February 23, 2004

"ACQUIRED URGENCY" (via Mike Daley):

Showstoppers: Nine reasons why we never sent our Special Operations Forces after al Qaeda before 9/11. (Richard H. Shultz Jr., 01/26/2004, Weekly Standard)

SINCE 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly declared that the United States is in a new kind of war, one requiring new military forces to hunt down and capture or kill terrorists. In fact, for some years, the Department of Defense has gone to the trouble of selecting and training an array of Special Operations Forces, whose forte is precisely this. One president after another has invested resources to hone lethal "special mission units" for offensive--that is, preemptive--counterterrorism strikes, with the result that these units are the best of their kind in the world. While their activities are highly classified, two of them--the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Team 6--have become the stuff of novels and movies.

Prior to 9/11, these units were never used even once to hunt down terrorists who had taken American lives. Putting the units to their intended use proved impossible--even after al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, bombed two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, and nearly sank the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. As a result of these and other attacks, operations were planned to capture or kill the ultimate perpetrators, Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, but each time the missions were blocked. A plethora of self-imposed constraints--I call them showstoppers--kept the counterterrorism units on the shelf.

I first began to learn of this in the summer of 2001, after George W. Bush's election brought a changing of the guard to the Department of Defense. Joining the new team as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict was Bob Andrews, an old hand at the black arts of unconventional warfare. During Vietnam, Andrews had served in a top-secret Special Forces outfit codenamed the Studies and Observations Group that had carried out America's largest and most complex covert paramilitary operation in the Cold War. Afterwards, Andrews had joined the CIA, then moved to Congress as a staffer, then to the defense industry.

I'd first met him while I was writing a book about the secret war against Hanoi, and we hit it off. He returned to the Pentagon with the new administration, and in June 2001 he called and asked me to be his consultant. I agreed, and subsequently proposed looking into counterterrorism policy. Specifically, I wondered why had we created these superbly trained Special Operations Forces to fight terrorists, but had never used them for their primary mission. What had kept them out of action?

Andrews was intrigued and asked me to prepare a proposal. I was putting the finishing touches on it on the morning of September 11, when al Qaeda struck. With that blow, the issue of America's offensive counterterrorist capabilities was thrust to center stage.

By early November, I had the go-ahead for the study. Our question had acquired urgency: Why, even as al Qaeda attacked and killed Americans at home and abroad, were our elite counterterrorism units not used to hit back and prevent further attacks?


The thing of it is is the nine reasons make perfect sense on 9/10 and none on 9/12. But who would hold the men of 9/10 to a 9/12 standard? Are we going to hold ourselves to it? How many of us went to the voting booth in November 2000 thinking that al Qaeda was the most important issue facing our nation?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 23, 2004 8:58 PM
Comments

Some folks did reject the notion of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem prior to 9-11, but they (we) were dismissed in a number of ways, the most prominent being that we were "old cold warriors with no wars to fight anymore." And yeah, some of us weird national-security types did vote Bush over McCain knowing that it was more likely Bush would resurrect the old policy shops in DoD that were present in the Reagan and first Bush administrations (and suspecting some of the old hands like Wolfowitz, Feith, Rodman, Crouch, and a few others might just make it back).

Unfortunately, all of the Dems running for President in 2004 (with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, who is long gone) still view terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. Surely we can hold THEM to a 9-12 standard. :)

Posted by: kevin whited at February 23, 2004 10:51 PM

Only those not paying attention and devoid of imagination didn't see some form of 9/11 coming. Some were not surprised by anything other than the audacity and scale of it. When my daughter called me in tears, my gut response was "So, the bastards finally pulled it off." Surely, OJ, you were not taken by surprise.

Posted by: Tonto at February 23, 2004 11:49 PM

I was indeed taken by surprise; and I was very angry that it was "allowed" to happen at all.

And I'll have to assume that in spite of the warnings from people like Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, that a few others were surprised as well. Fools that we are.

(Does this mean, by the way, that we should have expected Pearl Harbor too?)

Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 24, 2004 1:46 AM

Here's my bid for a wee lumen of reflected glory: My mother was a member of the SOG at Ft. Bragg during the early 80s.

Predicting that "eventually" America would be subjected to horrific attack is not all that prescient.
What would've impressed me is if anyone had taken seriously the notion that hijacked airplanes would be the method of attack, instead of the ever-popular "pony nuke". There was the novel with that premise, but even the author thought it was far-fetched.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at February 24, 2004 3:08 AM

Barry:

We did expect a Japanese attack--FDR provoked it after all. But we were too racist to realize how far and well the Japanese could strike.

Posted by: oj at February 24, 2004 8:27 AM

oj:

Last year you were arguing that Pearl Harbor was NOT a success for the Japanese.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at February 24, 2004 10:48 AM

Michael:

Success? If they'd left us alone we wouldn't have ever entered WWII. Obviously the attack was a disaster in strategic terms--in tactical terms they did far more damage than FDR dreamed possible.

Posted by: oj at February 24, 2004 11:21 AM
« THE BLACK (AND FORGOTTEN) MENCKEN: | Main | THE BUSH REVOLUTION: »