If politics were a game of puzzle then a number of pieces from the political puzzle of the United States are definitely missing right now. Up until a fortnight ago the spotlight of the commission was on National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice who had rather reluctantly and belatedly agreed to appear before the 9/11 panel members. Prior to her testimony the debate amongst commission members raged on two questions: whether the Bush administration had ignored warnings of impending terrorist attacks and whether Iraq had featured as a priority even in the early stages of the war on terrorism.
In her testimony to the commission the main thrust that has emerged is basically multi pronged, both in intent and effect. Dr. Rice can be seen as trying to simultaneously deflect criticism of the Bush administration while launching a forceful denial of responsibility for the 9/11 terror attacks, enunciating upon the administration’s efforts at building a comprehensive counter-terror strategy and most importantly, passing the buck, as it were, on the accountability for the attacks. The main focus however remained on denying the Bush administration’s responsibility for the attacks by adopting the ‘cultural’ and ‘structural’ argument to explain the same. The cultural issue reflected the administration’s inability to implement an agenda against Al Qaeda as its policy on Pakistan and in turn Afghanistan was not effective. The structural issue referred to the lack of communication and coordination between the two central intelligence agencies of the US government; the CIA and FBI.
Unfortunately for the families of 9/11 victims, it is the structural argument that has lingered in mainstream media opinion rather than the lack of conclusive versions of accountability emerging from the commission testimonies. Thus despite the fact that Dr. Rice stated the name of the now declassified Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 as ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States’, the attention has shifted from analysing pre 9/11 focus of the administration to resolving the communication gap between the CIA and the FBI.
A quick study of the recent headlines from mainstream newspapers in the United States reveals the shifting focus in the 9/11 blame game and the role of National Security Advisor’s, Condoleezza Rice’s testimony in ensuring the same. The headlines and the content pages are now concentrating on analysing how the Commission may approach the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA, the Attorney General and even the Justice Department. This pattern is striking as instead of attempting to get to the bottom of the revelations emerging from Dr. Rice’s testimony, the commission is instead concentrating on unraveling the directions indicated by Dr. Rice. Thus, in essence, it can be said that the 9/11 panel members are concentrating on resolving the structural differences existing between the primary intelligence agencies of the United States instead of studying the failures of the Bush administration to heed to repeated intelligence warnings.
Taking into account the changed and evolving terms of debate is a measure of Dr. Rice’s success. She has not only carefully deflected any criticism of the Bush administration and it’s handling of pre 9/11 intelligence but her testimony has also helped alter the focus of the Commission which has gone from questioning the White House to questioning communication and structural failures between the nation’s intelligence agencies which could have resulted in the terror attacks.
There is no denying that structural differences do exist between the FBI and the CIA but neither is it the task of the Commission to suggest remedial measures for bridging this communication gap and nor is it the sole prerogative of the Commission to concentrate solely on attributing 9/11 to communication difficulties. Unfortunately the case of the panel is developing along these very lines and any output would not be able fit in the remaining pieces of the puzzle.
In her testimony to the commission the main thrust that has emerged is basically multi pronged, both in intent and effect. Dr. Rice can be seen as trying to simultaneously deflect criticism of the Bush administration while launching a forceful denial of responsibility for the 9/11 terror attacks, enunciating upon the administration’s efforts at building a comprehensive counter-terror strategy and most importantly, passing the buck, as it were, on the accountability for the attacks. The main focus however remained on denying the Bush administration’s responsibility for the attacks by adopting the ‘cultural’ and ‘structural’ argument to explain the same. The cultural issue reflected the administration’s inability to implement an agenda against Al Qaeda as its policy on Pakistan and in turn Afghanistan was not effective. The structural issue referred to the lack of communication and coordination between the two central intelligence agencies of the US government; the CIA and FBI.
Unfortunately for the families of 9/11 victims, it is the structural argument that has lingered in mainstream media opinion rather than the lack of conclusive versions of accountability emerging from the commission testimonies. Thus despite the fact that Dr. Rice stated the name of the now declassified Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 as ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States’, the attention has shifted from analysing pre 9/11 focus of the administration to resolving the communication gap between the CIA and the FBI.
A quick study of the recent headlines from mainstream newspapers in the United States reveals the shifting focus in the 9/11 blame game and the role of National Security Advisor’s, Condoleezza Rice’s testimony in ensuring the same. The headlines and the content pages are now concentrating on analysing how the Commission may approach the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA, the Attorney General and even the Justice Department. This pattern is striking as instead of attempting to get to the bottom of the revelations emerging from Dr. Rice’s testimony, the commission is instead concentrating on unraveling the directions indicated by Dr. Rice. Thus, in essence, it can be said that the 9/11 panel members are concentrating on resolving the structural differences existing between the primary intelligence agencies of the United States instead of studying the failures of the Bush administration to heed to repeated intelligence warnings.
Taking into account the changed and evolving terms of debate is a measure of Dr. Rice’s success. She has not only carefully deflected any criticism of the Bush administration and it’s handling of pre 9/11 intelligence but her testimony has also helped alter the focus of the Commission which has gone from questioning the White House to questioning communication and structural failures between the nation’s intelligence agencies which could have resulted in the terror attacks.
There is no denying that structural differences do exist between the FBI and the CIA but neither is it the task of the Commission to suggest remedial measures for bridging this communication gap and nor is it the sole prerogative of the Commission to concentrate solely on attributing 9/11 to communication difficulties. Unfortunately the case of the panel is developing along these very lines and any output would not be able fit in the remaining pieces of the puzzle.
No comments:
Post a Comment