This month’s Atlantic is an absolute must-read issue. It’s not any one article (although there are two excellent – even if I disagree with their premises – articles on terrorism, including an ‘alternate future’ article by Richard Clarke that I’ll have to spend some time revisiting), it’s a list of some of them:
* ‘Ten Years Later‘ – the alternate future of the attacks in 2006
* ‘Success Without Victory‘ James Fallows’ policy vision – again, I don’t completely agree, but it has to be part of the debate
* ‘Lost in the Meritocracy‘ a brilliant essay on education – and the faking thereof
* ‘Redheaded Eskimo‘ – P.J. O’Rourke’s scathing view of the current corporate tax bill
* ‘The Widening Atlantic‘ – on the demographic and political gulf between Europe and America
* ‘Clintonism, R.I.P.‘ – great article on why you can’t triangulate against yourself.
Hell, it’s all good, go read the entire thing.
[Update: Apologies! Just realized that the links only work for subscribers to the magazine. Head over to the newsstand and pick one up, you won’t regret it. Plus there’s a great article by Brad DeLong and my old professor Steve Cohen]
You have got to be kidding.
I only had to read the first paragraph of Clark’s piece to know that it was complete and utter garbage.
Fallows is a hack. They should rename that magazine “The James Fallows Monthly”.
Michael Kelly must be rolling in his grave.
This paragraph?
“It is a great honor to be chosen to give this tenth-anniversary lecture. This year, more than at any other time since the beginning of the war on terror, I think we can see clearly how that war has changed our country. Now that the terror seems finally to have receded somewhat, perhaps we can begin to consider the steps necessary to return the United States to what it was before 9/11. To do so, however, we must be clear about what has happened over the past ten years. Thus tonight I will dwell on the history of the war on terror.”
Now Eric, I hope you realize that this is a fictional exercise, right? Otherwise, what’s objectionable here?
Clarke’s article is a hoot. I can’t wait for the sequel where Al Qaeda uses its secret weapon to make all Americans turn inside out and explode.
Ok, its not the first paragraph then. Its the first thing I remember, which was something about “George Bush ignoring Al Queda” or something like that. To which I immediately thought, so what was President Clinton doing during his administration? And by extension, Mr Clarke?
Oh, and the USA is never going to go back to being “…what it was before 9/11.”, which ought to raise little red flags of warning as well.
Richard Clarke. What a hoser. Scheuer’s picture of him in his book is not flattering. Another CYA beaurocrat; agreed that ” … what it was before 9/11″ is no more credible than America returning to December 6, 1941.
And wow, more Clinton bashing. Yes, Clinton made mistakes, principally in throwing away momentum by letting his politically tone deaf wife Hilary run the Health Care Reform initiative; and not keeping it zipped. Plus kicking the can downfield as far as dealing with terror (like every President since Nixon).
But Clinton did what no other Democrat had done since FDR, win election TWICE on his own terms. He made the Democratic Party SERIOUS on national issues such as Welfare, Crime, the Economy, and presided over unparalleled prosperity (to be sure, a great deal of that was luck).
The Party’s big problem is the Kennedy Wing; along with the Deaniacs and Moore-ons have hijacked the Party. Sensible guys like Zell Miller (a Clinton Dem who fought to remove the Stars and Bars from Georgia’s state flag; and got the Hope Scholarship passed); Dick Gephardt; and Joe Lieberman have no place in the Party. Instead we have the face of the Democrats in National Security: JOHN KERRY (fresh from meeting with every Middle East Dictator and terrorist Imam) and Barbara “Weepy” Boxer.
A more calculated lurch to loony-left Berkeley-ville could not be calculated.
Ok, its not the first paragraph then. Its the first thing I remember, which was something about “George Bush ignoring Al Queda” or something like that. To which I immediately thought, so what was President Clinton doing during his administration? And by extension, Mr Clarke?
Maybe Eric should hold off on those “immediate” thoughts and run them through his CPU a few more times before running with them.
Though it’s a great illustration of the knee-jerk Bushite mind: “Huh? Bush did something wrong? Well so did Clinton! Even worse in fact! End of debate!”
Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, to take an excellent source, is sublimely critical of both Clinton and Clarke, but his book puts paid to any notion that either man was “ignoring” al-Qaeda. Whereas it’s hard to describe Bush’s reaction to the 8/6/01 PDB as anything other than “ignoring.” Hell, maybe I would’ve done the same, but that doesn’t change what he did.
Also note that Clarke’s narrator is the one saying Bush “ignored” al-Qaeda before 9/11, not Clarke himself.
If Eric would get past the knee-jerking and read the whole article, he’d understand why Armed Liberal and others are linking to the Clarke piece: America is woefully open to terror attacks if and when the terrorists decide to commit them.
Why they haven’t done so yet is anyone’s guess, but I would surmise a lack of warm bodies. See the new CIA paper on our successful efforts to create terror converts in Iraq. Oops.
P.S. to Jim: Clarke may be a hoser, but Scheuer is just too weird a guy to be forming our judgments based on him alone. One of the reasons for 9/11 may turn out to be that weirdoes like Clarke and Scheuer were the only ones attuned to what was coming, and couldn’t work well with each other, let alone with their bureaucratic masters.
This should have been called “Richard Clarke, 15 Minutes Later.”
Oh, the humanity. Alas for poor Peter and Margaret Rataczak, of Wichita, Kansas, the latest victims of Bush’s arrogance. Not to mention the horrendous slot machine repair bill. Why didn’t we listen to Richard What’s-his-face when we had the chance?
OK, I don’t want to get into the tired Bush sucks @!!@$1 vs. Clinton sucks !@# argument, but aren’t there some genuine points to ponder in the Clarke piece?
I’d say there are.
For instance, what is Iran’s capability to retaliate v. the United States via Hezbollah or other groups? What would Iran’s response be to a bombing? What are our major vulnerabilities here at home? Etc.
I’d like to read the whole thing, but all these articles are for Atlantic subscribers only. When that’s true, please let us know beforehand.
For those without subscription, “here it is”:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318735/posts
There isn’t by chance a copy of Niall Ferguson’s article “The Widening Atlantic” on the internet as well?
Then again, there could be the alt/future history of where things stand in 2011 had we followed Prof. McBride’s recommendations following 9/11:
US goes heavy into Afghanistan, and nails OBL at Tora Bora. Unfortunately Zawahiri escapes the mountians of Waziristan. The heavy US presence in the region is trumpeted by aQ as being similar to the situation that enabled the muhajahdeen to bring down the Soviets. Recruitment skyrockets at such a chance combined with the death of OBL to nearly surpass that spike in recruits immediately following the success of 9/11.
The US installed govt of Afghanistan fairs badly at it’s attempts to gain legitimization amongst the various tribes. The heavy US invasion and presence has made efforts to disarm the various warlords impossible and many are actively working with the remnants of the Taliban. The US, not wanting to get bogged down in a quagmire like the Soviets did, focuses a quick and heavy attack on the suspected new aQ headquarters in the Waziristan region in Pakistan. 3000 US Marines and Special Forces die in the initial assualt in the cruel montainous region. Intelligence had underestimated the likelihood that local tribesmen would assist aQ, as well as the complexity of fortifications and tunnel structures available to them. After several failed assaults and taking additional heavy casualties from attacks from groups in the increasingly tumultuous Afghanistan, the US decides to end things quickly with a “rock and awe” bombing of the Waziristan region. This is successful in eliminating virtually all of aQ that had been in Afghanistan, except for those that had fled to Iraq and Iran.
Unfortunately, the nearly 30,000 deaths of women and children in the bombing and the presence of US troops in Pakistan sets off a chain reaction that leads to the assassination of Musharraf and an aQ backed coup in Pakistan. Tensions run high in India fearful of a nuclear attack, a pre-emptive strike is considered as the new year arrives.
I’ll save 2002 and on for a later time, but you can see how easily you can paint any decision into a corner.
Clarke’s piece is of course, not without merit as it put things on the table that we must consider, from non-arab looking muslim terrorists to the benfits/costs discussion of a national ID card. But it seems almost childlike in its painting all bad things stemming from us not doing what he thought we should. At times I was confused whether measures taken after each attack were instances of what we should have done earlier, or a bleak future image of what we have now wrought.
The most glaring absence i found in the piece was that there was barely a mention of attacks in Europe, or what had been done to stop them by the EU. I give it a C+.
Apparently the folks at Free Republic don’t care much for the Atlantic subscription rates, “The Widening Atlantic”:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318120/posts
As AL said, whether or not you agree with the basic premise of Fallows’ piece, it has to be part of the debate. As one who did not support the Iraq war and often has had difficulty justifying my decision in an articulate manner, Fallows has been a tremendous resource.
It certainly beats counterproductive talk like “James Fallows is a hack”, which contributes nothing but bitterness and partisan rancor.
Nice! Thank you chthus! And Freerepublic!
When reading something like Clarke, I always wonder how smart it is to write such a detailed piece. Richard Clarke is pretty clever, and a lot of terrorists/nihilists aren’t. “Movies don’t make psychos, they just make psychos more creative”, and all that.
Hitler didn’t have action films or horror films.
At the end of the piece, rouben, Clarke notes that the bad guys already have plenty of detailed plans, and don’t need any help from him.
Cthus is right, seeing what the history of British involvement in the NorthWest Frontier
was like; from 1838-1947; http; wikipedia.
North West Frontier. It is telling that Mr.
Scheur, the Jim Angleton of Al Queda, or
possibly the St. John Philby of such, and
Richard Clarke, seemed to be at odds with
each other. Some of the measures, Clarke,
has suggested have merit, when Bush has moved
toward some level of profiling, we have seen
the reactions of which. We have seen how active
investigations of the Detroit cell, have been
rebuffed; despite the fact, that the Las Vegas
casings, came from them. Ferguson, the Academic
Kipling, whose views on pro-active counter
insurgency are even more radical and hence less
likely to receive a hearing in Europe, really
does a disservice, by his piece in the Atlantic
as long as his Henry V take on Bush in Vanity
Fair.
Hitler had “the Birth of a Nation” as his action film.
I did read the ‘Lost in the Meritocracy’ by Walter Kirn. A very candid account of the real Ivy League. There are certainly problems with these schools. They are failing in producing effective people, the graduates are either rich or professional test takers. Absolutely ineffective in getting much of anything done in my view. Almost every graduate of Kirns kind has this experience after graduating, ‘what do I do know?’. Three cheers to Kirn.
Clinton didn’t suck (as far as we know), he just sat there and took it. MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmonica.
Well he was on the phone to Arafat. Can you blame him?
Seriously: every time Clinton said Osama the Rs said Monica.
The Rs have a lot to answer for in their BJ obsession.
And I voted Bush.
Facts is facts.
#21,
University of Chicago
#8,
Let us stop thinking about what Hamas is going to do and start thinking about what we are going to do.
U. S. Grant. Well he did mention Lee.
If we stop attacking because of fear Hamas wins.
Let them fear us.
I haven’t finished reading Clarke’s piece, but I get the uncomfortable feeling that if Clarke was in charge, every dollar of our GNP would be used to stop terrorism, with each new expenditure giving terrorist an incentive to look for new weaknesses, creating the need for additional expenditures.