Fear-Mongering? No, CYA
The Director of National Intelligence says that no operational al-Qaeda cells are known to exist in the US, although individuals appear to be raising funds for AQ's efforts here. But Admiral Michael McConnell says he worries about sleeper cells, terrorists he doesn't know exist -- and a former CIA officer says he's not just whistling Dixie:
McConnell says small numbers of al Qaeda operatives are in this country raising funds. But he said he knows of no al Qaeda cells in the country that are capable of launching a strike at this time."I worry that there are sleeper cells in the U.S.," McConnell said. "I do not know."
Michael Scheuer, who once ran the CIA's al Qaeda desk, says the Bush administration is not merely fear mongering.
"The intelligence community is being very frank about what it knows so it doesn't get Shanghaied or blamed for something that wasn't its fault, as it did after 9/11," Scheuer said.
In other words, the intel community wants to make sure everyone understands the constant danger -- but not that much has changed since 9/11. Open societies will always have vulnerabilities to terrorism, and while some can be mitigated, the best defense is a constant vigilance. We want our intel agencies to give us total protection, but without total control, all they can do is try their best to identify threats off of very subtle clues -- and as 9/11 taught us, connecting those dots become harder when open societies put obstacles in the way, whether for good reasons or not.
McConnell and Scheuer's colleagues just spent the last six years getting beaten up over the failures that led to 9/11, especially the notion that the public wasn't informed of the dangers. This time, they're not leaving that as a criticism for the future. It's not fear-mongering, but a healthy case of CYA. They want these warnings as a type of inoculation against the criticisms they have suffered in the past.
None of what McConnell said yesterday is news. McConnell gets paid to worry about the sleeper cells, although it would be easier for him if we had a visa system that tracked overstays, which might allow law enforcement to dig up a few leads in that direction. His analysis that AQ had decided to work on conventional large-scale explosives rather than wait for unconventional weapons technology to become available also qualifies as a non-headline. It's a review of what we already know about the threat from AQ; they will use whatever they can to conduct attacks that will kill many people, disrupt the economy, and shake up the political order.
We knew all of that on 9/10/01, or at least those who paid attention did. McConnell wants to make sure that everyone pays attention now.
UPDATE: Beaten, not beated, and no, I'm not from Joisey. Maybe I watched The Sopranos too often! Correction thanks to CQ commenter Leftnomore.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 23, 2007 7:37 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (10)
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 23, 2007 8:11 AM
We knew all of that on 9/10/01, or at least those who paid attention did.
I remember 60 Mintues did a story on the al qaeda threat i beleive in the summer of 2001. Don't recall who was interviewed, but it was "insider" type people saying the an attack when not an "if" but a "when."
It was pretty scary stuff. And as I recall, another aspect of the story was how this threat didn't really seem real to Americans. Most had probably heard about it. Most knew of the first attack on the WTC, but it still didn't seem real.
Obviously, Sept. 11 changed that. We won't be as surprised the next the time there's an attack, but it will still be a shock. Hopefully an attack will always come as a shock.
Posted by Jim C | July 23, 2007 8:16 AM
I can't blame the guy either. Imagine doing everything you can to protect the country, and then because of:
1) walls out up by a previous administration (Clinton)
2) a previous administration (once again... Clinton) who was more interested in tearing down our intel agencies and military.
a horrible attack happens. Then Imagine that in order to protect the idiot politicians that caused the intel failures everyone decides to blame you... Like McConnell, I'd make damn sure everyone's paying attention too!
Jim C
Posted by Jim C | July 23, 2007 8:21 AM
Tom,
Wow, we agree... LOL. Never truer words have been spoken... I hope we will always be shocked and angered by an attack. Because, IMO, when we stop being shocked and angered, we've lost our will to fight.
Posted by km | July 23, 2007 9:18 AM
Constant vigilance is nice.
However, when I go to report something, should I be requiring the transportation company and or government agency involved provide me with an indemnity and hold harmless agreement (including a defense of claims clause)?
Posted by jerry | July 23, 2007 9:35 AM
Intelligence is neither omniscient nor omnipresent. There will always be a level of uncertainty that accompanies an estimate. It is up to the policy and operational communities to take the uncertain information and make some essential decisions. We can only hope that they will choose the right course of action given the intelligence that is available to them. In the end there are still surprises out there waiting for us.
Posted by Jim | July 23, 2007 10:29 AM
Since the intel community can't be everywhere and omnipotent, it is up to citizens to report behaviour that is clearly and blatantly suspicious - like say, if a group of Muslim men (obvious Muslims due to their loudly praying to Allah in the waiting lounge) are disruptive on a flight by doing things like asking for seatbelt extenders they neither need nor actually use, insisting on changing seats, and otherwise conduct themselves in a manner which reasonable minds COULD view as representing any one of the following:a) perhaps obnoxious or annoyingly eccentric, yet nevertheless harmless conduct; OR b) a "dry run," designed to 'test' the reactions to various forms of suspicious conduct; or c) intentional 'baiting' to specifically encourage what can then be later labeled as "Islamaphobic" and/or "Racist" responses - - which of course serves to "chill" future reactions to the same or similar conduct....
One would THINK that pointing out such behaviour exhibited by members of a religion containing a deranged sub-group/faction which wishes to murder huge volumes of innocent civilians, even if suicidal methods are required to do so, would be hailed and encouraged by one and all, as representing a responsible display of civic duty.
So much so that, in order to validate such responsible civic action, and encourage it to continue, one would THINK said citizen whistle blower/watchdogs would be granted, through appropriate legislation, immunity from having to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending themselves from baseless lawsuits which may subsequently be brought by Islamist activists groups. (not to mention the potential personal danger involved with having to appear at a trial conducted by said Islamists - do YOU want to get on the stand to testify against some Iman, whose buddies can then can find out your identify? And where you and your family live and work? Be honest).
One would THINK. Unless of course, one happens to forget that the Democrats now control Congress.
Oh, yeah it will be a "shock" when the next attack occurs. Especially to all the people who say and believe that the war on terror is just a "bumper sticker;" and that doing things like wiretapping terrorists overseas communications, tracking their bank transactions (without all the details of how that is done published in the NY Times), detaining NON-UNIFORMED enemy combatants without benefit of (Constitutional, written for American citizens) domestic criminal due process...ETC., are entirely unnecessary intrusions on 'civil liberties'. And that any warning alerts coming out of the Admin are just BushHitler/CheneyHalliburton "scare tactics," fit to be mocked and certainly not to be taken seriously.
Yes, they'll be "shocked." Simply shocked. Until they gather themselves together, and work up the necessary response narrative, which will be to:
A) Blame Bush and his Iraq War as the sole "root cause" for the next attack. Even if it happens two years after he leaves office and 2.5 years after we've declared surrender and leave. Bush will be blamed (by the American Left and their friends the Islamists) for the coming muslim genocide - which he is trying to prevent by not leaving too soon, in spite of the Left's insistance that we leave right now. Irony. Gotta love it.
And of course
B)Blame America itself. Any attack, no matter how brutal and horrific (i.e., a nuke) will NOT result in the Left's calls for justice and/or retaliation - but rather calls for self reflection as to how and why the "world" hates us - and what we did to "deserve" it. Followed by abject apologies for our sins, reparations, etc. President Hilary won't be unleashing the dogs of war following a nuke attack. She'll send VP Obama on the Reconciation Reparations Apology Tour. The USA will achieve another "first" in the history of the world. We'll be the very first nation to pay reparations and institute a Middle East "Marshall Plan" in response to OUR getting attacked! Goodie, I just can't wait!
Just my crystal ball prediction of events coming our way, circa 2010-2012.
Posted by Lew | July 23, 2007 12:14 PM
There is one other built-in hazard of being in the business of keeping secrets that no one really wants to talk about, and that is that you inevitably become the biggest scapegoat in town.
Think about it, if all of the facts that you could use to defend yourself against the attacks of a bunch of corrupt politicians were classified, how would you defend yourself? You couldn't!
Well, there is one way maybe. You could keep a secret dossier on every politician in town I guess. (Gee! Can we think of anyone in the past who did exactly that? J. Edgar who?)
Posted by leftnomore | July 23, 2007 1:34 PM
"...getting beated [sic] up..."? Wow Ed, I didn't know you were from Jersey.
Posted by MarkD | July 24, 2007 10:26 AM
Well, anyone who wants to come here can walk across our southern border more than five years after 9/11.
I don't wish ill on anyone, but, if we're hit again, I hope the politicians in Washington who play games with this issue are the target.
I'm ashamed that I feel that way, but I'm outraged by the lack of seriousness shown by our "political elites."
Posted by Consul-At-Arms | July 24, 2007 6:45 PM
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-fear-mongering-no-cya.html