Clarke has to be taken in the context of the times.
During the Clinton Administration, we were a fat happy, self-obsessed, hedonistic nation making money hands over fist during the irrational exuberance of the stock market tech bubble. Interest rates and the price of oil were low, the budget was in surplus, the economic cycle was a thing of the past, and the biggest political issue was whether Monica's dress would ever be DNA-tested. In other words, life was good and it was going to get better. The Clinton Administration gave security and foreign policy issues less emphasis because there was no overarching sense of threat. We were protected by two oceans and no one had yet dared to attack us at home. How could such an attack be mounted?
If an impolitic, rude, difficult, workaholic crank with a single-minded agenda that called for serious steps to be taken to stop Al Qaeda were to rock the pleasant boat that we rode in the late 90s and early 00s, it was only natural that he be ignored by policy makers.
The paramount issue, in my view, is not whether Clarke was right, but why he was not heard. Apparently, much of the reason has to do with his personality. Perhaps a different approach on his part might have helped. But don't forget to consider the context of the times, too. |
