9/11 has been the subject of innumerable discussions around the world for the last few years, but nobody I had ever talked to admitted to actually reading the official commission's report. Even if you're the most partisan and cynical person in the world, and dismiss the report as propaganda, a whitewash, cover-up, hatchet-job, full of cheap-shots, or waste of time, the historical significance of the event and the commission itself makes the report vital reading. Having now read it, I am even more deeply disturbed at the level of ill-informed rhetoric coming from those who haven't.Note: the entire report is available for free online at the commission website.
The Report
Overall, I found the report excellent, with an objective tone. While mostly fact-based, there is some conjecture, but it is always clearly labeled as exactly what it is: the best guess, based on available evidence. Structurally, the report is broken out into a riveting and thoroughly detailed account of the events of 9/11 and the ensuing invasion of Afghanistan, followed by an analysis of the political, society, and intelligence failures that allowed the events to occur. The last section of the report gives a lengthy set of recommendations to reshape the entire country in response to the disaster.
The initial section, describing the events on the hijacked planes, is as captivating as any fictional thriller, with the added horror of knowing these events actually occurred. Both ABC and NBC have announced plans for mini-series based on this section of the report, although NBC has subsequently blinked and is looking to sell their project to a cable network such as HBO. I believe the formerly-at-NBC project will end up being the better one; it's produced by Ron Howard's Imagine Entertainment, and is being written by Graham Yost (who also wrote part of Band of Brothers for HBO).
Immediately following 9/11, I was prepared to accept that the attack was so audacious and unexpected that nobody could have possible predicted it: security was lax, and by all accounts the entire financial cost of the operation was less than $100,000. The commission report confirms, however, that all the warnings signs were there: they knew Bin Laden was interested in hijacking planes, and more than one intelligence analyst had worried specifically about terrorists flying hijacked planes into buildings.
The report spends a lot of time showing how the critical intelligence in the years prior to 9/11 was ignored, confused, lost, sat on, not communicated, deprioritized, and misinterpreted. Rather than coming out of left field, the report makes it clear that authorities knew such an attack was imminent. I've therefore reluctantly abandoned my position that 9/11 was not preventable.
What went wrong?
The report very diplomatically describes the disaster as "a failure of the imagination", but again notes that the government-at-large had all the pieces of the puzzle, but wasn't structured in a way that allowed it to see all of it at once. It should be stressed that the hijackers's plan was very well executed, particularly the preparation. There were numerous opportunities for it to fail, and they made some terrible decisions which were overlooked:
- the flight center where they trained notified the FBI that they had some incompetent students who were interested in learning to fly but refused to learn to land the plane
- when checking in for their fateful flight on one-way tickets, two of the hijackers did not have proper id, could not speak English, had suspicious-looking photographs, and were considered by the staff to be security risks
- Hani Hanjour was frisked when he repeatedly set off the metal detector
Vilified Hero
Like most people, I hadn't read the report when much of the finger-pointing and blame was being dished out. I had a keen interest in the subject, but after reading the report I realized just how much of the truth had been twisted for political gain and ass-covering. I'm speaking specifically about the treatment of Richard Clarke.
Throughout the report's description of the years of activity leading up to the attack, time and time again the name of Richard Clarke stands out as the only person who understood the seriousness of the situation and as a tireless servant who continually found innovative ways to get around political and bureaucratic barriers placed in his way.
I'm reminded of Roger Boisjoly, the Morton Thiokol employee who was literally standing on the table screaming at NASA to not launch the Space Shuttle Challenger the night before it blew up: he alone recognized the situation and the potential of what could happen. For Clarke to appear before the 9/11 commission and apologize for failing the American people is one of the greatest acts of humility I've ever heard of. If there was one person involved that could escape blame, it would be Richard Clarke.
Of course, this is completely at odds with opinion of Clarke held by the general public. In an effort to dodge their own culpability, the Bush administration and GOP attack-dogs launched a disgraceful smear campaign against Clarke, claiming he was "out of the loop", or that he was somehow a disgruntled employee with an axe to grind. These claims are both ludicrous and insulting: the report makes it clear that Clarke was more "in the loop" than Rice, Bush, Cheney, or Tenet, and they would have you overlook the fact that Clarke has served in the intelligence community since his appointment by Ronald Reagan.
Sadly, the current tactics of the GOP are highly successful: throw enough mud, and some of it sticks. Clarke has been effectively sidelined when he should be hailed as a national hero.
Aftermath
You may have often heard people say about something they've read that "this book changed my life", and for me, this book did. Not in a touchy-feely, new-world-outlook kind of way, but in a way much more practical.
Many survivors of the World Trade Center collapse credit their escape to the fact that they were able to locate a flashlight. Smoke and power loss made locating escape routes nearly impossible; the report details how people missed fire exits because they weren't located at the end of the hallways as expected.
After reading this, I decided that I could afford the $3.95 to have a flashlight at my desk at work. I'm only on the seventh floor, but experts will tell you that the danger in a real fire (as opposed to the smoke-less BBQs that Hollywood produces) is the smoke, not the flames. Several colleagues have noticed the flashlight, and when I explain why it's there, they go and buy their own.
2 comments:
As always, a fascinating read. I haven't read the report (yet!) but it has always seemed to me the crucial mistake everyone made was not considering the fact that the terrorists would be prepared, even eager, to die for their cause.
All traditional (pre-9/11) hijack training assumed that hijackers want to survive and advocated compliance with their demands. Security checks also concentrated on things like unaccompanied baggage and not carry-on luggage for the same reason.
Hopefully the powers-that-be are now a bit more prepared to listen to the Cassandras.
Agreed! It seems strange, now, that everyone just assumed that suicide-attacks only occurred in the Middle-East.
Further on the "traditional hijack reponse": cabin crew were trained to communicate with the cockpit in the event of a hijack. The report praises the actions of two members of Flight 11's cabin crew for going beyond their training; one of them spent 25 minutes on the phone and was able to give the seat numbers of the hijackers.
Post a Comment