t3 b5 analysis 2 of 2 fdr- 1st pgs of all reference material in folder (for reference- fair use)

8/14/2019 T3 B5 Analysis 2 of 2 Fdr- 1st Pgs of All Reference Material in Folder (for Reference- Fair Use)

1/8

^ ishingtonpost.com: Anatomy Of a Failure Page 1 of 2

Anatomy Of a FailureBy Richard CohenSaturday, September 15, 2001; Page A27It is the first obligationof the government of the United States to protect the people of the United States.It is fair to say that the governmentfailed in that obligation. Terrorists struck in bothNew York andWashington, and while we must honor the dead and treat the wounded, we cannot forget that, in thisrespect at least, our government utterly failed us.The United States spends about $30 billion a year on intelligence, although the exact figure is secret. Ithas intelligence agencies galore. The best-known are the CIA and the National Security Agency. Othersare maintained by the various armed services, not to mentionthe State Department, the FBI and theSecret Service. Yet, somehow, a largely successful terrorist operation was launched on America with aloss of life that wasonce inconceivable and remains, even after the event, unimaginable.The air of Washington is thick with oaths of bipartisanship and how, Republican and Democrat, we areall in this together. And so we are.The intelligence failures that produced Tuesday's horrificconsequences were themselves bipartisanly arrived at. It took the combined efforts of Democratic andRepublican presidents, pluskey membersof Congress from both parties, to give this nation anintelligence apparatus that failed us sobadly.What's missing, key members of Congress told me, are the human assets that might have brought somewarning about what was being planned. We are terribly high-tech satellites overhead and intercepts ofall kind. We can spot a car moving on the ground and read its license plates, but we cannot look thedriver in the eye and see where he'sgoing. For that we need another human being.The argument I hear from some very informed people is that we have reformed the CIA into near-uselessness. The reforms instituted by the Carter administration in the wake of the VietnamWar maywell have gone too far.The human elements ~ unsavory, repugnant and often just plain criminal werepurged from the payroll. But just as cops need informers, so do intelligence agencies. These people arenot the sort you'd bring home to meet the wife.The Reagan administration attempted to reconstitute that element of the intelligence apparatus. Thetrouble was that CIA Director Bill Casey went, in the words of one knowledgeable Capitol Hill source,"1,000 miles too far." The Iran-contra scandal ended any effort to rebuild humanassets.Something else needs to be said, and President Bush ought to say it. America was not,as he maintains,"targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world," butbecause it has repeatedly inserted itself into the Middle East.Whether the cause is oil,Israel or the principle of resisting aggressors (our response to Iraq's conquest ofKuwait), we have taken the lives of Muslims, and some of them will not forgive us. Our ally, Israel,controls Jerusalems Islamic holy places. We have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, too close,apparently, to holy Mecca. We have imposed anembargo on Iraq, and so we are accused falsely, butso what? of killing babies. And everywhere we go in the region and even from outside it, we exude anoxious modernity ~ the music, the clothing, the contempt for tradition and authority. We are adangerous people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34435-2001 Sepl4?language=printer 9/15/01


2/8

" wrashingtonpost.com: Standoffish Soldiering Page 1 of 2

washingtonpost.com

Standoffish SoldieringBy David IgnatiusTuesday, August 5,2003; Page A15Listening to a senior Bush administration official explain last week that America's ultimate goal in Iraqis a broad "transformation" of Middle East politics, you realized that U.S. leaders have committed thecountry to a battle that could, as the official admitted, last for a generation.I agree that building a new future in the Arab world is aworthy challenge for a great power, assumingit's done w ith the Arabs' help rather than being imposed on them. Bu t I am increasingly wo rried that thisadm inistration's military version of "transformation" will subvert its political goal.Here's the problem: The Pentagon's version of "transformation" is all about using technology to enhancethe m ilitary's standoff power ~ the precision-guided bombs and unm anned robots that allow America todominate a battlefield without risking high U.S. casualties. But political transformation requires theopposite an intimate "stand-in" connection with the culture and people yo u propose to transform.This conun drum has been evident in Iraq: U.S. military forces raced north to Baghdad, overwhelmingany opposition in their path. The road from Kuwait to Baghdad provided images of the new precisionand lethality of American weapons: Iraqi tanks smoldered in ruins even as the surrounding sandrevetments looked almost untouched. I saw on e tank that had tried to hide under a bridge but wasdestroyed by a missile smart enough to nail the tank but leave the bridge intact.The Iraqis never saw what was coming at them militarily. That helped America win the war quickly anddecisively. But this same disconnect ~ the separation of U.S. power from the society that theadministration hopes to reconstruct ~ is a big part of what has been going w rong in postwar Iraq.America remains too much of a standoff power in the new Iraq. The U.S. military lacks the languageskills, the cultural familiarity, the netwo rk of political connections to make the necessary, intim ateconnection with that country. It needs to "stand in" now, but it doesn't have the tools to do so securely.Hunkered dow n against a small bu t pesky Iraqi resistance, it looks like an occupying army more than atransforming (or "liberating") one.This imbalance between America's military force and its strategic ne eds is only likely to grow worseunless the Bush administration moves to redress it. The Pentagon is already w orking on the nextgeneration of military "transformation," and from what I heard at a Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA) conference last week, the future will only add to America's standoff military power.The world's only superpower is contemplating new technologies that could come out of the latest"Terminator" movie. On this future battlefield, "super-empowered" U.S. war-fighters will have body-machine interfaces that will make them all but invulnerable. They will be able to fire weapons just bythinking "fire"; they will be impervious to heat, hunger, thirst or fatigue. Remote sensors will constantlyfeed target data to aircraft that can fire precision weapons from a safe distance. When things get toodangerous even for the super-empowered, the Pentagon can send in smart robots and swarms ofunmanned predator planes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19326-2003Aug4?language=printer 8/8/03


3/8

washingtonpost.com: Why Was There No Warning? Page 1 of 1

Why Was There No Warning?Saturday, September 15 , 2001; Page A2 6THIS CO UNT RY spends tens of billions of dollars a year on intelligence activity. The JusticeDepartment, in addition, spends $23 billion to enforce the law. Given the size and technical capabilitiesof these agencies, how could they not have had even an inkling of the attacks that took place this w eek?The scattered details that have emerged about the plot put this failure in stark relief: M ore than 50people were likely involved, Justice D epartment officials have said, and the plot required extensivecomm unications and planning to pull off . The group's size -- not to mention the complexity of itsendeavor should have offered many opportunities for intelligence infiltration. Yet the conspiratorsproceeded unm olested. What is striking is how safe these people apparently felt, how unthreatened bylaw enforcement. Some of the terrorists were here for long periods. They left and entered the countryunimpeded. Some were reportedly on the so-called "watch list," a government catalogue of people whoostensibly are not permitted to enter the country. Yet this apparently caused them no problems. Theevening before the attack, some people reportedly boasted at a strip jo int in Florida of the "bloodshed"America would suffer "tomorrow."Since the attacks, law enforcement has been able qu ickly to tie many of the hijackers to terrorist groups.One, for example, came over from Hamburg, where German police say he regularly met with largegroups of people planning spectacular attacks on A merican targets. The very speed with which suchinformation has been gathered only begs the question of how m uch of it was knowable before.How could an act of such monstrous flam boyance not have been prevented? A lready, people aresuggesting that the proper response is to roll back civil liberties to allow greater monitoring of possibledomestic threats. That is entirely premature. Freedom and openness are features that define us whatwe are fighting for when we fight terrorism. In the past, attacks like the Oklahoma City bombingprovoked legislative responses that were essentially unrelated to the vulnerabilities that permitted theattacks in the first place. Many of the new capabilities went unused, and the vulnerabilities remained. Itmay be that the FB I and the CIA need more resources, or a reallocation of the funds they have. Butbefore Congress moves to give the law enforcement and intelligence communities new powers or newfunds, it should study how well they used the tools already at their disposal.

2001 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34424-2001 Sep14?language= :printer 9/15/01


4/8


5/8


6/8

- WMD Terrorism and Usama Bin Laden Pagel of 8

M O N T E R E Y 1 N S IT T U T E O F I N T E R N A T I O N A L S T U D I E S

CNS Home > Pubjjcatipns > ReportCNS ReportsWMD TERRORISM AND USAMA BIN LADENby Kimberly McCloud and Matthew OsborneThe current trial of Usama Bin Laden and others for the August 7,1998 bombings of the U.S. embassieNairobi, Kenya, and Dar al-Salaam, Tanzania, has shed new light on the efforts of Bin Laden and his teorganization, Al-Qa'ida ("The Base"), to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Prosecution witness JanAhmad al-Fadl detailed his efforts to assist Bin Laden in an attempt to acquire uranium, presumably foidevelopment of nuclear weapons, from a source in Khartoum, Sudan, in late 1993 or early 1994. AlthoiLaden has made statements in the past regarding his interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction \ (holy war)

important evidence of his actions to do so.Although the information that Al-Fadl revealed in the trial has probably been known for some time by 1government, it adds important new information to the public domain on the efforts of Bin Laden and A 'to acquire nuclear weapons, including specific names and places. CIA Director George Tenet, addressiiU.S. Congress on February 7, 2001, referred to Bin Laden as one of the leading threats to U.S. nationalat home and abroad. It is therefore important to understand this threat in a realistic and accurate manneiFollowing the links below to the testimony transcripts and to the U.S. indictment of Bin Laden et al. isdescription of Al-Fadl and his testimony regarding the attempted acquisition of uranium, given on Febr7, and 13,2001 during the trial at the United States District Court of the Southern District of New Yorkincluded are a chronology of key incidents related to Usama Bin Laden's connection to and interest in rweapons as well as a list of significant events allegedly related to Bin Laden and/or Al-Qa'ida.

For the full text of AI-Fadl's testimony, click below:United States District Court, Southern District of NewYork, United States v. Usama bin Laden et al.,defendants. Testimony of prosecution witness JamalAhmad Al-Fadl.

Day 1: 6 February 2001 (PDF format, 244k) Day 2: 7 February 2001 (PDF format, 86k) Day 3: 13 February 2001 (RDF format, 157k)

See Also: Full text of the U.S. indictment against Bjn LadeJ1al.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm 12/28/2003


7/8

The New York Review of Books: The Mess in Afghanistan Page 1 of 13

The New York Reviewor BooksH o m e Yo u r account Cu r r en t i s sue Archives Subscriptions Calendar Newslet ters Gallery N Y R BooksVOL UM E 51, N UMBER 2 FEBR UAR Y 12,2004Review

Hamid Karzai(click for larger image)

The Mess in AfghanistanBy Ahmed RashidPUBLICATIONS CITED IN THIS ARTICLEAfghanistan's Bonn Agreement One Year Later: A Catalog ofMissed Opportunitiesby Human Rights Watcha briefing paper, 12 pp., December 5, 2002"We Want to Live as Humans": Repression of Women andGirls in Western Afghanistanby Human Rights Watcha report, 50 pp., December 2002All Our Hopes A re Crushed: Violence and Repression inWestern Afghanistanby Human Rights Watcha report, 52 pp., November 2002"Killing You Is a Very Easy Thing for Us": Human Rights Abuses in SoutheastAfghanistanby Human Rights Watcha report, 102 pp., July 2003Afghanistan: Are We Losing th e Peace?by an Independent Task Force cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations andthe Asia Societya report, 24 pp., June 2003Th e Situation in Afghanistan and Its Im plications for International Peace andSecurityby Kofi Annan to the General Assembly of the United Nationsa report, 20 pp., December 3,20031.

In late December 2001 Hamid Karzai set out for Kabul for the first time since thedefeat of the Taliban. He had been fighting along with his fellow Kandaharitribesmen in the last battle against the Taliban over control of his home city. Earlier

http://www.nybooks.eom/articles/l6897 2/9/2004


8/8

America at Risk:The State of Homeland SecurityI N I T I A L F I N D I N G S

t3 b5 analysis 2 of 2 fdr- 1st pgs of all reference material in folder (for reference- fair use)

Documents