If you think about it, the smug period post-dissolution of the iron curtain coincided with the start of the rapidly accelerated decrease in military and intelligence spending by not only the US, but UK, France, Canada and any country who used to have a usable almost working submarine lying around in a port, somewhere.
In hindsight, the fact that there were no deep cover operatives within the islamic jihadist movement coupled with clearly insufficient and overwhelmed analysts poring over the tons of hard data were the real reason that the intelligence on 9/11 was 'missing in action'.
That everyone was scrambling to fill in gaps everywhere both in the military and spyland was clear for all to see, and some noble souls did answer the call voluntarily.
In hindsight, given the paranoia post 9/11, everybody had disaster scenarios everywhere, with mushroom clouds, sarin, anthrax worries on all the news channels. The media did their own flag waving for sure, but they also did a grand job of pushing panic buttons about sabotage of nuclear stations, about unprotected sea ports and cargo containers and briefcases of dirty bombs.
Given the deep paranioa of those days, is it any wonder that the intelligence community analysts would be reluctant to express doubts on any iota of worrisome data if it had a shred of real danger on it? |
