Analysis of Against All Enemies

The pages of human history daubed in bloodshed and violence of politics and religion, in the recent past relating to World Wars I & II, the massacre of Nanking (China) is asking the crying question. How to make this Planet Earth heaven-like? The answer is simple and direct. Eyes full of understanding, heart full of love and the life that refuses conflicts-enough, these alone are enough. What happens to the political and military administration of the country, when it creates more and more enemies, in the process of its world-domineering policy?When several ‘intelligent’ persons discuss serious issues, the so-called life and death situations, consensus is the casualty. The threat of terrorism and the post -9/11geopolitical landscape is one such grim issue before the USA administration. The future of several countries depends upon the blueprints of military conquests being drafted and redrafted in the White House for implementation at the appropriate time.

Richard A. Clarke is eminently suited to write the book, Against All Enemies.He was an insider, who had advised Presidents Regan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton and George W.

Bush. He gives the account of each President’s response to the threat of terrorism, and singles out the late Bush for his lack-luster response of the threat perceived by Clarke, relating to terrorism and Al-Qaeda. He advised that terrorism needs to be given the top slot in the list of priorities, but he was cold-shouldered. His assessment was not mere wishful thinking of a political analyst, but based on intelligence reports.

After the attack of 9/11, the Bush Administration was hell bent upon crushing Iraq, a country not involved in the attacks. America did not do the right things at the right time to tackle terrorism, opines Clarke. The sapling of terrorism was nurtured by the four Presidents, and Bush decided to cut the wrong tree and allowed the tree of terrorism to grow, it is blooming with poisonous flowers now, and many such saplings have been transplanted all over the world, and their fruits are being ‘exported’ to America clandestinely, through more than one route.America has no threat of full-scale military invasion from any country, but more 9/11s and ‘Pearl Harbors’ can no be ruled out.

A small wound, if not treated well in time, has the possibility to grow into a big tumor. Medical science knows it, the political scientists of USA, ignored this simple fact-similar was the observation of Clarke, and over the period he has been proved right. Clarke had warned about Saddam Hussein to the first President Bush, but he failed to act. The consequences proved grim and critical.The anti-American sentiments were further inflamed and the situation necessitated America’s continued presence in Saudi Arabia. Clinton was seized of the issue of terrorism; he had finalized concrete plans to fight it, but was hampered with the infighting in his party and his involvement in the sex scandal.

It took the steam out of his military and political initiatives. According t Clarke, Bush hasn’t learnt his lessons even now. Another stunning revelation of Clarke is that US was readying to declare war on Iran for its role in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1966.The important shortcoming of Clarke’s book is that it is one man’s account on a series of super-sensitive issues, and he castigates all important wings like FBI, CIA, and the Military. In the recent congressional hearings he has been taken to task by the administration officials, led by Condoleezza Rice.

The veracity of his statements has been challenged. Bush offers a weak defense of a school-boy when he says apologetically that that he was not aware of the threat to the homeland.Iraq-phobia had engulfed the Bush administration so much, President Bush wanted Clarke to find out, and that was strong pressure from the President himself, the linkage between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, as the top administration led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield strongly opined, without any evidence, that such massive attacks can only be the state-sponsored attacks, and that State is Iraq. Richard Clarke has no doubts that Bush Administration shirked its responsibility concerning the internal security of America.

That Iraq was punished for the act that it did not commit.But someone needs to own the responsibility, why America is the most hated country in the world today, by the Muslim population. "Ideological infiltrations by Al Qaeda] would not inflame Islamic opinion and further radicalize Muslim youth into heightened hatred of America in the way invading Iraq has done. We and our values needed to be more appealing to Muslims than Al Qaeda is. Far from addressing the popular appeal of the enemy that attacked us, Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed, proof that America was at war with Islam, that we were the new Crusaders come to occupy Muslim land. (Clarke, p.

245-6)Clarke merely does not mention about the neglect of the Bush administration to take notice of the seriousness of the threat of terrorism, he gives concrete evidence to support his views: He says, the Oval Office was never ready with prompt responses for the incidents of terrorism happening all over the world, such as killings of 278 marines in Lebanon, the Libyan murder of 259 on Pan Am 103; no proper co-ordination between the various intelligence agencies in USA. Somewhere in CIA there was information that two known Al Qaeda terrorists had come into the US. Somewhere in FBI there was information that strange things had been going on at flight schools in the US. Could we have stopped the September 11 attack? It would be facile to say yes.

What is clear is that there were failures in the organizations that we trusted to protect us, failures to get information to the right place at the right time, earlier failures to act boldly to reduce or eliminate the threat. ”(Clarke, p. 36-8) They failed to co-ordinate with important countries like, Germany, Italy, France and even Israel; despite all the press-publicity on the counter-terrorism measures, USA has no definite plans against the acts of terrorism both internationally and domestically. Clarke mentions about an important observation he made in one of the meetings, when he was still part of the Bush administration.

He says he tried to reason out: "This office is new, you're right. Its post-Cold War security not focused just on nation-state threats.The boundaries between domestic and foreign have blurred. Threats to the U. S.

now are not Soviet ballistic missiles carrying bombs, they're terrorists carrying bombs. Besides, the law that established the NSC in 1947 said it should concern itself with domestic security threats, too. "(Excerpt…. ) In a subsequent meeting Clarke argued that “We need to put pressure on both the Taliban and Al Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, we need to target Bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the Predator. " (Excerpt….

. ) Clarke’s argument was cu short by Wolfowitz’s tough remarks, “You give bin Laden too much credit.He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist. " (Excerpt…) Conclusion: Why Bush is doing what he is doing? There can’t be any doubts about his integrity and love for his country.

Clarke has tendered his facts well, with solid proofs, and he has no motivated desires to attack the Bush administration. But “Against All Enemies” is definitely going to influence the Next President’s Election in USA, and the future world-politics. The American people are the best judges.