What should have been done, if we had known about 9/11?
Howard Dean recently contributed to the demise of his political career by spreading the unfounded rumor that George Bush had advance warning of 9/11. Setting aside the repugnance of a presidential candidate being a reckless rumormonger, let's have some fun instead.
Let's pretend that the rumor was true. Let's assume a realistic amount of information, and pretend that Bush was told by a reliable source that Muslim Arabs, connected to Al Qaeda - based at that time in Afghanistan - were planning on highjacking planes and using them for suicide missions. Now let's also assume realistically that he doesn't know anything else - not the country of origin of the suspected terrorists, not the date(s) of the attacks, and not the targets.
What should the Bush administration have done differently?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
killed Howard Dean, because later he will Tell The Truth To Millions
I`m Artsy Partsy Gun For Hire
Rarely is a lead given that can''t be traced backwards to some degree or another. If I were President, I would task the CIA and FBI to follow up with the source of the information that we had and try to ascertain where they got the information from.
But, assuming that all else failed, I would begin flying combat air patrols within US borders. If a plane diverted from its flight plan and didn''t respond to radio, I would have it shot down before it arrived at a major metropolitan area. That is the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that wouldn''t cause a panic in advance of a real attack.
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
Sounds like that question the hologram asked in Knights of the Old Republic.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
I''m with JohnnyMojo, given we have to rewind our mindsets back before this was a precedent...you would have to just keep in regular contact with pilots and call in aid when necessary. Its the only sensible option. The news of this alone would probably have put the hijackers off in the short term.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Churchill
Pulled out the notes from the half-dozen briefings on the topic they
were given by the Clinton staff. Act on setting up the Homeland Security
Department as recommended by Gary Hart
and company. Not get rid of the SF guys training
a brigade of irregulars in Pakistan to hit terror targets in Afghanistan.
Maintained the naval group that was on standby to hit targets in
Afghanistan. Paid attention to the Al Quaeda guys caught in the
Phillipines with plans to crash planes or bomb them, around 1995.
Then you draw a list of possible targets and start scanning traffic.
You increase monitoring of Al Quaeda. Make sure air defenses are
solid and quick to respond. Possibly even start hitting Al Quaeda
targets, but it''s not clear that that would help - monitoring may be
more useful.
Increase surveillance of known terrorists and associates in the US
and world-wide. Tighten entry monitoring in the US. Perhaps
announce that the terror threat is a real one, that the evidence your
team got from the outgoing team was convincing, and that we ought
to be vigilant and increase our security.
Problem is, you might also spend a lot of time away from DC; make
sure the VP was in different locations; avoid sending officials to large
gatherings of dignitaries in places like Italy; send out quiet memos to
the airlines to watch for suspicious activity. And this was all done.
It''s hard to judge a level of pre-knowledge, but from the lack of
attention paid to prior warnings from the outgoing team (not a political
observation, just a factual one) it''s unlikely that terrorism was a high
concern until around June or July of 2001. Although Cheney''s visit
to Italy did reflect a concern earlier than that, I think that might have
been viewed as a routine risk-avoidance due to tactical intel (he did
not attend a conference on a ship, forcing it to be moved to land,
due to the fear that a plane would be used to attack it.) I suspect
that the lack of focus led to a sort of ""we''ll start this in the Fall""
attitude, even as warnings increased. After all, the first meeting on
Bin Laden was to be on Sep 12, if I remember correctly, nearly a
year after the outgoing admin staff warned them that this would be
a huge issue and should be paid attention to. But it''s also reasonable
that they had their own priorities, and I''m sure the ""Anything But
Clinton"" priorities played into it (again, not a swipe, just noting the
bias).
Again, I''m not being sarcastic here. There were initiatives in place
that were stopped; warnings were made that were not heeded early
on; and some of that could have been turned around if there was a
real, slap in the face intelligence nugget, like perhaps a capture of
one of the hijackers in January or February. But the lack of
preparedness argues for ignorance, not necessarily for malice.
(Sigh...not bad ignorance, just a lack of knowledge). It''s just likely
that the focus of the team was not on terror attacks, and so things
were missed that, taken together, could have provided a higher level
of vigilance than we had.
Again, not bashing here. Please take it accordingly.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Yes, we should have used Clinton administration intel. Advil factories around the globe would have been quaking with fear.
Funny you should mention Clinton, as his intel was largely what was used as the evidence for Iraqi WMD''s.
Surely you mean ""the CIA''s intel"", I hardly think
the President owns the intel. What he does
with it is different, but it''s a pretty good
indicator of the attitude I was discussing, that
you see ""Clinton"" and associate him directly with
intel failures that were not in any way his
fault. (What he did with them, that''s his fault).
So far, you''re helping my point. The situation
looks a bit different, if we get past blaming
Clinton the man for every mistake made in the
period. It begins to look like the intel services
were badly wrong, for quite a while, on the
topic of Iraq. Al Quaeda, too, but that''s less
clear, we knew a lot about them on Sep. 11.
Especially since we had already done the
""made a mistake, figure it out"" cycle on that
intel.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Send in the A-Team of course!
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
Actually I was hinting at the idea that we ignore, missed, or whatever the data gathered during the Clinton administration on the 911 attacks, and get faulted for that. Then when we use intel from the same time period to conduct a war in Iraq and we should have known better. Sometimes you just can''t win...
Yeah, I can certainly sympathize with that,
Gorack. If there is an understanding now that
it was the intel at fault, that would have to be
extended backwards in time for quite a few years,
I suspect. But that''s not the only factor, it''s a
very complex issue and books will be written for
decades on it.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Invade Iraq right away back in 2001!
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
Put armed marshalls on flights. Install locks on flight cabins.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
Well, seeing as the independent investigation into 9/11 and the events leading up to it has been blocked every step of the way from actually doing any investigating, I think it''s premature to state with veracity that the administration had no warning.
Note that I didn''t say ""Bush"" there, I said ""the administration.""
Why, if there''s nothing to hide, has the administration put up so many roadblocks in the path of the investigators? And now, since they haven''t been able to get what they need in the time they expected, they need an extension on the deadline.
Bush has said they can either turn in the report in May like they were originally told, or they can do it in December.
How handy.
Seems to me someone has something to hide. What are they hiding? That''s what I want to know.
Alright, roast me now. I just can''t sit by and say nothing, though.