance universe.
My dad needed to “go up a level” once, and the neighbors were all questioned. Dad loved gardening, and spent every leisure time moment in the garden. One neighbor said he didn’t know if my pops had any hobbies, but he sure spent lots of time digging holes and moving big piles dirt around in the yard.
This did not expedite his clearance.
Why did the Gang of 8 hand over $400 million to Bush at the end of 2007 to finance covert Iran operations, per Sy Hersh?
What will happen with Valerie Plame lawsuit do you think?
But isn’t Pakistan also a sterling example of one of the fundamental facts that you point out — we focus (fuzzily) on the wrong problems.
We see Pakistan as a military problem, an intel problem.
Yet the implications for Pakistan of climate change are enormous – particularly with such a huge population.
All the ‘economic development’ aid in the universe isn’t going to create more snowmelt in Pakistan unless more fundamental issues related to climate change are addressed.
During the past month, evidently, the CIA mentioned climate change as a security threat. Yet, as you point out repeatedly, this set of priorities is completely out of synch with the institutional framework and the budget process(es).
Assuming a different president after 2009, do you think they can be successful without aligning the budget process and the military planning with fundamental issues like climate change?
Or do you think that such changes will still be dismissed as ‘woowoo’?
LOL Teddy — that’s hilarious.
lol!
What is the risk of Iranians getting nuclear weapons- that is- are they likely to get them unless the US prevents it- and if they DO get them, what is the risk to world peace?
Welcome Bob. Glad you made it. :)
Shhh…they’ll stick you in the man-sized safe if you keep that up…
So what do you think about Moynihan’s comment that if the CIA could not tell us that the USSR was going to fall apart what was the point of having such an agency at all? I think Dick Cheney may have gone just a tiny bit overboard in internalizing this idea. I always wonder if people in the CIA know what is going on but then are ignored or if they don’t know and their job gets usurped by someone like a Dick Cheney who thinks he knows more but actually knows even less.
AJ — What are you hearing from any of your intel cohorts since Gates took over from Rummy. Any change at all in how they are able to operate with regard to truth versus truthiness in the edits, or is it same old, same old, just with a shiny new portfolio to cover it?
It is an incredible eye-opener to get a copy of your investigation file and read about how your co-workers, friends, and neighbors perceive you. Things that you might say as a joke and being a smart a** appear quite different in print as part of an investigation file believe me!
Is that part of the conference or somewhere else?
What would, in your opinion, be the appropriate way to deal with the Sadrists?
I think the likelihood of Iran getting nuclear weapons could be made very low very quickly by some intensive and good-faith diplomacy. I certainly dislike the Iranian regime, but I really don’t like the options besides diplomacy, and talking to Tehran would make the world a safer place.
However, if a policy of belligerence is maintained, you can understand the logic of Iran wanting a deterrent. The more it looks like we might attack, the more they believe it makes sense to have nukes.
Should be part of the conference — probably off the exhibit hall area if I had to guess.
regarding this book salon, then author being on of my present day heroes
I just want to say;
I love Firedoglake!
Mr. Clark, I know I’m late to the thread and don’t know if you’ve left already, but I wanted to tell you what a fan I am.
I devoured your first book. I am looking forward to this one.
Let me tell you that when you interrupted your Congressional testimony to apologize to the families of 9-11 victims, you made a fan for life out of me.
You consistently demonstate that you have your head screwed on straight and your values intact. I hope a future president has the good sense to coax you back into government service.
Welcome Mr. Clarke, there was a story at the end of June where Republican lawmakers held a press conference to say that their computers had been hacked by the Chinese even though the FBI had asked them not to say anything. Are you familiar with this story and if so, what do you make of these Republicans ignoring the requests of the FBI and holding a press conference about it?
Here is a snippet from the story and a link to it.
I don’t know exactly where it will be, but it’s definitely at the convention. (It’ll be a makeshift “bookstore,” I guess!) But people should totally come by — Friday afternoon, tons of great progressives will be signing. Me, Richard, Yglesias, Rick Perlstein, Krugman, etc etc. Good times.
Meanwhile we are exporting lots and LOTS of HAND GUNS to Iran (and cigarettes), apparently. Sounds like one of those Bush “accidents … who could have predicted” waiting to happen. Do we care what will happen with those handguns… or in hopes of destabilizing.. or just corporation as psychopath behavior?
Love hearing Cheney called barnacle! :)
I do think Gates has been a positive change. Again, Rumsfeld was so awful that it’s hard to go down from there, but it’s nice to see a professional in that role, even one from the other side of the partisan aisle. Now, how much that change has filtered down, I’m not sure — still plenty of ideologues at the top level. But a definite (if mild) improvement.
Richard Clarke a name that will grace the history books as a standup for what is right. You will not be lumped in the Go along to Git along” crowd.
UCMJ and other government policy makes it difficult.
Clintons saw a lot of buildings attacked by terrorist. Bush chose to ignore your warnings hence 9/11.
Where is the balance between safety and freedoms?
Our Local County courthouse added entry security station last year. Are we getting locked down?
Many thanks for your service to us.
FISA will make it easier for terrorists to possibly HACK INTO our not always competent administration which has organized ALL ENCOMPASSING INAPPROPRIATE WEB OF INFORMATION and to cherry pick what they need to be used against us. Trust them to gather info. Not so much to keep it protected. Look at the passport files that were invaded on high profile people.
Sure it makes sense to the Iranians to have nukes. Perhaps diplomatic carrot and sticks could stop it from happening- if not, what’s it worth to the US to keep it from happening?
ongoing Iran Contra?
Where are those Iranians that made up the Iranian side of that treasonous fiasco?
AJ, what Clarke said about Pakistan is VERY frightening, do you think there will be an all out war between India and Pakistan -nukes or no nukes?
Ian, that’s a great question, and I know you have a handle on this stuff, so I’m curious what you think as well! From my perspective, it’s crazy that the U.S. doesn’t do more to engage with Sadrists. I’ve talked about this in more depth in other venues, but Sadrists are, generally, Iraqi nationalists (and therefore not as close to Iran as the leading Dawa and ISCI guys), relatively friendly with Sunnis, opposed to tripartite federalism (again, unlike ISCI, who we continue to support via Hakim, etc.), very popular among Iraqis themselves, and legitimate power holders who can actually deliver their followers.
Why we antagonize a group like this is completely beyond me . . . except that they don’t want us there. That’s the only major policy problem between the U.S. and Iraq. When we start to leave, I would think there should be lots of room for talking with them, despite their former attitudes and acts against the U.S.
Again, I don’t particularly like their brand of politics, and many followers are fanatical, but from a leadership perspective, our approach to dealing with them has just been awful. Very shortsighted, very ideological (the usual Bush administration standard).
Every Dad and a lot of Moms in my hometown had security clearances. It is only at their funerals that we find out more about what their work was about, through stories people tell.
Back in the day, the people were much more “Renaissance” and lots less idealogical. I don’t know if the current generation of employees have the soaring intellect and great curiosity of the older folks. It would be great, but I don’t think so. . .
Great question. Fiasco, too, is the right word. I lived in arm’s length denial way back when Iran-contra was a headachey reference. Would like to hear more of this question. And wonder what residue of non-accountable dirty-dealings may still be in cover-up mode.
If Israel decides it doesn’t need our permission to launch attacks against Iran not something I am betting on, What do you see in regards to the tensions between Turkey and Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, possibly Libya and the Pakistani- India dispute?
I think I already know what Iran’s response will be.
I really don’t think there will be an all out Pakistan/India war. I think there’s an element of Cold War-style MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) there, and with any kind of decent regional diplomacy, something like that could be headed off in advance.
The scary thing is the possibility of some accident, or needless escalation, which, while unlikely, certainly isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. So it’s an issue/area that needs consistent and intelligent engagement. (How long until January?)
I’m afeared not long enough!
How hard is the Israel lobby pushing at House and Senate for stirring it up with Iran? My guess is hard. What can we do to push for moderation? After getting bitten by lousy FISA vote, feel like most of our congress stopped listening to common folk….
Yeah, my take is pretty much the same. They’re the US’s natural allies, if the US wants to mostly leave. They’ll hold the line against the Iranians, they’ll try to keep the country together and they have widespread public support. They’ll be a little more Islamist than we like, but really, we don’t actually care (Saudi Arabia?) And they’ll still have to sell oil, it’s all they have. Heck, assuming you’re willing to cut honest deals you might even be able to negotiate US companies doing most of the oil field expansion – it’s going to have to be done by someone. And of all the Shia factions, Sadr seems to have the best relations with the Sunnis, so that’s a big plus on the “hold things together” front.
I hope Obama, if he’s sincere about leaving, sees it this way. The Sadrists can be the lynchpin and you can negotiate it so that they lose almost no cred with the street by starting off demanding more than you’re willing to take and letting them beat you down. If the real goal is to get out and leave something stable and not Iranian controlled behind, a little face is no big deal. Especially not at this point.
Thanx for yr. response, AJ. I met both Dick Clarke & Ryan Crocker @ a soiree over @ my brother’s house in Alexandria VA several yrs. ago. Luckily Dick had more time to stick around to chat that evening. I look forward to reading Your Gov. Failed You when it arrives from Amazon. Certainly enjoyed this Book Salon, even though I couldn’t get here sooner.
TTFN.
Right, the possibility of an Israeli strike on Israel is perhaps more of a concern than one by the U.S. Honestly, it’s really hard to say, but assuming minimal casualties and a targeted strike — something like Osirak — I think the reaction would be very angry but not self-annihilating. Iran knows Israel’s capabilities, so I think there would be huge protests, lots of yelling, some diplomatic blowback, and possibly actions by Palestinian groups and especially Hezbollah. But, I don’t think Iran would really try to go toe to toe with Israel.
Still, the potential for unintended consequences, not to mention the long-term boost to terrorism and terrorist recruiters worldwide, makes it something that should absolutely positively be avoided.
All I know is it seems like I’ve already seen this movie before. It was in black-and-white. Peter Sellers played Dick Cheney and several other characters, and in the end President Bush, as played by Slim Pickens, rode a nuclear bomb to its target.
The movie didn’t end well.
“We’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when…”
I think that’s absolutely exactly right.
It’ll be interesting to see who ends up holding sway about this stuff in an Obama administration (furiously knocking wood, crossing fingers). There will be a real battle between, as a generalization, CNAS types who want to leave a residual force and continue dealing primarily with ISCI, doing training and such, and CAP types who have been advocating a withdrawal for a long time, before it was in vogue, and getting it right all along the way. A sort of Kahl vs. Katulis match (again, speaking broadly).
In the big chessboard of diplomacy … we have Israel’s back… do China and Russia have Iran’s? I wonder about China, our creditor nation, playing counterpoint to a US being provocative with Iran for Israel and for oil imperialism.
wow, that’s really interesting, because I assumed they’d take full advantage of it to hit Israel, especially Tel Aviv, block the Straits of Hormuz, and that we would see suicide bombers here in the US, at a mall near you.
I have thought all along that one of the major reasons Little Boots looked so unhappy after a couple of meetings with Putin is Putin told him in no uncertain terms that Russia would have Iran’s back if anything were launched at Iran directly.
Look, in the game of realpolitik, which is what Iran and Israel are playing, there will be a whole lot of brinkmanship. It’s how the strategy is played.
The question is, do the Mullahs really believe that Israel’s likely nuclear response will buy them their heavenly virgins? If so, this will not end well.
That would mean the end of Iran, and the end of all its leaders. Those guys have a pretty sweet deal going, and they’re in no rush to end it. Their best case scenario is to keep tensions high, keep people afraid, and maintain popular support through fear. Take it too far, though, and Tehran gets set back a few centuries. That’s not good for business.
Again, that’s not to say that there wouldn’t be blowback — there would be plenty. I just don’t think they want to self-annihilate. Not an easy thing to predict, though, which is why avoiding having to deal with it is so important!
Aloha, Mr. Clarke! I’m pissed I didn’t check the Book Salon schedule…!
In regards to Iran and the IAEA’s investigations do you find Scott Ritter just as credible now, as he was with Iraq…
If I may, from what i have read, Russia is already supplying Iran with (ahem) technical expertise, and certain missile technology.
Both China and Russia depend on oil from Iran and I want to say there is a pipeline being constructed straight to China from Iran as we speak.
And yet … why is he playing with fire? Little boots… name so fitting…. Ironic that Gates and Pentagon trying not to saber rattle but Bush continues to and the election coming up … this lame duck doesn’t seem to want to limp out…. one more opportunity to act out and IMPACT the country…. so many fresh hells c/o of Bush. Wm. Kristol said if Bush thinks election going to Obama… then he’ll trigger war with Iran.
I’d like to know how the world proposes to replace the 4 million barrels of oil per day that Iran provides to the secondary markets?
Saudi Arabia already said there is no way OPEC can make up the difference. They suggested the price of oil would have a limitless upside.
The blowback will be nothing less than a near instant global recession and, likely, mass starvation. It will be impossible to move foodstuffs around.
Ah, that part I don’t keep as good a track of as I should. I’m glad that there is a camp there that is for withdrawal. The consensus so much seems to be for this (rather large) residual force, which is dispiriting. Yes, US troops may be keeping it all from flying apart. But it also can’t be fixed while they’re there. Catch-22, pick the least worst option.
But when you look at budget problems, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc… it becomes fairly clear that in a world of limited resources, the resources in Iraq are providing remarkably little value and could provide a lot more if they were used for other things.
It’s funny, I always expected Afghanistan to just get worse and worse, but I’m still surprised at just how bad it has gotten. A year ago I used to say that I didn’t think we’d win it, but I thought it could be won. I still think that, but only barely. It’s going to take a real strategy reversal and resource dump to turn it around. And that’s another reason Iraq has to go. There is nothing there that troops and money can accomplish beyond holding together a bad status quo. But Afghanistan /might/ still be fixable. Afghanis really want the West to fix things, they’re just running out of patience.
China and Russia have relationships with Iran based on business, which is obviously booming when it comes to oil. They have largely avoided the brinksmanship game. What those two will support depends on the circumstance. But yeah, they’re certainly not psyched about the prospect of more armed conflict in the Middle East . . .
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is spread out. There is the reactor at Bushehr, the centrifuges (underground and unikely to be seriously damaged by a bombing raid) at Natanz, and the heavy water plant at Arak, but there are many more sites.
One of the things that can not be stressed enough is, despite the Israeli bluster and saber rattling, an attack would be very hard to carry out. The Israelis would have to overfly Iraq whose airspace we control or the KSA which has AWACS. If they took the KSA route they would have to overfly the Gulf and be visible to Iranian radar. Nor could they fly close to the ground to avoid detection. Israeli aircraft would have to refuel 2 or more times. Those air tankers are big, slow, and don’t fly low and the air refueling would again have to be over either Iraqi or Saudi territory. So you are talking limited strikes of limited effectiveness, difficult to hide, and with a massive probability of escalation, and likely uncontrollable escalation.
Excuse me. I’ve grown used to writing “recession.” I meant to write “depression.” The worst ever seen.
I estimate that, simply because food cannot move great distances, the mid-African states would likely starve to death within the year. That is where most of the food aid goes.
If Israel hits Iran with a knock-out blow, the rest of the world had better be prepared to go into those oil fields, hot from radiation or not, and re-establish the supply line.
Do Bushcos think they can get a hold of Iranian oil or disrupt that flow of oil and/or profit? Is that a payoff along with trying to keep Israel reassured?
It’s absolutely true that the mission would be far more challenging — and less likely to completely succeed then, say, Osirak. That’s an important point and one I should have included above. All the more reason to make sure it never gets to that point.
I suppose if burrowing was done as a political strategy, some probably began before the ‘04 election.
So far, the pattern of the Bush oil policy in conquered nations is to hoard it. This drives the price up, of course.
I still can’t figure out why so many people thought the invasion of Iraq would lower the price of oil. Not when it was sponsored by Halliburton.
But let’s not make the profound mistake of applying “logic” (to the exponential degree of global survival) to any decisionmaking involving Bush & Barnacle & rest of neocons.
There is no way — repeat, no way — that anybody sane wants to try to occupy Iran. It’s three times the size of Iraq with three times the population, and we’re even less familiar with Persian culture, language, and daily life than we are about those factors in the Arab world (including, obviously, Iraq). Not to diminish the Iran issue, but there are far more pressing concerns — Pakistan, Afghanistan, terrorism, cyber-security, and our own homeland defense problems.
All of which — shameless plug coming — are delineated expertly in Richard’s book. And speaking of shameless plugs, if you haven’t picked up my book yet (Still Broken), you should! And again, Richard and I will both be signing books this coming Friday at NN in Austin.
Can’t all of this be arranged rather quickly in response to Iranian ‘aggression’ though? Don’t the Israelis or the Cheneyites need a simple Tonkin Gulf incident in the Straits? Isn’t war just one ‘provocation’ away?
It won’t be preemptive if we’re ‘responding’ to an attack, right?
I have to head out, but hey, 200 comments in a couple hours — not a bad discussion! Seriously, as always, everybody here has been great, and I appreciate the interest in these topics. Round of applause to y’all. This was fun.
I have heard that there are major problems in Iraq now extracting the oil. And maybe in Saudi Arabia also. Iran has juicy oil and where the supply is. Can’t help thinking this is a motivator for our destabilizing Iran.
If Israel has one shot at knocking out Iran, the attack will not be against the nuclear plants. It will likely be on civilian populations. It will be to decapitate the regime, cripple command and control, and blind them. If the attack is nuclear, wow.
Thank you AJ! Terrific discussion.
AJ. Thank you very much for spending the full 2 hours with us. As usual, I learned things, and I think everyone else did too.
I am certainly no expert and will leave that to be answered by someone who is.
My gut feeling is that BushCo just has a hard on for the Iranians and are desperately trying to cut their nose off to spite their face.
It’s rather amusing that both the Israelis and the Iraqis have denied this…
thank you so much AJ, hope to see you back here again, soon.
Thanks for hosting today’s Book Salon, AJ! It was great.
AJ, Thank you for stopping by the Lake, Hosting and answering all of our questions this afternoon.
Richard, thank you again for stopping by the Lake.
Everyone – If you haven’t read Richard’s book it is linked above.
AJ Rossmiller’s book, Still Broken is excellent also.
Thanks all.
Again, thank you both for your time.
This is a killer forum.
Thanks Bev.
My pleasure! And looking forward to seeing many of you next weekend.
cheers.
Aloha, AJ! Aargh, I’m really kicking myself in the arse…! ;-)
The real question of attacks on Iran will be determined by just how linked Iran’s economy is with the west. Under Development-Dependency theory, if we have grown to a point of dependency in which neither side can survive without the other, there is no way either can go to war. It would mean significant economic disruptions for all concerned.
Bye, AJ.
How tragic we all are attached to that “face”.
Thanks AJ!
I don’t. I still asset a 70% probability that Bush will back an attack on Iran before he leaves office. There is the pressure from Cheney. The replacement of Fallon by Petraeus. The belief that I see in Bush that he must deal will all 3 members of the Axis of Evil for his “legacy”. Iraq and North Korea he can cross off. That leaves Iran. The general disconnect from reality in the White House.
If an attack were to come it could be as early as September but late October is the first really good window in terms of new moon and longer nights. It is also just before the election which you could argue either way whether the Administration would see this as a good or bad time for an attack.
I think we are seeing classic brinkmanship in advance of our election in the US. The Gas and Oil Party simply cannot afford a war that results in massive economic deprivation for Americans prior to November.
Not gonna happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.
What you are talking about is genocide and a war crime.
AJ
Rumsfeld ran the show for 6+ years. He was the pusher for the war policies a member of PNAC and a signer of their request to Clintin to attack Sadaam. Kissinger is a part of that group.
It was a goal to start the war…to control the huge oil fields…let Halliburton tool up the drilling and the Big Oil companies to harvest the oil. They have it almost in the palm of their hand.
It was not a war on terror it was a war for resources and to lock down the Muslim world. And in ground oil in tge SW US is now at a viable price to harvest.
Please give your view.
What I’m talking about is realpolitik and the ultimate right of every sovereign state to defend itself if threatened by a rogue nation.
If a shooting war erupts, duck. If it starts, both sides have only one opportunity to survive.
when has that stopped them?
Thank you, 70% is somewhat comforting! (The fact that Bush got $400 from Congress gang of 8 for covert Iran operations end of 2007 as Hersh wrote … seems serious and motion “inertia” … once set in motion stays in motion, etc.) BTW, I heard Obama’s attention is on Pakistan more than Iran. Better get back to Afghanistan! Oy vey.
Wish I could trust their capacity for “prudence”. I pray Bush embraces lame duckness… but have serious fears.
me, too, ll
While a sovereign state has a right to defend itself, it does not have the right to engage in preventive war (a war crime) or deliberately target civilian populations (another war crime) or seek to destroy the population of another country (a third war crime, and genocide).
Just declaring that something is being done for “defensive” reasons doesn’t make it so.
And I don’t like the potential any better than you, Hugh. It scares the heck out of me.
One of the things we keep looking at is the notion that, somehow, we can manage human affairs to the nth degree.
We are crossing into territory we’ve only seen a few times before: two militaristic nations that hate each other, who feel extremely threatened by the existence of each other, and who seem willing to destroy each other regardless of the cost at home.
Apparently as a reality, Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t seem to bother either group. After all, each has God on his side.
Elliot, you got my attention with that “mall” remark. :-
What an education! Love it when either AJ or Richard come here.
New post on FISA upstairs:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/07…..he-future/
Which is one specific nail in Shrub’s and Darth’s coffin… At least it’ll curtail any international travel, besides Dubai and Uruguay…! ;-)
And human life keeps getting cheaper and cheaper to the DECIDERS!
Tell them that when the missiles and bombers are flying towards their targets.
Civilization is a nice idea, Hugh. I’m all for it. I’m a peacenik. But international law is meaningless when it cannot be enforced, when to enforce it may actually make matters far worse.
We have entered a very dangerous time. Gog and Magog dangerous.
It’s time for America and NATO to start making plans, if they haven’t. It’s too bad Mr. Clarke is gone. I’d like to ask him what he thinks NATO is likely doing right now in preparation.
You think Iran hates us?
Should have checked first. That’s at Marcy’s…but worth the commute as usual.
libby, I don’t understand where they think they can flee to if things go wrong.
It’s not like they’re the villain in a James Bond movie, who can scram to an undisclosed Pacific island. Radiation knows no barriers except lead.
I can just see Darth Cheney, now, in his lead-lined lair, barking orders to his lackeys. “And now we’ll lord it over the cockroaches that are left! N’yeah! That’s it!”
Margot, it depends on who you mean by Iran.
The people? No. All evidence suggests the Iranian people are pro-west. However, like us, they have a leadership whom they keep re-electing that is not in step with their expressed feelings.
Unless of course they are lying, and their voting really reflects how they feel. In which case, uh oh.
Maybe Darth (aka Barnacle) and Bush are taking the murder prosecution threat against THEM and the specter of the Hague and impeachment seriously. Unfortunately, the majority of the country (and Congress) is far from there yet.
Chaos of war … well, quite the distraction to disrupt or slow down their rightful prosecutions. Look how they played 9/11.
Bush keeps hurtling himself (his soul) and the welfare of the world to a bottomless bottom. Like the destructiveness of an addict. Can’t apply morality or intelligence to the behavior. Addiction to excitement and power and profound fear, to do anything to protect one’s self, one’s denial or one’s physical out-of-jail survival.
And yet he stays at the helm. How awesome. And the country moves to fascism.
can’t believe he got a second term, it shouldn’t even have been close.
It has the right to defend itself against an “imminent attack” which is why that phrase became so crucial early in the war.
Wait- that was supposed to be “Imminent Threat”.
Thanks for that cartoon image, BTW! Brilliantly drawn…
marcy is upstairs with more on selise’s excellent diary
Legality
Further information: War of aggression, Jus ad bellum, and UN Charter
There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. The tension between these two principles is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack.
wiki
There’s a great new book about how they STOLE, STOLE, STOLE Ohio. Same game plan as Florida in 2000. When will we ever learn? Still feel sorry for Edwards who declared we will count EVERY vote. Sigh.
We seem to keep helping the pro-West Iranians to get marginalized because of our (a/k/a Bushco’s) behavior.
RW, I have to compliment you and Hugh on your insistence on the rule of law on the international stage.
I love the idea, too.
But, it all goes out the window when the shooting starts.
There is no enforcement mechanism. Even if the Hague put Bush and Cheney on trial tomorrow and convicted them, they would never see a moment in Spandau prison.
The winners write the history. The losers do the time. That’s why it’s so bloody important to make sure the right people win.
am late to this discussion but you seem to be so sure that the shooting is going to start so why bother
or am i reading you wrong?
See, here’s part of the problem, Suzanne. The United States can only influence what other actors do in the world. We cannot control it.
Yesterday, the world got quite a jolt when it was reported that Israel had set up a staging base in Iraq to attack Iran.
That’s why the price of oil jumped the way it did.
We can only influence.
My B.A. is in Poli Sci. My M.A. is in Sociology, with a specialty in Social Stratification… how power is structured within groups, from something as small as a couple to the whole planet. I subscribe to a theory called “realpolitik.” I also subscribe to “game theory.”
It would take forever to explain them. But the bottom line is we are looking at a scenario in which there is no “win-win” because the actors, meaning the US, Iran, and Israel, do not perceive one. That being the case, they pursue realpolitik as the means for achieving their own win, the other side be damned. And yes, that may mean a shooting war.
The only way to prevent it is to persuade all sides that the economic devastation that will be felt by their peoples in a war is far more significant than any differences they have now. That they are so dependent on each other, they can’t possibly attack.
I’m open to suggestions for how to do that.
And, btw, I hope I’m really, really wrong and that this knot will untie itself and everybody will go on living in peace and harmony.
But it’s been 2500 years of war in that region, and there is still no peace in sight.
They do not yet understand that WE (humans) do not own the land. It owns us. It owns us from the moment we are born to the moment we die. Then it owns our bones or ashes.
At best, we rent the air and food.
digg ew
and digg selise, she’s earned it.
double dugg
As much education as I had, my major was Soc, and I was very interested in stratification.
Gmae theory assumes a lot of rationality, and often the wrong types. The “not to your advantage because of economic ties” argument was floated before WWI. It rather notably failed. Relative levels of trade, at that time, btw, were actually larger than they are now. In certain key respects then that was a more globally integrated world than the one we’re in today.
the other thing is to not mistake rulers for the ruled. It is of very little to no interest to Bush or Cheney how many Americans die, or how miserable their lives are. It does not enter into their calculations except as much as it effects their own power and since power is two dimensional in this case (within the group, between groups) and since weakening internal actors leads to them having more power in the group, the tradeoff that it weakens them slightly externally may well be acceptable to them.
Elites who have lives that are too separate from the people they rule cannot be assumed to act in those people’s interest. In fact one should automatically assume the opposite – that they act in the interest of others only to the extent that that interest is also theirs.
Altruism exists, certainly. But it’s very very bad policy to depend on it and very bad analysis to expect it.
Iraq’s GZG is a classic example… They act only in their own behest… They learnt well from our current ‘democratic’ model…
Here’s a brilliant Poly Sci Prof’s interpretation…
New kirk
Heh.
As scary as that kind of war would be it’s actually good to hear this from Russia. I hope the current prez also sees it that way. Sometimes the risk of horrendous catastrophe can be enough to deter even George from doing something stupid.