Allies, critics say Clinton fell short in terror fight
Source: Boston Globe
Published: 9.21.01 Author: Brian McGrory and Michael Kranish,
WASHINGTON - The dual bombings ranked as one of the most insidious acts of terrorism ever committed against the United States: two American embassies in Africa decimated, more than 300 dead, and a shadowy prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, bragging that the battle had just begun.
So it wasn't surprising that President Clinton's words, back in August 1998, tumbled forth with uncommon fury. ''No matter how long it takes,'' he vowed, ''or where it takes us, we will pursue terrorists until the cases are solved and justice is done.''
Now, one infamous day and more than 6,000 deaths later, some in the capital are pointedly, though quietly, critical of Clinton's failure to elevate his actions toward his lofty rhetoric. Some wonder whether he wasn't distracted by the legal and political quagmire of the Monica S. Lewinsky case. And even former Clinton aides now regret that the battle with bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization was never fully joined.
''Clearly, not enough was done,'' said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. ''We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this.''
Said Nancy Soderberg, a former senior aide in Clinton's National Security Council, ''In hindsight, it wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that.''
Clinton's solution, just three weeks after the twin embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was to fire some 75 cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected nerve gas factory in Sudan.
Sudanese officials and the factory's owner have denied that the installation had anything to do with bin Laden or chemical weapons, and the company has sued the United States. Bin Laden escaped unharmed, only to have an agent tell an Arab newspaper, ''The battle has not yet started.''
To be sure, Clinton presided over the passage of two antiterrorism bills, funneled more money to the FBI and CIA, and raised the threat with foreign leaders on a world stage.
President Bush did not make a highly visible push to combat terrorism before the attacks of Sept. 11. Bush issued a strongly worded antiterrorism statement May 8, saying that Vice President Dick Cheney would oversee the development of a coordinated national effort ''so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.'' The White House was unable yesterday to pinpoint any concrete action.
Yet Clinton's terrorism policy was one of fits and starts, of good intentions that faded into inattention, allies and adversaries say.
At one point, in May 1998, prior to the embassy attacks, Clinton planned a special operations night strike on bin Laden using elite military teams, said Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who spent six years on the Intelligence Committee. A former Clinton administration official confirmed the attempt, and said the troops were deployed to a base in Europe. But the president never gave the go-ahead.
''There were arguments at the Pentagon about risks,'' said Kerry. ''I know they didn't think it was wise.''
At home, Clinton doubled the size of the FBI's counterterrorism budget, but the bureau was so slow to hire agents to combat terrorism that much of the money was never used, according to Gorelick.
An FBI spokesman said yesterday specific staffing and budget figures were classified.
''The Clinton administration basically had a very episodic approach to fighting terrorism,'' said L. Paul Bremer, chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, a Clinton-era group. ''And then it acted essentially in a feckless fashion, particularly in 1998 when Clinton used the words about a long war and his action was to send a couple of cruise missiles to destroy a couple of mud huts in Afghanistan.''
Such hindsight, even critics say, is easy. But at the time, foresight seemed plentiful. The embassy bombings were preceded by the failed 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center, then followed by the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
To be sure, US security agencies had their triumphs. Foreign terrorists were intercepted on US borders prior to the millennium celebrations and a plan to bomb US jumbo jets in the Far East was foiled.
But the talk seemed to outpace the action, critics say. Signing an antiterrorism bill on the South Lawn in April 1996, Clinton declared, ''America will never tolerate terrorism.''
Two months later, when 19 US military personnel were killed in the bombing of Khobar Tower in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, Clinton proclaimed, ''Defeating these organized forces of destruction is one of the most important challenges our country faces.''
Reports were filed, then shelved. Battles were fought in Congress for such measures as multipoint wiretapping, but lost. There was never, officials acknowledge, a sense of urgency.
In addition, one senior government official said this week that some of the highest level members of the Clinton administration asked Vice President Al Gore to take over the issue, possibly heading a high-visibility panel to push it to the front of the national agenda. It never happened.
To be sure, no fight against terrorists is easy. Bin Laden is reclusive, brilliant, rich, and so fleet that he is believed to sleep in different caves and camps throughout the week in the rugged Afghan mountains to avoid attack. His Al Qaeda network spills across 35 countries, including the United States. His troops wear no uniforms and are willing to sacrifice their lives for his cause.
As Bush has said, there are no beachheads on which to land, no capitals to attack, no armies and installations to target. Rather, it is an elusive enemy adhering strictly to guerrilla tactics, as willing to kill civilians as soldiers.
Clinton's fight had an added strain. White House officials acknowledged at the time he authorized the attack on Sudan and Afghanistan on the same August weekend in 1998 he confessed his affair with Lewinsky to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He met with national security and military advisers to plan the attacks between sessions with lawyers to prepare for his grand jury testimony.
On Monday, Aug. 17, he testified during the day, then gave a defiant speech to the country that night.
On Thursday, Aug. 20, he launched the cruise missiles, rushing back from his Martha's Vineyard vacation to the White House. For the next six months, he battled to rescue his presidency.
Soderberg and other Clinton aides, citing the president's celebrated ability to compartmentalize, bristle at the suggestion that he was so overwhelmed by his impeachment that he failed to focus on bin Laden. Others disagree.
''I think it is entirely possible that was a distraction,'' said Kerry.
Clinton, in an NBC interview this week, said, ''We did what we thought we could.'' He added: ''I made it clear that we should take all necessary action to try to apprehend him and get him. We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action.''
His aides also say that the public and its Washington representatives failed to focus on terrorism because there was never a homeland attack to rally public opinion. Said Gorelick: ''It's very hard to draw hypotheticals for people.''
''Had Clinton scrambled 1,000 airplanes and called the nation's attention to the Africa embassy bombings, I don't think he would have had the support. What if he asked for $40 billion from Congress after the bombings? We couldn't even get enough money to protect the embassies,'' said Frank Wisner, a former CIA official, undersecretary of defense, and ambassador to India during the Clinton administration.
''The one thing changed completely with Sept. 11 is the public mood,'' Wisner said. ''These are no longer matters over there, somewhere, affecting other people.''
That's true, officials said, even for the administration. Some aides told of how Clinton would read spy novels and marvel over the possibilities of an America under seige.
''We would take periodic measures, but in fairness, no one could have imagined this type of terror could be rained on America with such low technology,'' said Soderberg.
This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 9/21/2001. |
