I’ll be the first to admit that what I know about America’s defense agencies comes from Tom Clancy and Dale Brown novels. But when I heard this phrase being repeatedly used in the media today, it really rubbed me the wrong way. How is it possible, even with the resources available to the FBI, armed forces, intelligence community, et cetera, to keep tabs on every possible terrorist development? In my (admittedly uninformed) opinion, it just doesn’t seem possible. There will always be more threats than we will be able to keep an eye on – we just have to keep our eyes on the biggest visible problems and hope we don’t get snuck up on by the less-visible problems. So to me, this really doesn’t seem like a ‘failure’.
So, Dopers, what do you think? Was this a failure of the intelligence community? Was this truly preventable? Or are there terrorist threats which can’t be prevented or anticipated?
(And I know we’re all extremely upset by this tragedy. I am, you are, we ALL are. But I’m really looking for opinions and hard data, not rhetoric, so I’d really like to keep this semi-civil and out of the Pit.)
Was it a failure? I’d say that much is obvious. Was it an avoidable failure? I really don’t know.
Obviously, whoever did this had enough of an organization to plan and finance it. But some of these groups are so close-knit there is almost no way human intelligence could get into them. Then again, the complaint I have heard most is that the country really hasn’t tried all that hard because we rely too much on technological intelligence.
That was my thinking also – it may have been a failure, but was it avoidable?
Of all people, Tom Clancy gave some good insights in his interview on CNN. He said (and I agree) that FBI and CIA need more human intelligence assets in the field. Rather than information-gathering using satellites, spy planes and other ‘hands-off’ technologies, it seems to me that information would be better gathered by human interaction (or that could at least provide a good complement to the information gained by technological means).
I went out of the room and came back just at the end of that bit. was it just me, or did it look like the CNN correspondent got pissed at Clancy for saying that (I heard her go a little shrill when she said ‘you want more spies?’). Was it just my imagination or did they cut him off?
Ten, I got the same impression. I think the interviewer didn’t care much for Clancy - and I can see why. I thought he had some good points and came off as very intelligent, but also kinda arrogant. I think CNN correspondents don’t like interviewing people who are capable of giving intelligent, well-thought-out, concise and to-the-point answers.
I’m glad it’s not just me… I’m trying to find a copy of that segment online. cnn.com has him from a few hours earlier, talking about how it’s hard to hijack airplanes and so on, but so far no dice.
“Kinda” arrogant? He’s a writer. He came on to talk about something he’s not as informed on as he thinks he is and decided to have a rant at the network asking him for his opinion. He blasted CNN, CNN’s reporters and, by extension, the woman herself, as if they were personally responsible for what was happening. It was extraordinarily tasteless, to use air time during a tragedy to go off on a tirade about “liberal media”, and I’m surprised he didn’t get the plug pulled sooner.
I did not think highly of Clancy before, due to his tendency to parade himself about as an expert despite only superficial knowledge, but now I think the man is positively worthless. He should limit himself to writing hack paranoia fantasies.
There was an interview on NPR this morning with a woman who I think was a former employee of the intelligence community under Clinton’s administration (not sure - - I tuned in late). Anyway, she said that it was a “failure” in the sense that the attack succeeded but that the intelligence community was not unaware that something was brewing. For one thing, they have had military bases on a higher state of alert for the past few weeks. Then again, warnings are issued all the time.
The dust is still settling on what happened. I’m sure there will be investigations into what was known and what could have been prevented or not.
I totally agree with Clancy and the other CIA types that we need more Human intelligence.
Satellites and high tech stuff get the funding because 1) the screwups of the 50s and 60s gave the CIA much less presige and power than it once had, and significant restrictions were enacted. 2) satellites tend to be of more use for conventional military, 3) they often can be funded directly through the major military branches and 4) they are safer and more predictable. Satellites don’t turn double agent on you, and they don’t get caught and create diplomatic snafus.
But even if we were adequately funding the CIA, it’s a bit hard to find islamic fundamentalists who are ready to sell out their cause for money, and it’s even harder to bring in some arab-american from Ohio and tell him to “infiltrate”. It is wrongheaded to assume that every attack can be prevented.