Speaking today in front of an audience of several hundred at the Miami Book Fair International, in Miami, Florida, Richard A. Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism in the Clinton and Bush II administrations disclosed details of the inner operations and attitudes regarding national security in both.
Clarke is the author of the current not-too-distant futuristic novel The Scorpion’s Gate and is also the author of Against All Enemies:Inside America’s War on Terror.
Here’s a summary of some of his more interesting remarks as I remember them from attending his presentation this afternoon. [Cross-posted at DailyKos.]
In the Clinton administration, Clarke established the practice of holding role-playing game sessions for Cabinet and security officials, proposing possible scenarios such as how to respond to the threat of a nuclear device set to explode somewhere in DC. By way of illustration, he described himself taking the role of the “what if” moderator and testing Attorney General Janet Reno with hypotheical questions about liasing with the FBI in such an eventuality. The idea, of course, was to prepare administration officials’ minds so that they could respond rapidly in the actuality of such a threat.
While discussing his novel, he projected that within the next five years, the US should anticipate and plan for the consequences of the following possible events:
* Oil at $70 a barrel;
* The overthrow of the House of Saud;
* China securing “unfriendly” exclusive petro contracts with mid-east suppliers.
Clarke spoke frankly during a short Q&A session saying, among other things, that America calculates peak oil estimates based on information given to us by Saudi Arabian officials, but that the Saudi government forbids us to verify their reported data independently. That is to say, for all we know, they could be lying and be well past the half-way point in their oil reserves.
In response to a question about the policy of Republican character assassination of those who question administration actions and policies, Clarke’s response was mixed. He was angered that the Bush-Cheney-Rove (Elliot Abrams probably being the mastermind) machine came after him for about two weeks before giving up once they realized their efforts were doing more to boost sales of his book, Against All Enemies, than vanquishing an enemy. Clarke wished they’d kept it up for another week for added sales benefits.
Clarke insisted that it is not un-American to question the Bush-Rove WH over Iraq, debating its policies and demanding acknowledgment of its mistakes, as well as its plans to prosecute the war. In fact, it is un-American not to, saying in effect:
“That’s the way we’ve done it for 200 or so years in this country and it has worked very well. There’s no reason to change now.”
Clarke made the point that the present insurgency creating chaos in Iraq was anticipated in studies by the Army War College (among other branches of militray and civilian think tanks, and intelligence agencies) who notified the WH of their findings in a voluminous written report. The administration chose not to “hear” that advice nor the similar advice of career intelligence and Sate Dept. personnel regarding its own decisions for the Iraq War.
Regarding the debate about the withdrawl of American troops from Iraq and a timetable of same, he had this to say (paraphrasing):
“The Republican position that discussion of when to withdraw troops will encourage al-Qaeda terrorist attacks simply isn’t true. Al-Qaeda is encouraged already. Do you think they sit there and say, ‘Oh look, America is debating troop withdrawls on Capitol Hill. What can we bomb now to show them we’re encouraged by what they say?'”
Nor does Clarke accept that a discussion of troop witdrawl reveals information that could be construed as being helpful to the enemy.
“First of all, the enemy already knows all it needs to know to be effective. What information people need to have in order to talk about a withdrawl timetable from Iraq doesn’t require detailed secret information that al-Qaeda hasn’t got.”
Lastly, the argument that withdrawing our troops from Iraq will destabilize the country is specious reasoning for the following reasons: Iraq is already in chaos; Iraq is and will continue to be destabilized whether we withdraw next year, or 5 years from now; the various factions in Iraq will have to reach an accommodation through whatever means they choose regardless of the date America ends its occupation.
Finally, Clarke pointed out that Iran state-backed terrorists (responsible for the bombings of Jewish centers in Argentina in the mid-90s) and Saudi nationals, who make up most of the foreign insurgents in Iraq (particularly the suicide bombers), are the leading terrorist threats to America now. Both groups are sending operatives into Iraq and using it as a training field, gaining battle experience and bomb-making expertise. Then, after several months “training” these neo-terrorists are being withdrawn to create and develop terrorist cells abroad, in the case of Iranians, and within their own country, in the case of Saudi Arabians. Iran’s state-sponsored terrorists intend to wield influence in Iraq favorable to establishing a regime similar to their own. Saudi terrorists intend to overthrow the House of Saud.
Clarke was forthright and didn’t shirk making frank responses to direct questions. He finished his presentation by saying it will take quite some time for Americans to regain their trust of their own government after being misled, manipulated, and lied to by the present administration. Then he left to catch his flight taking him to Berlin, Germany.
