Customer Reviews

Against All Enemies - Inside America's War On Terror

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is an incredible book authored by a true political insider. Richard Clark who served under Bush, Clinton and then Bush 43, writes about the blunders of the Bush Administration, the feckless leadership of Condie Rice and the bitter in-fighting between Cheney and Rumsfeld against anyone within the Administration including the president who wished to challenge them. It's a message Clark had to get off his conscience as he had made several attempts to alert the Administration about the threat from Osama bin Laden. Rice never heard of bin Laden and dismissed Clark from speaking outright to the Administration. Blunder after blunder are systematically unveiled.

There are two ways to look at Against All Enemies:Inside America's War on Terror, by Richard A. Clarke:

On the one hand, it is an important book that gives the American public detailed background on the events leading up to, first, the attack on America on Sept. 11, 2001 and, second, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clarke was virtually in charge of the war in terror in three White House Administrations, and as such, he should know what happened to leave the United States open to a horrendous, unprecedented attack by terrorists.

On the other hand, it is a political book that could very well serve as an extended resume that Clark has prepared for John Kerry, should the Massachusetts Democrat win the White House in elections this November.

After reading the book and considering its impact, this reviewer has concluded that both perceptions of the book are correct. Clarke is an astute bureaucrat at the highest level who has chosen to throw his lot in with the Democrats. Alas, for him (and perhaps for us), his decision to write a political book has probably ended his career as a senior government official with vast experience in the black art of terrorism.

The book is a very readable example of contemporary history. But there are nagging aspects to the narrative, principally Clarke's tendency to take credit for everything good that happened in the "war" in terrorism, while blaming everything bad that happened on George W. Bush, the FBI and the CIA.

The problem with this approach is the bottom line: if Clarke chooses to present himself as the key figure in the war on terrorism, then the logical conclusion is that he was the man who should take principal responsibility for the crushing events of Sept. 11, 2001. After all, it was on his watch that 9/11 happened, and it is disingenuous of him to claim the credit for all the work to prevent terrorists from penetrating America's defenses, while in the end 19 Muslim terrorists rained horror on two of the most symbolic structures in the United States: the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon alongside the Potomac in Washington, D.C.

To be sure, Clarke publicly apologized to families of the 3,000 victims of the two attacks in hearings held by the 9/11 Commission in Washington. And he makes similar apologies in the book. But there is nothing deferential about Richard A. Clarke in this book: he has a lot of scores to settle with George W. Bush on down, and he scores his points again and again in his account of his career in Washington from the late1980's until his resignation from the Bush Administration in 2003.

It is also disconcerting to read that Clarke is likely to make close to $5 million off his book, in royalties and the sales of movie rights. Conservatives who have gone after Clarke with a vengeance have demanded that he donate some of his earnings to the families of the victims. Clarke says he will--but the fact is that Clarke is going to make a lot of money off this book. And, if truth be known, there is nothing wrong with that--that is indeed part of the American way of free enterprise, even if it seems a bit smarmy in this instance.

So here's our recommendation: read this book--as it presents more information on the war on terror than we probably ever want to know. But read it with an open mind, and understand that Clarke, the bureaucrat, has crossed the line into politics.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but also understand that the author has an agenda behind his report. Some will say that his agenda is to provide the American public the background they need to understand the war in terror; others will say that his agenda is to bring down the administration of George W. Bush.

In the end, both perceptions may be correct.

This is Clarke's one-sided account of the government actions and inactions before and after 9/11. Clarke defends the Clintons and indicts the Bushes. In doing so, he admits that he had enough knowledge and information that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, but he did nothing because the Bush Administration hurt his feelings and rejected his recommendations. If even part of what Clarke alleges is true, he had a legal duty to (1) resign and hold a press conference about the threat, (2) personally notify important members of Congress (e.g. Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, Hatch) about the threat, (3) leak to the media relevant memos that warned about the threat, (4) hold a press conference, appeared on 60 Minutes and gotten fired. Instead Clarke sat around feeling sorry for himself. Even Daniel Ellsberg had the guts to do something (he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the Times and the Post). The Justice Department should, but won't, prosecute Clark for dereliction of duty and cowardness under fire.