9/11: Never Again?

This essay first appeared in the National Journal Security Expert Blog.

This is the most painful of anniversaries. Fear, anger, anxiety -- a cocktail of emotions. The images are still vivid. This year's commemoration is especially full of angst. Perhaps because torture, Afghanistan and failed wars are creeping back into the headlines. These reflections aim to disentangle fact from myth, emotion from reason, so as to better estimate what we really should worry about and whether our current policies actually raise the risk of something horrific occurring again.

9/11 was a unique event. The perpetrators were a transnational network without a national affiliation who used hijacked civilian aircraft to attack monumental buildings in the homeland of the world's greatest power located across an ocean -- and did so with devastating effect. To describe what happened is to evoke the audacity of the project and the intensity of the reaction. Any serious appraisal, therefore, must detach itself from the powerful emotions of fear and dread as well as the horrific imagery -- to separate actuality from legend.

The critical lesson to be drawn is that the operation did not depend critically on a fixed location although facilitated by a stable base in Afghanistan. It was multinational: conceived in Afghanistan, organized in Germany and the US, and executed here by Saudis and Egyptians. The plan's stunning success should not obscure its simplicity. No innovative technology was designed, no complicated logistics were entailed, no special opportunity available or created, no great amount of cash needed. Most impressive was the dedication and emotional resiliency of the hijackers who kept their sense of suicidal purpose despite living in an alien environment.

A key to success was the equally stunning incompetence (and, let's face it, sheer stupidity) of security agencies in the target country. The 9/11 Commission's conclusion that nothing reasonable could have been done to prevent it is utter nonsense: just scanning the transparent facts makes that embarrassingly obvious. The most egregious failure was the FBI's in not following through on the two agents' reports of Middle Easterners taking flying lessons without concern for take-off or landing.

We perhaps have to live with the possibility of a conspiracy by similar extremely motivated persons. We cannot accept similar self-created vulnerability.

As to future threats, let's keep in mind the following points. Freedom to use large swaths of territory is not an absolute precondition to doing something of the same order. Technological thresholds are low whether we think of airplanes, conventional explosives or chemicals. It is fairly easy to commit terrorist acts that kill at least hundreds.

Assuming the truth of the two previous statements, the question that stands out is why so little has happened over the last eight years. Superior intelligence/police work? In the United States, not one serious plot has been exposed. The few, over-publicized cases were embryonic schemes involving marginal persons lacking the mental and morale capacity to do much of anything. In Europe, there have been a number of instances (Germany, UK, France) where plots were disrupted at very early stages -- but none came approximately close to 9/11 in capability or organization. They, too, involved marginal young men of limited competence. Major successes were scored in Pakistan to diminish severely al Qaeda's original group.

We should also note that the superior recruiting and training facilities we provided in Iraq over the past six years (plus motivation given to potential bankrollers) has not had any demonstrable effect insofar as major threats outside the Greater Middle East are concerned.

Logically, it follows that we either have overstated the size and scope of the al-Qaeda network; mistakenly assumed that the prominence of the U.S. as a strategic target relative to Middle Eastern governments was a constant for the relevant persons or groups; and/or exaggerated the ease of marshaling persons with the requisite combination of emotional strength and discipline to even consider doing something like 9/11.

The implications in terms of American policy can be simply stated. Going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan made sense. It was a partial success. Everything else that we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq (Somalia, too) has been an enormous waste of resources: human, financial, technical and political. Enhancing classic intelligence/police work in close cooperation with the services of other governments is far more valuable, far less costly -- and avoids the counter productive consequences of endless wars and occupations.

The negative effects of our policies are huge in well-known respects: motivating possible terrorists from across the region, providing the proving grounds for them to hone their skills, motivating potential funders, and alienating deeply the general population of the regime which not only favors terrorist groups but also endangers incalculably other vital interests of the United States.

Negative effects also register at home -- financial, constitutional, ethical and in feeding a dangerous mood of anger, fear and frustration.

The Real Worry

The exploiting of free floating feelings of dread among Americans for political and ideological purposes has both obscured real dangers and contributed to them. Let's drop the childish game of scaring ourselves with the likes of high school drop-out Jose Padilla and similarly I.Q. challenged riff-raff. In doing so, we are behaving like kids who conjure monsters lurking in the stairwell so as to get a thrill by toying with their self-generated fears.

The guy to think about is the reputable scientist/technician who visits the U.S. regularly, who may have an institutional tie there, who has a friend or relative in the shipping business, who has become deeply alienated and aggrieved by things we have done. He may have a close relative (direct or by marriage) who was a victim of some American atrocity in Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine. He may have developed an overwhelming urge to act destructively -- even if it is in the form of a symbolic act punctuated by an exclamation point! None of our rampaging around Southwest Asia will protect us against that scenario becoming real. Indeed, the more rampaging we do the better the odds on it happening.

When it does, Richard Holbrooke, David Petraeus, Barack Obama et al will not need 50 performance measures to "know it when they see it."

Holbrooke, speaking at the Center for American Progress on August 13, summarized administration thinking this way:

"The specific goal.....is really hard for me to address in specific terms. But I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we'll know it when we see it."

The unwitting reference is to a comment by a Supreme Court Justice in an opinion on a landmark pornography case. How apropos.

This is what passes for grand strategy in Washington these days.

Comments

[SonnyRice]

Part 2

Too scared of the American sprit I say. One nation under a god of love. A land filled with those so strong of heart no enemy could ever overcome in a fair fight. I pity them. I fear them not. I pray for their souls. I challenge any of them to a one on one. I may be old, but by God I am American and proud. I come from the land of the free, and the home of the brave. My nation has always been honorable in battle and aide. We open our land to all seeking freedom. To be an American is an honor today as in our past. No act of terror will alter our faith in mankind. It will make us cry. So hide in your caves and holes fearing freedom.

[SonnyRice]

Part 1 of 2

I found myself tearing up as I watched the event happen all over again on FOX last night. I prayed for all the victims again and slept not a wink. I remember going into the city from Long Island and picking up rubble. I was crying then too. I did not lose anyone myself, yet each and every life lost that day, deserved more then my tears. They were my countryman and innocent. Killed in the name of someone else's god. If such a god really existed I fear the planet would be empty of all life. The followers of such a god must really fear all Americans to attack the unknowing without care. They are not strong enough to stand side by side and face freedom head on. They can never win so they hide. Too cowardly to face even one of us in the open. Plotting and planning and losing. No hope of ever winning a great battle. To afraid to show their faces

[Edward Murray - Huffpost Blogger]

Great piece, Mr. Brenner.

We need thinkers thinking and thinkers writing.

I just wish we could get some thinkers in power... but that's rarely been the way over the course of humanity...

[JulieSA]

"Zubaydah sent Padilla to Pakistan to discuss the various possibilities with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who deemed the original plan to blow up American apartment buildings the most feasible option of all. He instructed Padilla and an accomplice to locate twenty high-rise buildings (preferably in New York, Florida, or Washington, DC) which had natural gas supplied to the apartments, and to rent two units in each building. The men were then to seal all openings in their rented apartments, turn on the gas, and set timers to detonate the apartments simultaneously at a later time. Mohammed paid each of the two men $20,000 for this operation and sent them on their way. "

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=703

Padilla was sent back to the US by top-level AQ . You don't think that made him at least a little dangerous?

[JulieSA]

I think that if we had broken up the 2001 plot before it took place, you would have called the would-be perpetrators low IQ riffraff, because most of them were. Atta was smart, but most of them were just there as "muscle".

And yet, look at what they did.

[seawolf77]

Bush called them "evildoers". Had I not seen it in Moore's movie I would not have believed it. I was waiting for him to look under the podium and say "They could be anywhere. We must always be vigilant." His eyes darted from side to side. " OOoooohhhhh. Boooooo. Boooooooo . Booooooo. "Here Bush stretches out his hands to scare us ala Jack Nicholson's Joker . "Boooooooo! "Maybe had little ghosts fly around his head.

[peacechants]

Al Qaeda did not have access to Building 7 or nanothermite, residue of which was scientifically proven to be present in dust samples collected on the day of the collapses. We need a new, independent, international investigation into what really happened. Our foreign policy since 2001 has likely been based upon treasonous lies.

[beelzabubbleboy]

Second!

[mergina]

How about NO MORE WARS FOR GREEDY PROFITEERING?

[lastpost]

“we'll know it when we see it."

We can bring no individuals back. What we must and can now do, is to ensure that no others join them.

[Uggg]

Mr. Brenner an attack on U.S soil could happen again, the reason 9/11 happened is because of failed U.S. policy in the middle east over many administration’s. At this time in History we as a nation are cleaning up bad foreign policy decision’s from the past.

[mergina]

The reason 9-11 attacks were so successful is because THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, remember THAT. Our intelligence community did not miss more than a dozen Arabs traveling around the country unchecked, taking flight lessons, partying in Vegas to celebrate their upcoming 'surprise' attack on this country. It certainly was a 'surprise' to most of America and the world, but it was no surprise to our intelligence community and top figures in the last administration.

[StacyJ]

Are you sure that story about them partying the night before is really true ?
Wouldn't they want to be well rested for such an important mission ?
Flying a plane at high speed into a relatively small target is very difficult, especially for people who don't know how to fly and have only taken beginner's lessons at a little flight school in Florida.
They would also need their rest in order to take over a plane with hundreds of people on board when the only weapons they have are tiny, little box cutters.

[CaptainFrogbert]

AdministrationS, decisionS -- NO APOSTROPHE!!. It's a simple plural, one thing, two thingS. Notice the "it's" in my sentence? That's because IT IS indicating a CONTRACTION of IT IS: it's.

An apostrophe as you used it would indicate a POSSESSIVE 's' which indicates something belonging to another thing, such as, "The administration's decisions,": Those decisionS belonging to or made by an administration. Note the the plural of decision, meaning more than one of them, has no apostrophe. it's a plural. No apostrophe!

Why can't Americans (no apostrophe) write American? Arrrgghhhh!

[RaisingAwareness]

OIL

[EngineerBill]

One thing I think most of us can agree on. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the damage we have done to ourselves by going to war in Iraq.

[Uggg]

if we would have put the full force of the US military in Afganastan we would have been done but the last Administration was side tracked and forgot the purpose of our militay action

[juggernaut1729]

I think you underestimate the Afghans. Nobody in history has been able to control those people without their consent. The last two superpowers who tried.... Britain and the USSR failed miserably.... and they weren't even squeamish about shedding innocent blood.

[ron46032]

We know that North Korea has nukes, and Iran may soon have them. Do you think if Saddam had still been in power, that he would not have had nukes to counter that of Iran? Oh and the global pressure put on Iran and North Korea has worked well.

[EngineerBill]

Are you saying that a secular dictator to counter the power of the religious zealots who are running Iran would have been a bad thing?

[shadowgm]

Brilliant. Overthrow a Sunni-minority dictator so he can be supplanted by a Shiite-majority 'democracy' that will inevitably seek closer ties with its Shiite neighbor: IRAN.

And none of your posturing matters since we attacked Iraq on false pretenses. Do you really think people are going to believe anything we say about Iran and North Korea?

We need something more in our national security toolbox than 'bomb the frack out of them'.

[mergina]

We lost roughly 3000 innocent lives on 9-11. We have lost nearly 7000 because of war, and the number keeps growing. Have those 7000 deaths made us safer? Not bloody well likely. Number of dead innocent lives in Iraq alone because of our wars for greed - somewhere between 90000-104000. If one thinks murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people makes us safer, that is some misguided thinking indeed.

[charlot]

The right-wing "real American" mentality says that if we're invading countries, that is making us safer. Doesn't really matter who we've invaded. By definition, being at war against someone makes us safer and obligates us to affix Chinese-made magnets to our vehicles. Praise Jeezis and pass the ammunition.

[Factonfact]

At last, someone who knows what's what in our classrooms.

Here's the deal, as I see it: Provide the OPPORTUNITY for all children to get a good education; but concentrate on those, rich or poor, who actually TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY. America cannot sacrifice its best and brightest to concentrate on those who choose not to be. Get it?

Our schools are not so much failing our children as self-interest education lobbyists and their all-too-eager media pals would have it as our children and their unconcerned or too little concerned parents are failing our schools.

[ProgressiveVoice]

I'm not sure how your post fits the article on which you are commenting, but who cares??

In two paragraphs you have managed to sum up EXACTLY the problem with our schools, something the politicians and media can't seem to do.

Ultimately, I think it all flows back to the parents, one way or another. Either the unconcerned parent failing his children, and by extension the schools or the too-involved parent that threatens to sue everyone from the teacher to the school board if her children's self-esteem is "damaged" by failure.

[Robert D. Stolorow - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, much of what has been done after going after al-Qaeda has been in an attempt to restore the grandiose illusions of invincibility shattered by the terrorist attack of 9/11. As you point out, rather than taking specific legitimate measures to keep us safer from another such attack, right-wing ideologues have for eight years been exploiting our dread of collective retraumatization to further their political aims.

[Uggg]

A pre dawn raid this morning by the FBI and NYPD on investigating of a man associated with Al-Qaida
A U.S. commando attack in Somalia has killed an al Qaeda operative who is on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists taking out Saleh Aki Nabhan believed to have part in the attacks on the U. S, embassies in Kenya and a hotel attack
It seems that some Bush policies are still in effect with this Administration and they do work. Granted G. W. Bush should have listened to G. H. Bush and not the propaganda of the U N weapons inspectors and other middle eastern countries that were not friendly with Iraq. Going after Bin Ladin was the correct thing to do.

[ron46032]

I guess that you haven't learned from the old adage that the best defense is a good offense. Although, I do agree that the Government has taken advantage of American fears to further Big Brother, and much of the "security measures" are window dressing.

[shadowgm]

As if that adage is the sum of all strategic thought.

We ignored everything from Napoleon to Sun Tzu to go into Iraq, committing our troops to a mission they are not designed to accomplish (policing a community) and ceding the initiative to insurgents.

I highly recommend Brig. Gen. Rupert Smith's book, "The Utility of Force" - he served as the British commander in Iraq, and offers both a historic and strategic context for why our mission has been less than a success.

[Helzapoppin]

Why have there been no attacks in the US since 9-11? Because 9-11 succeeded overwhelmingly in it's mission to draw the US into a prolonged and expensive conflict on Middle-eastern soil. Bin Laden learned the lesson of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Apparently, no one in Washington did. Bush took the bait like a typical trout.

As to why we need patsies like Padillo, well, what better way to conduct an unprecedented power grab and shredding of civil liberties than to have a nice stable of boogeymen ready and on-hand to keep people distracted and afraid?

[Uggg]

in the 1980's we funded the people like Bin Laden in their fight aginst the former Soviat Union and created groups like Al Qaida

[ron46032]

You're right. We should have just made glass.