^^i«shingtonpost.

com: Anatomy Of a Failure Page 1 of 2

Anatomy Of a Failure
By Richard Cohen

Saturday, September 15, 2001; Page A27

It is the first obligation of the government of the United States to protect the people of the United States.
It is fair to say that the government failed in that obligation. Terrorists struck in both New York and
Washington, and while we must honor the dead and treat the wounded, we cannot forget that, in this
respect at least, our government utterly failed us.

The United States spends about $30 billion a year on intelligence, although the exact figure is secret. It
has intelligence agencies galore. The best-known are the CIA and the National Security Agency. Others
are maintained by the various armed services, not to mention the State Department, the FBI and the
Secret Service. Yet, somehow, a largely successful terrorist operation was launched on America with a
loss of life that was once inconceivable and remains, even after the event, unimaginable.

The air of Washington is thick with oaths of bipartisanship and how, Republican and Democrat, we are
all in this together. And so we are. The intelligence failures that produced Tuesday's horrific
consequences were themselves bipartisanly arrived at. It took the combined efforts of Democratic and
Republican presidents, plus key members of Congress from both parties, to give this nation an
intelligence apparatus that failed us so badly.

What's missing, key members of Congress told me, are the human assets that might have brought some
warning about what was being planned. We are terribly high-tech — satellites overhead and intercepts of
all kind. We can spot a car moving on the ground and read its license plates, but we cannot look the
driver in the eye and see where he's going. 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 Vietnam War may
well have gone too far. The human elements ~ unsavory, repugnant and often just plain criminal — were
purged from the payroll. But just as cops need informers, so do intelligence agencies. These people are
not the sort you'd bring home to meet the wife.

The Reagan administration attempted to reconstitute that element of the intelligence apparatus. The
trouble 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 human assets.

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," but
because 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 of
Kuwait), we have taken the lives of Muslims, and some of them will not forgive us. Our ally, Israel,
controls Jerusalem's Islamic holy places. We have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, too close,
apparently, to holy Mecca. We have imposed an embargo on Iraq, and so we are accused — falsely, but
so what? — of killing babies. And everywhere we go in the region and even from outside it, we exude a
noxious modernity ~ the music, the clothing, the contempt for tradition and authority. We are a
dangerous people.

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

" wrashingtonpost.com: Standoffish Soldiering Page 1 of 2

washingtonpost.com

Standoffish Soldiering
By David Ignatius

Tuesday, August 5,2003; Page A15

Listening to a senior Bush administration official explain last week that America's ultimate goal in Iraq
is a broad "transformation" of Middle East politics, you realized that U.S. leaders have committed the
country 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 a worthy challenge for a great power, assuming
it's done with the Arabs' help rather than being imposed on them. But I am increasingly worried that this
administration'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 enhance
the military's standoff power ~ the precision-guided bombs and unmanned robots that allow America to
dominate a battlefield without risking high U.S. casualties. But political transformation requires the
opposite — an intimate "stand-in" connection with the culture and people you propose to transform.

This conundrum has been evident in Iraq: U.S. military forces raced north to Baghdad, overwhelming
any opposition in their path. The road from Kuwait to Baghdad provided images of the new precision
and lethality of American weapons: Iraqi tanks smoldered in ruins even as the surrounding sand
revetments looked almost untouched. I saw one tank that had tried to hide under a bridge but was
destroyed 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 and
decisively. But this same disconnect ~ the separation of U.S. power from the society that the
administration hopes to reconstruct ~ is a big part of what has been going wrong in postwar Iraq.

America remains too much of a standoff power in the new Iraq. The U.S. military lacks the language
skills, the cultural familiarity, the network of political connections to make the necessary, intimate
connection with that country. It needs to "stand in" now, but it doesn't have the tools to do so securely.
Hunkered down against a small but pesky Iraqi resistance, it looks like an occupying army more than a
transforming (or "liberating") one.

This imbalance between America's military force and its strategic needs is only likely to grow worse
unless the Bush administration moves to redress it. The Pentagon is already working on the next
generation of military "transformation," and from what I heard at a Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (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 by
thinking "fire"; they will be impervious to heat, hunger, thirst or fatigue. Remote sensors will constantly
feed target data to aircraft that can fire precision weapons from a safe distance. When things get too
dangerous even for the super-empowered, the Pentagon can send in smart robots and swarms of
unmanned predator planes.

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

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

Why Was There No Warning?

Saturday, September 15, 2001; Page A26

THIS COUNTRY spends tens of billions of dollars a year on intelligence activity. The Justice
Department, in addition, spends $23 billion to enforce the law. Given the size and technical capabilities
of these agencies, how could they not have had even an inkling of the attacks that took place this week?

The scattered details that have emerged about the plot put this failure in stark relief: More than 50
people were likely involved, Justice Department officials have said, and the plot required extensive
communications and planning to pull off. The group's size -- not to mention the complexity of its
endeavor — should have offered many opportunities for intelligence infiltration. Yet the conspirators
proceeded unmolested. What is striking is how safe these people apparently felt, how unthreatened by
law enforcement. Some of the terrorists were here for long periods. They left and entered the country
unimpeded. Some were reportedly on the so-called "watch list," a government catalogue of people who
ostensibly are not permitted to enter the country. Yet this apparently caused them no problems. The
evening before the attack, some people reportedly boasted at a strip joint in Florida of the "bloodshed"
America would suffer "tomorrow."

Since the attacks, law enforcement has been able quickly to tie many of the hijackers to terrorist groups.
One, for example, came over from Hamburg, where German police say he regularly met with large
groups of people planning spectacular attacks on American targets. The very speed with which such
information has been gathered only begs the question of how much of it was knowable before.

How could an act of such monstrous flamboyance not have been prevented? Already, people are
suggesting that the proper response is to roll back civil liberties to allow greater monitoring of possible
domestic threats. That is entirely premature. Freedom and openness are features that define us — what
we are fighting for when we fight terrorism. In the past, attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing
provoked legislative responses that were essentially unrelated to the vulnerabilities that permitted the
attacks in the first place. Many of the new capabilities went unused, and the vulnerabilities remained. It
may be that the FBI and the CIA need more resources, or a reallocation of the funds they have. But
before Congress moves to give the law enforcement and intelligence communities new powers or new
funds, 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 Sep 14?language=:printer 9/15/01

CIA vows to*run
terroriststavor
less than the best. We can
/BiHGertz

intelligence agencies are

to track

inside Hezootob «r <3«f*ia Ma

Laden's organization, there is
nobody in the^e but bamaa rights
violators," Wfc IfeoIseyaaM.
Mr. Wbols«y said the restrictions

battle against 1
,caflfer The guidelines sfaooMb* lifted,
reSgnatioBi The net- . . . ,
. Richard iatelHgence failure Defense Seeretai^ Ptmald

Mr. Tenet, in a message to CIA

employees, stated that the battle Disclosures of
against terrof&m is bard. "Toe and raatiotr have been "happening
shield of fanaticism — wielded by
thoserea|fytoferi^*eirave«to p. Portfrl, Gocs^ chairman of
achieve flil^ twisted d*eami — is; the House Intel^ei " *"—-^"**~ -
net easily pierced," Mr. Tenet said. ing National Security told reporters t^at..
"But it has been pierced before and gators are pursuing ,_ r __
it will be pierced again." The terrorist attacks have Authorities ar» trying n ^ealidj
silenced lawmakers who say intelli- the peipetratert that hmB not jpwp-
gence agencies are no longer need- ished in the tragedyyMr. Gofis,
•gJSbvu , ed,Mr. Sfcelbysaid, Florida Republican, said. "Tl
Mr. Tenet said that white the "We dl> need a stepped-up, had to be some brains behind
agency fai^tostop the! beefed-^) iptelligence agency/' he We have some go " ——" J
rorist actifcas at the Pentagon and frtd. md we've got to pqt the leads mat ate obvi
New Yor^a World trade Center, resotapees into them. We've got to lowed."
train the right people. We've got to Senate Minority
recjwit the best and the brightest of
Heypwedthatthe OA wBi ^t» Americans to serve in our intelli- not new.
to ground a vicious foe" and mafee gence agencies because that is the
sure that the terrorists "must never front line. It is probably the most ing," he said, noting last y*ar's
know rest, ease, comfort." valaabte investment we can make." bombing of the deajttpyigl^^C^le
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Shelby, the Ebx News reported mat Mr. Shel- and the bombing of Mfr Ak1
ranking member of the Senate by was trying to get the chairman of barracks in Saudi Arabii,
Select Committee on latelligettce, Ae committee, Sen. Bob Graham, "We have got to
criticized Mr. Tenet fo? W> teader- Fferida Democrat, to join him in nary actions," Mr. Lottsaid.
shipoftheClA. seeking Mr. Tenet's resignation, got to deal legislatively with what-
Asked if he has confidence in tibe Former CIA Director E. James ever the administration nesdji for
CIA director, Mr. Shelby said: Woolsey said new restrictions on the FBI, the CIA, the DefiRnse
"that's up to the president of die intelligence gathering were Department, to take care of this
United States. I don't want to make imposedon the CIA during me Chn- worldwide threat."
a judgment on that." tc« administration mathave made it • Dave Boyer contributed to this
But he added, "We cannot afford difficult to thwart terrorist attacks. report -+*
Saudi Prisoner Called a Chief for Al Qaeda Page 1 of 1

rut

December 18,2001

A CAPTIVE

Saudi Prisoner Called a Chief for Al Qaeda

By JAMES RISEN

w ASHINGTON, Dec. 17 — American officials identified a Saudi man today as the highest
ranking Al Qaeda official captured in Afghanistan and taken into American custody.

Officials identified the man only as Abdul Aziz, an official with the Wafa Humanitarian
Organization. They said he was now aboard the helicopter carrier Pelileu in the North Arabian
Sea. The United States has alleged that Wafa, a Saudi-based Islamic charitable organization, has
runneled money to Al Qaeda.

The Treasury Department has ordered Wafa's assets in the United States frozen because of its
supposed terrorist ties. An American official said today that Wafa is considered a front for Al
Qaeda and that the man identified as Abdul Aziz was the highest-ranking Al Qaeda official taken
into United States custody.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld had said earlier that the United States had taken
custody of a high ranking Al Qaeda official, but he had declined to identify him.

It is unclear exactly how high up Mr. Abdul Aziz was in Al Qaeda. But with his background at
Wafa, he could provide valuable information about Al Qaeda finances, and especially the means
by which it has siphoned money out of Islamic charities throughout the Middle East.

He may also shed new light on the underground financial connections between Al Qaeda and
Saudi Arabia, which American officials say supplied Osama bin Laden with much of the funding
for his organization.

Leading representatives of Islamic charitable organizations have denied the American charges
that the groups funnel money to terrorists, however, and complain that the American accusations
only fuel the belief in the Arab world that the United States' campaign against terrorism is a war
on Islam.

Home | Back to International | Search | Help Back to Tog

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/18/international/asia/18SAUD.html7pagewanted-print 12/19/01
 - WMD Terrorism and Usama Bin Laden Pagel of 8

MONTEREY 1NSITTUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Home > Pubjjcatipns > Report
CNS
CNS Reports

WMD TERRORISM AND USAMA BIN LADEN

by Kimberly McCloud and Matthew Osborne

The current trial of Usama Bin Laden and others for the August 7,1998 bombings of the U.S. embassie
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar al-Salaam, Tanzania, has shed new light on the efforts of Bin Laden and his te
organization, Al-Qa'ida ("The Base"), to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Prosecution witness Jan
Ahmad al-Fadl detailed his efforts to assist Bin Laden in an attempt to acquire uranium, presumably foi
development of nuclear weapons, from a source in Khartoum, Sudan, in late 1993 or early 1994. Althoi
Laden 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 1
government, 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, addressii
U.S. Congress on February 7, 2001, referred to Bin Laden as one of the leading threats to U.S. national
at home and abroad. It is therefore important to understand this threat in a realistic and accurate mannei

Following the links below to the testimony transcripts and to the U.S. indictment of Bin Laden et al. is
description of Al-Fadl and his testimony regarding the attempted acquisition of uranium, given on Febr
7, and 13,2001 during the trial at the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York
included are a chronology of key incidents related to Usama Bin Laden's connection to and interest in r
weapons 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 New

York, United States v. Usama bin Laden et al.,
defendants. Testimony of prosecution witness Jamal
Ahmad 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 LadeJ1

al.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm 12/28/2003
The New York Review of Books: The Mess in Afghanistan Page 1 of 13

The New York Review or Books

Home • Your account • Current issue • Archives • Subscriptions • Calendar • Newsletters • Gallery • NYR Books

VOLUME 51, NUMBER 2 • FEBRUARY 12,2004

Review

The Mess in Afghanistan

By Ahmed Rashid

PUBLICATIONS CITED IN THIS ARTICLE

Afghanistan's Bonn Agreement One Year Later: A Catalog of

Missed Opportunities
by Human Rights Watch
a briefing paper, 12 pp., December 5, 2002

"We Want to Live as Humans": Repression of Women and

Girls in Western Afghanistan
by Human Rights Watch
a report, 50 pp., December 2002 Hamid Karzai
(click for larger image)
All Our Hopes Are Crushed: Violence and Repression in
Western Afghanistan
by Human Rights Watch
a report, 52 pp., November 2002

"Killing You Is a Very Easy Thing for Us": Human Rights Abuses in Southeast
Afghanistan
by Human Rights Watch
a report, 102 pp., July 2003

Afghanistan: Are We Losing the Peace?

by an Independent Task Force cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and
the Asia Society
a report, 24 pp., June 2003

The Situation in Afghanistan and Its Implications for International Peace and
Security
by Kofi Annan to the General Assembly of the United Nations
a report, 20 pp., December 3,2003

1.

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

http://www.nybooks.eom/articles/l 6897 2/9/2004

America at Risk:
The State of Homeland Security
INITIAL FINDINGS