Customer Reviews

Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

America's government spends $1 trillion/year on national security, yet fails to provide security for its citizens. Clarke's latest book reviews several key areas and identifies both problems and potential improvements.

The Iraq War is the first topic reviewed. Clarke believes that the war was a major mistake, is not likely to achieve its purpose, and represents a failure in leadership. Examples of the latter include having insufficient troops, a lack of direction after taking Baghdad, poorly equipped and protected forces, loose control of prisoners, and poor treatment of our wounded after arriving back in the U.S. Clarke believes U.S. generals failed to stand up to poor decision-making by civilians, though also contends that top generals were chose for their compliability and admits that speaking out was a career-limiting move.

The end of the Cold War came as a surprise to American leadership, and is widely viewed as a devastating indictment of U.S. intelligence. Other failures include the CIA telling Truman in 1950 that China would not invade Korea to fight U.S. forces (that assessment was made after advance Chinese units had already entered North Korea), the CIA asserting that Iraq would not invade Kuwait (did so within hours of that forecast), concluding that Iraq did not have significant nuclear weapons development prior to Gulf War I, stating that Russia had not violated the Biological Weapons Convention (later was proved, and they admitted otherwise), mislocating the location of Russian nuclear warheads in East Germany, concluding that Iraq had WMD prior to Gulf War II and was also training al Qaeda, downplaying the likelihood of North Korea invading the South, India's developing nuclear weapons, failing to detect both the Tet Offensive and the fall of the Shah, etc. Hardly the expected performance for sixteen agencies with tens of thousands and $50 billion/year believed employed in intelligence activities.

Clarke is particularly upset at our failure to pursue Khalid al-Midhar (one of the 9/11 crew) in the U.S. even though he had been linked to the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in E. Africa, followed to Malaysia to a terrorist meeting in 1999 (secret photographing of his passport at the time showed he had a visa for U.S. travel, even though he had been identified as al Qaeda both by U.S. and Saudi Arabian sources, and entered the U.S. twice after that and lived in California prior to 9/11. A CIA Inspector General investigation post 9/11 concluded that 60 agents knew of al-Midhar's presence in the U.S., along with an associate.

The Afghanistan campaign is a long way from success, also due to inadequate force commitment, compounded by Frank's failure to send U.S. Rangers to cut off bin Laden's escape into Pakistan and others failing to provide enough economic aid. Clarke recommends we stop the heroin growing in Afghanistan (funds the Taliban) by paying farmers to plant something else.

As for Homeland Security, Clarke states that it presided over the most obvious domestic failure of the national government in generations, and is now laced with political hacks and private contractors. Unresolved problems to-date include fake IDs, failure to screen airplane cargo, little security effort involving trains and ships, illegal immigration, and non-functional software. Meanwhile, we have damaged our credibility and trust through torture, hyping arrests and plots, and wiretaps.

Worse yet are the related problems of oil funding terrorists and adding to global warming. Little has been done, despite the seriousness of both.

"Your Government Failed You" ends the topics examined with cybersecurity. We have problems with outsiders getting inside vital databases, overloading systems to render them inoperative, etc. Progress has been made, but it needs to become a higher priority.

Clarke's overall recommendations include reducing the size of government, and ending the privatization of vital functions, staffing them with political hacks, and rotating individuals in/out of these vital security functions.

New president Obama needs to read this book. After 31 years in government i finally found someone who tells it like it is. That person is Richard Clarke. He has insights that i have known for years but never been able to confirm about some political appointees and their cronies. He also knows the career civil servant well. Washington is a place full of deceit and executive criminal behavior. Reading this book is excellent perparation for that duty. If you want to know what works in national security policy and what does not then read this book. Mr Clarke's blind spot is that he was never in the military. Other than that i find him on target in every aspect of his comments.

Clarke has a reputation for telling things that, while not secret, are things the Bush crowd would rather you didn't know. His 30+ years in government, at a fairly high level, give him credence. Among many other things, he tells you how the Administration bullied Tommy Franks into reducing the long-standing Iraq invasion requirement from 480K to 130K, and how there was no post-invasion plan, previously a requirement of any military operation. He points out that if a Democratic Administration had sent troops into Iraq with canvas doors on their Hummers, there would have been riots in the streets. He points out the shabby treatment that Gov Ridge got and why he finally quit. And of course there is passing comments on Karl Rove, the spin-master from Hell. It made me want to deport him back there on the spot. It short, it's a good read if you want the story told from the inside....

I bought this book on the day it came out and was hoping for another insider's account - and was slightly disappointed. Clarke has an amazing array of experience and knowledge in government and he displays both with brilliance. However, he is writing to a narrow audience, to those who understand government as well as he does (or those who want to know all the nitty gritty). He admits that he spent years writing government reports and analysis, and his writing style reveals as much. He spends far too much time giving extremely detailed prescriptions for every problem. I think this book will be greatly helpful to the next administration, and he makes a good case that he should be an important piece of the next executive branch (national security advisor?).

However for a general audience, this book is far too detailed and policy wonkish. He uses words like "interagency departmental management" as if the reader can comprehend what that means (or as if the casual reader cares). He could get his point out better if he were to dumb down his prescriptions a bit. However, if his objective was not to sell books to a wide audience and merely to government insiders, then this book is a great success.

If you're going to the beach, do not take this book - you'll either fall asleep or contemplate throwing the book into the ocean out of confusion. Don't get me wrong - this book had a lot of fascinating information, such as the detailed information on military policy and how it has evolved. Even the cybersecurity chapter had me interested. But it took lots of careful reading to understand everything he talked about. I have lots of friends who love politics, yet I cannot think of anyone I could recommend this book to - it's too policy-centered for them. My advice - if you buy this book, skip the recommendations and just read about his experiences. For example, he discusses one instance where he meets up with a bunch of computer hackers in a warehouse for several hours discussing cybersecurity - just imagining the idea of Richard Clarke kicking back with a bunch of hackers is priceless enough.

Two things I like about Clarke's writing: First, Clarke is a really smart guy, and this is a smart book. It's not unfathomable by any means, but anyone looking for "National Security for Dummies" will want to avoid this book. It has depth. Second, in a country where everything seems tainted with partisan vitriol, with conservatives and liberals throwing real and imagined barbs at each other constantly on the cable talk shows, Clarke is a true bi-partisan. Make no mistake, he is harder on the administration of Bush II than on either Clinton or Bush I, but that isn't because he is a liberal (he's not), but rather because anyone with half a brain can see that G.W. Bush has done more to screw things up than either his dad or Clinton did. Bush the elder and Bill Clinton take blame for their shortcomings in this book as well. No, Clarke has bigger fish to fry than partisan sniping. He has served in several presidential administrations, had a close relationship with several Secretaries of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and has seen the good, the bad and the ugly of both civilian and military leadership in this country. This book doesn't just enumerate the problems: it offers solutions. After reading this book and "Against All Enemies", my greatest hope is that President Obama will appoint Clarke--and he will accept--a position high in the administration such as Secretary of State so that, once again, this country can benefit from the wisdom and experience of Richard Clarke, the only man to stand up after the 9/11 attacks, look at the surviving family members of the victims, and say the difficult words: "Your Government failed you--I failed you". We need more of that type of stand-up person in American government. This is a very enlightening book.

Title: Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters
Author: Richard A. Clarke
Rating: *****
Tags: non-fiction, terrorism, national security, military, cybersecurity, energy, civil service

Excellent, wide-ranging view of U.S. national security from someone who spent thirty years in government on these issues, working with the military, intelligence agencies, and the other departments working on national security topics. He takes a snapshot of the state of national security as of the early part of 2008, explains how we got to where we are, and most importantly, makes recommendations on how to improve it all, recommendations informed by his experience and the experience of other professionals.

I find the title rather unfortunate, as it sounds sensationalist and partisan, and hides the professionalism behind the book. Clarke served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. He criticized the Bush administration the most, but one believes he would have criticized them as harshly if they had been Democrats. It was their partisanship and their incompetence that he disliked. One interesting statistic he mentions, speaking of partisanship, is this one: "The number of political appointees declined by 17 percent in the 1990s but is now up by 33 percent in the last seven years' [that is, under the Bush administration]. (p. 340). Clarke believes that the government should have both civil servants and political appointees, but thinks that there should be far fewer partisan appointments.

Early in the book, Clarke talks about the military's role in national security. He has the highest respect for those dedicated individuals who serve in the military. What he does is explain how, in reaction to Viet Nam, the military changed radically in hopes of avoiding another poorly planned, unlikely-to-be-winnable and unpopular war. They believed that without a draft, large wars would be impossible without calling up Reserve units and that that would be too unpopular to be considered unless we were a dire situation like World War II. As we now know, they failed to discourage the Iraq war, in part because those willing to speak up against it were gotten rid of.

Next Clarke goes into the nation's intelligence services. They include data intelligence gathering, at which the U.S. excels with its technology, analysis of the data, and human spying. He says the U.S. is very bad at spying, in part because spying effectively can require illegal and unethical actions. He mentions British spies infiltrating the IRA who killed British citizens in order to be accepted into the group they were penetrating. He goes in depth into the problems of intelligence gathering. There may be vast amounts of data, but poor analysis. He mentions in depth the CIA's irresponsibility in not sharing that two known Al Quaeda operatives were in the U.S.

Clarke discusses energy, and says that it is an impossible goal to be energy independent, that no one is.

The chapter on cybersecurity is fascinating. He was involved in the issue once the government became aware of it in the late 1990s, and traveled extensively talking to hundreds of people to educate himself on the topic. He believes that better security systems exist, but that the will to pay for them isn't there, though that may be changing as the costs of NOT having better security continues to increase.

As indicated above, Clarke spends a good bit of time discussing staffing issues, from whether private contractors should be doing national security work to how to keep the experienced and imaginative people needed.

He sums up the book quite well in the following paragraph:

"As you will have noted throughout this book, I have my views on what a good government should be doing on specific and important national security issues in the near term. Two factors shape how I believe we should approach those issues. First, we need to approach national security issues at home and abroad within the context of our values. When we detach ourselves to any degree from the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights, we soon find ourselves adrift without a compass, and engaging in counterproductive activities. Second, the threat of violent Islamist extremists is significant, and we can do a much better job of countering it, but it is not an existential threat to the United States and we will do a much better job of addressing it if we put it into context and do not artificially inflate the threat". (p. 356)

Throughout the book he does make recommendations on bettering the national security apparatus, and I hope the Obama administration is taking detailed notes. The biggest lack in the book is not having a bibliography. There is a good notes section and an index, but he mentions several notable books and having a bibliography would have made things easier. As it was, I ordered about four of the books he mentioned for my Library's collection.

Excellent work, incredibly informative on the one government activity that is the most important to its citizens.


Publication Ecco (2008), Edition: 1, Hardcover, 416 pages
Publication date 2008
ISBN 0061474622 / 9780061474620

This book takes an uncompromising look at the inability of the government to prevent security and intelligence failures, like those that occurred before 9/11.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US Army had no counter-insurgency strategy. Part of the reason was to not resurrect unpleasant memories from Vietnam, and part of the reason was the absolute belief among top officials of the Bush Administration that it would not be needed, that the US troops would be greeted as liberators. It wasn't until four years into the war that General Petraeus was asked to put together a counter-insurgency strategy.

In Iraq, there is a nearly equal number of US troops and civilian contractors. There is a similar ratio between government and private intelligence analysts here in America. The author thinks that should change, now. Analysis should be brought back under government control. Analysts also have no access to public sources of information. Some public bit of information may be all that is needed to, for instance, turn a satellite photo into a photo of secret missile bases.

The author also feels that the percentage of ambassadorships and high-level defense and security jobs available to big political contributors and former elected officials should be reduced by a lot; those jobs belong to the professionals. Other countries are better than America at getting human spies on the "inside." That part of the US intelligence business should be downsized, and America should focus on the technical part of intelligence gathering. But, America needs to resist the temptation to launch more and more sophisticated satellites into orbit, when a simpler satellite will do the job.

Clarke feels that the next major battleground will be in cyberspace. The current staff of the Office of Management and Budget working on federal IT security is 2 people. That should be increased to more like 200 people, and they should get the clout to force agencies to take proper security precautions.

Clarke has spent many years in high government positions, so he knows what he is talking about. Here is a fascinating, and eye-opening, book that will help to explain large parts of recent US foreign policy.

Richard A. Clarke has spent thirty years (1973-2003) within the U.S. National Security System and this book represents his assessment of the health of that system today. In Clark's view this system has three integrated institutional components: 1) the U.S. Military (Armed Forces plus the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD)); 2) The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) (and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)); and 3) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as a concept as well as an institution.. And he believes the system incorporates three issues: 1) Energy (petroleum dependence and Global Warming); 2) Terrorism (including the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)); and 3) the Information Infrastructure (cyber-security). In this book he analyzes each of the institutions and issues, identifies what he believes are points of failure in each, and offers a prescription for mitigating or eliminating those points.

There is little doubt that Clarke has indeed identified some of the weak spots within the National Security system. His solutions are rather more controversial, but are certainly worth considering. Some of his observations are quite good. For example he makes the point that failure always has a human face. By which he means systems don't fail, the people who design and manage them fail. Which observation is quite true. Unfortunately he proceeds to name names in specific examples of system failures which add an unnecessary element of controversy to an already controversial subject.

All in all, this book offers a subjective, but well founded critique or the U.S. National Security System by someone who has served that system in a variety of positions over a thirty year career. No he is not absolutely accurate and objective, but he presents what appears to be a mostly fair and balanced account of what is wrong with national security and how it can be fixed.

Like many I beleived the Bush Admin's demonization of Richard C. Clarke and did not break free of that trace until hearing Scott McClellan apologize to Clarke on MSNBC. So, I bought the book. Yep, Mr. Clarke has an ego however he's very good.
Maybe Pres Obama will find a place for him assist in clean up of our intelligence agencies.

This is a great book, well written, by a great American. I second everything that has already been said here much more eloquently than I could have done.

There are only two points, questions really, that I would, respectfully, raise.

The first is the suggestion that our effort to prevent terrorist attacks in the U.S. should include a greater reliance on local law enforcement. Having worked in a local law enforcement agency for some years, I, respectfully disagree.

It is true that countries that been most effective in preventing terrorism do indeed place considerable reliance on local law enforcement, but in each of these countries local law enforcement is under the direction or at least close coordination of one or more national security agencies. In the U.S. local law enforcement agencies are autonomous, and indeed are often hostile to the federal agencies concerned with national security such as the FBI, AFT, Secret Service, etc. Also while we know even our supposedly most security conscious national agencies such as the FBI and the CIA can still sometimes permit serious security breaches to occur, local law enforcement in the U.S. is rife with cronyism, nepotism, incompetence and all of the conditions that spawn compromises of security If an anti-terrorism network is as strong as it's weakest link, anyone of the thousands of local law enforcement agencies in the U.S. offer an unlocked door to any terrorist seeking information, or cover.

In California when the Bush administration announced that responsibility for combating terrorism was being placed with the California Highway Patrol, and the California DMV, public opinion immediately divided between those who thought this proved that the War on Terrorism was not really taken seriously by Washington, and those who questioned the judgment and good sense of those in Washington. This is in California where most of our hundreds of local law enforcement agencies generally meet at least minimum national standards. Since then incidentally, "terrorism" has become the standard defense every time a California police agency is accused of malpractice.

The second question I would raise is why the last chapter? - a discussion of global warming. Whether or not one accepts or rejects global warming, the rest of this book contains very important and well researched information.