Maybe what we needed was a POST-9/11 Commission

9/11 Panel Blasts U.S. War on Terror

Broad Campaign Faltering, It Says [WSJ 7/26/04]

Without mentioning the Bush administration by name, the bipartisan panel said that the public was misled with a broad declaration of war against a vast amorphous global terrorist threat, when instead the enemy is a growing, but finite, number of Muslim extremists.

On the diplomatic front, it urged the U.S. to increase efforts to win over mainstream Muslims, many of whom have been deeply angered by recent U.S. actions. In particular, it calls for ... setting a better "moral" example for the Muslim world than that seen in recent disclosures of torture of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.

The commission's foreign-policy critique was noteworthy in its unanimity, supported by its five Republican members as well as the five Democrats.

The report noted that polls taken in Islamic countries shortly after 9/11 showed that many thought the U.S. was doing the right thing in fighting terrorism and had a favorable view of the U.S. But by last year, polls showed that "the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world."

It said "notable progress has been made" in Afghanistan, but noted that much of the country now is controlled by warlords. Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have regrouped in some areas and a lack of central authority has caused narcotics trafficking to flourish to the extent that experts say Afghanistan again is the world's leading heroin supplier.

Senate and House leaders have announced plans for highly unusual August hearings to draft legislation. But there is stiff opposition within the government to several of the core recommendations, including the plan to establish a cabinet-level national intelligence director. [Wall Street Journal 07/26/2004]

I have no problem with the Commission's conclusion that 9/11 was essentially everybody's fault and thus nobody's fault, since I can't see that pointing fingers would be helpful. I also like some of their recommendations

I'm doubtful, however,about the need for a new National Intelligence Director separate from what we have now (look at Tom Ridge and DHS to see why).

A reasonable approach might be to turn the National Security Council, which clearly can reach into all areas of the current intelligence community, into a non-partisan body rather than "President's men."

What do you think?

Article Author: Hal Pawluk

Visit Hal Pawluk's author page — Hal Pawluk's Blog