Blair’s still wrong - wars have increased terrorism and Iran’s government isn't suicidal enough to start a nuclear war - nor was Saddam

Tony Blair’s repetition of claims that the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been necessary to prevent terrorism and effective in reducing the threat from it is not supported by the facts. His claims that war on Iraq was necessary to stop a WMD threat is equally empty, whether or not Iraq had any WMDs, as are his claims that ‘military action’ against Iran to produce ‘regime change’ would reduce extremism and prevent a nuclear threat.

Saddam proved in 1991, when he did have WMD, that he wouldn’t risk nuclear retaliation by using them. American generals and Israeli military historians are among those who say the Iranian government’s past behaviour shows it’s no more likely than Saddam was to invite it’s own nuclear annihilation by starting a nuclear war.

Why the war in Afghanistan is not the way to prevent terrorist attacks

The 9-11 hijackers all trained in Germany and then at flight schools in the US. Many different people and organisations from FBI agents and flight school trainers to a member of the Taliban all the information necessary to prevent the attacks.  This information included who the hijackers were, where in the US they were training, that they were planning to hijack civilian airliners to use as ‘flying bombs’ to crash into buildings and that likely targets were the World Trade Center (already hit by a truck bombing in 1993) and public buildings in New York, the White House, CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia ; and the Pentagon and that by August 2001 an attack was imminent within weeks at most.

Those sources of information included US intelligence briefing documents given to President Bush, a Library of Congress report to the US National Intelligence Council, some CIA agents, several different FBI agents in multiple warnings, a US military intelligence unit and an American flight school trainer, the Egyptian government, German intelligence and even the then Taliban foreign minister who (correctly) feared that if Al Qa’ida carried out it’s attacks it would bring the US military down on the heads of the Taliban.

In almost every case superiors ignored the warnings and ordered those involved to take no further action; in many cases they also instructed those involved not to inform other US government agencies.

Federal authorities knew even in 1998 (i.e even under Clinton) that Al Qaeda recruits were training in US flight schools.

On September 11^th two of those four sets of buildings named as likely targets by these multiple reports– the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - were hit in exactly the predicted way – with hijacked civilian aircraft. FBI agents who had identified some of the flight school trainees as Bin Laden’s people in August 2001 and asked for arrest warrants had their requests refused and their reports were not passed on by their superiors.

So when the Bush administration boasted that there had been no successful attacks since 9-11, their bluster was designed to hide the fact that if they had been at all competent in pooling and acting on the intelligence they had, September 11^th could probably have been prevented. It also ignored the fact that the Iraq war led to two terrorist attacks on it’s allies – the Madrid and London bombings – again showing that these wars made no-one any safer.

At no point in a decade of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan have NATO or the Afghan government controlled the whole territory of either country. So if the aim is to prevent terrorist groups being able to train in either of them it can’t be achieved through military force.

After 9-11, overthrowing the Taliban may have been necessary, but bombing the whole of Afghanistan, killing over 3,000 civilians in the first 6 months alone, was not , never mind systematic torture and killing of prisoners, many of whom were not involved in any violence and had no involvement with Al Qa’ida or the Taliban.

Civilian deaths are increasing year due to both Taliban suicide bombings and targeting of civilians and US air strikes and night raids.

Saddam had shown he wasn’t willing to risk a nuclear counter-strike by using WMDs

Whether Iraq had WMDs or not was always an irrelevant question as after the 1991 Gulf War, in which Saddam had dozens of chemical warheads for his scud missiles but only used conventional warheads, it was clear he was deterred from using WMDs on nuclear armed states or their allies for fear of nuclear retaliation.

This fact was recorded by Professor Joseph Nye (the head of the US Political Science association) and Professor Robert Keohane, in their book ‘After the Storm’, though they claim that why Saddam didn’t use these weapons is a ‘mystery’ (1).

I’d have thought two Professors of political science with a background in international relations might, between them, be able to figure out that governments don’t use WMDs if the response might be their own nuclear annihilation, but it seems not.

As Condoleezza Rice put it in an article written during the 2000 US Presidential election ‘if they ["rogue states"]do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration’ (2).

The one argument that invading Iraq was effective is that it brought Al Qa’ida to focus on killing Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, where they were easier targets than in a now more alert US – and where Al Qa’ida could blend in more easily in appearance and dress. The cost in lives and suffering was so vast though, that improving security and intelligence sharing in the US would surely have been more effective and saved far more lives.

 Invading Afghanistan and Iraq not only failed to address the actual problem, but gave Bin Laden exactly what he wanted. The USSR’s military suffered it’s Vietnam in Afghanistan. Bin Laden’s aim was to do the same to the US as the Mujahedin had to the Soviets. While Bin Laden is now dead, Al Qa’ida could have been defeated far more easily without three full scale wars – in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – and without the huge numbers of deaths caused.

The US National Security Strategy of 2002 stated that “The events of September 11, 2001…opened vast, new opportunities.” (see page 28)

The Bush administration saw September 11^th as a huge opportunity to achieve the policy aims successive US governments had always had – securing an export pipeline for the oil reserves of former Soviet republics that avoided Iranian and Russian influence or control; and securing US control of Iraq’s oil reserves, which it had lost after the 1991 Gulf War (an aim of  Bush and his political allies well before 9/11), plus those of Iran, which it lost control of with the overthrow of the Shah’s dictatorship in 1979 (3).

The Evidence that Iran’s rulers don’t want national martyrdom through nuclear war either

- directly or by proxy

There will be no  ‘threat’ posed by Iran developing nuclear weapons, if it does so, either, for the same reason – it won’t use them.

In 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war in which the US and most of the rest of the world was arming and funding Saddam against Khomeini’s Islamic government in Iran, a US warship – the USS Vincennes – entered Iranian waters and began exchanging fire with Iranian ships. This was as part of Reagan’s policy of protecting Iraqi oil tankers, while claiming that Iraqi attacks on Iranian oil tankers were “legitimate”. The Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, leading to the death of hundreds of civilians. Khomeini vowed revenge, but the Iranian government and military interpreted the shooting as a sign that US military forces were joining the war on the Iraqi side. This was an opportunity for national martyrdom if they wanted it. Instead the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards persuaded Khomeini to make peace (4) – (8).

This was one of the actions which has persuaded people like former US General John Abizaid (a George W Bush appointee) and Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld that we can live with a nuclear Iran, which would want nuclear weapons for the same reason our governments have – as a deterrent against attack (9) – (10).

The only use of nuclear weapons by one government on another was at the end of World War Two when the US was the only government to possess any.

There has been no example of a nuclear armed state using nuclear weapons on another nuclear armed state – not even by Pakistan’s military governments, which have had a strong Islamic ideology since General Zia’s dictatorship in the 1980s ; and which has feared Indian military attack on many occasions.

Israel has between dozens and hundreds of nuclear warheads. It’s ally America has thousands.

There are plenty of examples of states getting nuclear weapons as deterrents though.

The US developed and proposed the use of new ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons under the Bush administration, with Iran the favourite target. The Obama administration has not ruled it out. Israel also has plans for nuclear strikes on Iran (ostensibly to “take out” Iran’s nuclear programme) (11) – (13).

Van Creveld wrote in 2004 that  Iran’s government would be crazy not to want a nuclear deterrent given repeated Israeli and US threats of ‘military action’ and the US invasion of both it’s neighbours – Afghanistan and Iraq . He also pointed out that there had been repeated claims that Iran would have developed nuclear weapons in a few months or years for at least 15 years at that point – and all had proven false (14).

Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld

The US government claimed Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 12 months in August 2010. This is one of an endless series of claims that Iran will have nuclear weapons by a certain date, delivered over decades, none of which has ever come true. So far it seems to be yet another example of calling ‘wolf’ – when the wolf doesn’t exist and would be used to deter an attack rather than carry one out even if it did exist.

It’s not even certain whether Iran will develop nuclear weapons given religious rulings banning their stockpiling and use as un-Islamic and immoral by Iran’s ‘Leader’ Ayatollah Khameini, Khomeini’s successor (15).

The Ahamadinejad “wipe Israel off the map” quote was a wilful mistranslation in which he actually said he hoped "the regime that rules over Jerusalem will be eliminated from the pages of history" and clarified that he meant "Israel will be wiped out soon the way the Soviet Union was" (i.e by its own population overthrowing its government). This can hardly be interpreted as a threat of nuclear war, especially since a similar possibility was raised more recently by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert when he said that if a two state peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians could not be negotiated an Apartheid style struggle ending in a binational state with Jews a minority would probably result (16) – (18).

The phrase Ahmadinejad used has also been used every year on ‘Al Quds’ day by Iranian politicians since the 1979 revolution. Using it is more a tradition and an attempt by politicians to associate themselves with Khomeini (who first said it) as the Islamic regime’s founder than anything else (19).

 That's apart from the fact that Iranian Presidents, unlike American Presidents, are not the Commander in Chief of their country's military in theory or in practice and would never have a finger on the nuclear trigger even if Iran did develop nuclear weapons and even if he did want to use them on Israel (20) – (21).

Iranian missile tests are constantly reported as if they are unprovoked threats. In fact they are usually an attempt to deter threats of attack, as when Iran launched long-range missile tests in 2008 after Israel carried out military exercises with hundreds of aircraft openly saying they were preparations for possible attacks on Iran.

The serious threat of nuclear attack is from the US and Israel against Iran if Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons and if American and world public opinion falls for the hype.

No government has ever armed terrorist groups with WMDs or nuclear weapons either because that would be risking committing national suicide by proxy – and even that terrorist groups they can’t control might turn those weapons on them.

The idea that Hezbollah or Hamas, each of which have been elected to government and been willing to form coalitions with other parties, are some ‘end of the world’ cults that would happily bring nuclear destruction down on their own heads and those of their people to destroy Israel is also ridiculous (22) – (23).

The Risks of Action – chaos caused by war makes it easier for terrorists to operate and get WMD materials

The Blairites and the neo-cons argue that we have to make sure though – that, as Cheney put it, if there’s a one per cent chance of something so terrible happening we have to treat it like a 100% certainty. This sounds like it’s a ‘safety first’ policy. In fact it’s the most dangerous and irrational course of action, because going to war carries it’s own risks and they are serious and could result in creating the problems they are meant to prevent – including that in the chaos following ‘regime change’ weapons and even WMDs or nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorist groups or people who might sell them to them (as explosives, nuclear materials and chemical weapons components did in Iraq); that they are able to operate far more easily in that chaos; and that they may get converts across the world as a result of civilian deaths and torture of Muslims in the wars involved (24) – (27).

In 2005 Iraq's deputy minister of Industry Sami al Araji reported that “equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons”(28)

Some may suggest a proxy war, as in Libya, using a few special forces on the ground along with Iranian rebels and NATO air power. Libya is at great risk of becoming another Somalia already though.

Iran already has armed Kurdish, Arab and extremist Sunni rebel groups along with the Mujahedin E Kalq. Any overthrow of the regime by force would not only cause heavy civilian casualties and risk civil war, but if Iraq is any guide might well involve a new government running it’s own US trained torture and death squads no better than those of the Ayatollahs.

In Libya, where supposedly we had “learned the lessons” of Iraq and “avoided mistakes” made there some weapons stores were not secured any more than they had been in Iraq – and as in Iraq – no-one knows who now has many of these weapons. Reports from UN agencies based on unidentified sources say chemical and nuclear stockpiles have been secured in Libya. Let’s hope so. The previous “confirmation” by the International Criminal Court that Saif Gaddafi was under arrest and on his way to the Hague turned out to be false (29)  - (30).

These are all the dangers that war is supposedly meant to avert – but going to war is far more likely to create them than to prevent them, while the much derided option of “doing nothing” about them carries far less risks in reality.

(1) = Nye , Joseph S. & Smith , Robert K. (1992), ‘After the Storm' , Madison Books , London , 1992 , - pages 211-216

(2) = Rice, Condoleeza (2000) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2000‘ - 'Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest' http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000101faessay5-p50/condoleezza-rice/campaign-2000-promoting-the-national-interest.html - cited in Chomsky, Noam (2003) 'Hegemony or Survival' , Penguin Books , London & NY 2004, pages 34 & 260 citing Mearsheimer, John & Walt, Stephen (2003) in Foreign Policy Jan/Feb 2003

(3) = CNN 10 Jan 2004 ‘O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11’, http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-10/politics/oneill.bush_1_roomful-of-deaf-people-education-of-paul-o-neill-national-security-council-meeting?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

(4) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006 - pages 170-174

(5) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(2004), ‘The Persian Puzzle', Random House, New York, 2005 paperback edition - pages 231-233

(6) = Freedman, Lawrence (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies : America Confronts the Middle East’, Orion, London, 2008, chapter 10, Pages 194-206 of hardback edition

(7) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(8) = NYT 15 Jul 1988 ‘Iran Falls Short in Drive at U.N. To Condemn U.S. in Airbus Case’,

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/15/world/iran-falls-short-in-drive-at-un-to-condemn-us-in-airbus-case.html

(9) = Forward – The Jewish Daily – 24 Sep 2007 ‘The World Can Live With a Nuclear Iran ’,http://www.forward.com/articles/11673/

(10) = CNN 18 Sep 2007 ‘Retired general: U.S. can live with a nuclear Iran’,http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-18/world/france.iran_1_nuclear-weapon-nuclear-program-nuclear-fuel?_s=PM:WORLD

(11) = Independent 02 Oct 2007 ‘US plan for air strikes on Iran 'backed by Brown'’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-plan-for-air-strikes-on-iran-backed-by-brown-395716.html

(12) = guardian.co.uk 06 Apr 2010 ‘Barack Obama's radical review on nuclear weapons reverses Bush policies’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-review

(13) = Sunday Times 07 Jan 2007 ‘Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

(14) = NYT 21 Aug 2004 ‘Sharon on the warpath : Is Israel planning to attack Iran?’,http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/21iht-edcreveld_ed3_.html

(15) = CNN 10 Aug 2005 ‘Iran breaks seals at nuclear plant’, http://articles.cnn.com/2005-08-10/world/iran.iaea.1350_1_uranium-conversion-natanz-enrichment?_s=PM:WORLD

(16) = Guardian Comment Is Free14 Jun 2006, ‘Lost in Translation’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

(17) = Iranian Television Broadcasts President Ahmadinezhad's Interview With French TV "Exclusive interview" with Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad by David Pujadas of French TV's TF2 Channel on 22 March 2007 – recorded Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 Sunday, March 25, 2007 (reproduced as second item below article on Professor Juan Cole’s website at http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

“(Ahmadinezad) Let me ask you this question: where is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics now? Was it not wiped off (the map)? How was it wiped off? We have a totally humanitarian solution for Palestine. We have said that all the Palestinians should take part in a free referendum so as to end the 60 year old war. The outcome is clear from now. It is because of the same outcome that America and Britain are refusing to yield.

(David Pujadas) Let us clarify everything. Do you really wish to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Do you have a plan for this job or are you in fact making such a prediction?

(Ahmadinezhad) Look, I told you the solution. I think the people of Palestine also have the right to determine their own fate. Let them choose for themselves, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. That is, all the Palestinians who belong to that land can participate in the referendum. I think the outcome of such a referendum is already clear. We saw what happened in last year's elections (when they voted for HAMAS).”

(18) = Guardian 30 Nov 2007, 'Israel risks apartheid-like struggle if two-state solution fails, says Olmert', http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2219485,00.html

(19) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006, (hardback edition)

(20)= Hauser Global Law School Program (New York University School of Law) Mar 2006, 'A Guide to the Legal System of the Islamic Republic of Iran' by Omar Sial' , http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/iran.htm

(21) = Time magazine 20 Apr 2006‘Iran President's Bark May Be Worse than His Bite', http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1185293,00.html

(22) =  Harik, Judith Palmer (2005), ‘Hezbollah : The Changing Face of Terrorism, I.B. Tauris, London & New York, 2005 paperback edition

(23) = Hroub, Khaled (2006), ‘Hamas : A Beginner's Guide, Pluto Press, London, 2006 paperback edition

(24) = Times 28 Oct 2004 ‘350 tonnes of high explosive looted in Iraq’,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article498870.ece

(25) = AP 31 Oct 2004 ‘2nd Site With U.N.-Sealed Arms Was Looted, Inspectors Report’,http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/international/middleeast/31chemical.html

(26) = Washington Post 11 May 2003 ‘Iraq nuclear sites reportedly looted’,http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-11/news/0305110454_1_nuclear-bomb-looted-iraq

(27) = AP Worldstream 31 Oct 2004 ‘Iraq Looted Chemical Site’, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-101900373.html

(28) = NYT 13 Mar 2005 'Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says', http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html

(29) = guardian.co.uk  02 Sep 2011 ‘Libya warned smugglers are looting Gaddafi's guns - West fears heatseeking surface-to-air missiles will fall into terrorists' hands’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/west-warns-smugglers-looting-libya-arms

(30) = AP foreign 07 Sep 2011 ‘UN watchdog says Libyan chemical weapons secure’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9834687

September 11th - Did the Bush administration even try to keep Americans safe?

The amazing thing is not that there haven’t been more September Eleventh’s , but that the 9/11 attacks succeeded partly because the Bush administration took no action to try to prevent them, despite many specific and detailed warnings from the FBI and it’s agents, the CIA, flight school instructors and foreign intelligence agencies. Whether through sheer incompetence or due to cynicism and dubious motives the Bush administration did nothing to try to prevent the worst terrorist attack in American history – and then tell people they’ve ‘kept Americans safe’ because they weren’t grossly negligent in allowing thousands of deaths a second time.

Either way the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party represented by people like Cheney and former CIA director James Woolsey (now an adviser to John McCain) failed to even attempt to prevent 9/11 and don’t deserve to be re-elected. The same goes for the hard-right Christian fundamentalist wing represented by Sarah Palin, John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

Why were FBI agents also ordered by the Clinton and Bush administrations not to continue investigations into extreme Muslim groups operating in the US which were receiving money from the Saudi monarchy?

There are similar questions to be asked about why warnings from two informants working for the FBI inside a jihadist cell in the US in 1993 were ignored by the FBI under the Clinton administration, allowing the 1993 truck-bombing of the World Trade Center to succeed. .

Laura Bush at this year’s Republican National Convention was just one in a long line of politicians and journalists to repeat the claim that “President Bush has kept the American people safe” since 9-11 (1). Amazingly polls show the endless repetition of this line has convinced 65% of Americans that that’s the real issue. The real issue though isn’t why there hasn’t been another September 11th. The real issue is why there was a first September 11th – and why first the Clinton administration and then the Bush administration, despite many specific and detailed warnings from FBI agents, the CIA, flight school instructors and foreign intelligence agencies (detailed below with full sources) took no action whatsoever to improve airport security or security on domestic flights, no action to arrest September 11th plotters who flight school trainers told them were asking to learn how to fly but not how to land. The FBI under Clinton also failed to prevent the 1993 truck-bombing of the World Trade Center despite being given full information on the plot and offers to help them prevent it from two informants inside an Islamic extremist group. There are many other questions. Why was a US military intelligence unit which had identified an Al Qaeda cell in the US directed by its superiors in the Pentagon not to pass the information on to the FBI or the police? Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft not even list counter-terrorism in his memo list of departmental priorities to his employees? Why did the Bush administration ignore warnings from out-going counter-terrorism officials? Why did the Clinton administration and senior FBI officers similarly ignore detailed intelligence from a spy working for the FBI inside the jihadist cell which subsequently carried out the 1993 truck-bombing of the world trade center.

Four days after September 11th President Bush claimed “we're facing a new kind of enemy…No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people”(White House Press Release 15th Sep 2001 ‘Remarks by the President Upon Arrival - The South Lawn’, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html)
American journalist James Bovard in his book ‘Terrorism and Tyranny’ quotes White House spokesman Ari Fleischer claiming that the 9-11 attacks were “ a new type of attack that had not been foreseen” (Bovard Chapter 3, p59).As Bovard and many others have shown all these claims are false. In 1994 the Algerian Armed Islamic Group hijacked a French civilian airliner and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel tower. In 1995 police in the Phillipines shared information with the FBI and CIA about a plot by another group to hijack planes and crash one into the CIA’s headquarters in the US.

It might be objected that these were all hijackings of planes in other countries, planning to fly them to the US. The 9-11 hijackers hi-jacked planes in the US. There were repeated, detailed and specific warnings of Al Qa’ida’s training operations in the US and plans for such an attack in the US too though, from 1996 on, and in greater detail from 1998 on, coming from FBI agents, the CIA, American flight school instructors and the intelligence agencies of governments allied to the US. (Washington Post 23 Sep 2001 ‘FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools’ ; Boston Globe 15 Sep 2001 OFFICIALS AWARE IN 1998 OF TRAINING
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8671297.html )

I’ll only cover a couple of them here – to read a time-line including many of the major warnings and precedents from 1992 on click here.

In 1999 a Library of Congress report to the US National Intelligence Council warned that “suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaeda…could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the [CIA] or the White House(Source : US Joint Intelligence Committee (Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2002, being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) ‘The FBI's Handling of the Phoenix Electronic Communication and Investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui Prior to September 11, 2001’ Statement by Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff, September 24, 2002
,cited by Bovard* (2003), Ch3, p45-6 ,385)

In August 2001 a flight school instructor contacted the FBI telling them “Do you realize how serious this is? This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!”. FBI agents including Coleen Rowley and Kenneth Williams investigated and soon arrested the man in question – Zacarias Moussaoui. They then informed FBI Headquarters and told them that they had reason to believe Moussaoui was part of a larger plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, possibly the World Trade Center. They requested that HQ apply to the Department of Justice for a standard search warrant so they could search the suspect’s flat and computer. HQ refused. When it finally did apply for a different kind of warrant it didn’t include vital information provided by the agents, nor information from French intelligence confirming Moussaoui had repeatedly met members of known terrorist groups. Even after 9-11 HQ staff claimed the plot discovered by the Minessota agents was nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. The HQ staff were promoted. Rowley and Williams weren’t. (Minneapolis Star Tribune ‘Eagan Flight Trainer Wouldn't Let Unease About Moussaoui Rest’, http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11642646; USA Today 28 May 2002 ‘Letter shifts heat to FBI’,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/28/letter-fbi.htm ; Time Magazine 21 May 2002 ‘The Bombshell Memo : Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller - An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter’,
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html )

There were at least two obvious measures the Clinton and Bush administrations could have taken to make a successful hijacking less likely. One would have been to bring in new laws to improve security searches and scans of all passengers and their baggage at airports. The Clinton administration did bring in stricter regulations, but, after lobbying by the airlines, they did not apply to domestic flights within the US, only international flights. The Bush administration did not bring in any new security measures at airports even after the number of warnings of planned hijackings rocketed from June 2001 on. FBI and CIA officers and flight school instructors had been warning since 1998 that the many Arabs training at flight schools in the US were likely to include Bin Laden’s people. So the lack of any increased security on domestic flights was amazing.

The other would have been to devote more FBI and CIA agents and resources to counter-terrorism – and listen to warnings from investigating agents. The Clinton administration did increase funding for counter-terrorism and assigned more agents to it. The Bush administration actually re-assigned many FBI agents from counter-terrorism to drugs, prostitution and vice. An internal FBI memo sent by Attorney General John Ashcroft on his department’s priorities didn’t include any mention of counter-terrorism.

The third thing they could have done would have been to carry out the same security checks on Saudis entering the US as any other nationality. was on Saudis travelling to and staying in the US. Before 9-11 there were not the same security checks on Saudis travelling to the US as there were on other travellers from the Middle East. This seems to have been because the Saudi monarchy are allies of the US government. Possibly the assumption was that the Saudi government would prevent most possible terrorists getting on planes heading for the US.

According to the Boston Globe “Flight instructors in Florida said it is common for students with Saudi affiliations to enter the United States with only cursory background checks. Foreign students, who make up 80-90 percent of students at Florida's 80 or so aeronautical schools, are subjected to far more scrutiny from US State Department officials if they come from Middle Eastern nations that are less friendly with Washington than is Saudi Arabia, instructors said.”
(Boston Globe 15 Sep 2001 ‘Hijackers may have taken Saudi identities’,
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0915/Hijackers_may_have_taken_Saudi_identities+.shtml)

Under both the Clinton and Bush administrations the FBI were also directed to end investigations into organisations with Saudi links which were suspected of links to terrorist groups – such as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

Could this have had anything to do with the massive trade in arms and oil between Saudi and the US? Or the investments made before 9-11 by the Bin Laden family in the Carlyle Group, a firm which has employed former members of American Presidential administrations including former President George H W Bush?

Americans need to know that the Clinton and Bush administrations largely failed to institute basic regulations to keep them safe and ignored repeated and specific warnings that Bin Laden’s people were training in American flight schools and planning to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings. Whether the reason was incompetence or rivalry for funding and prestige between the FBI , the CIA and military intelligence, or something worse – or else a combination of the three - can’t be known for certain. What can be said is that senior FBI officers appeared to block investigations by agents before and after September 11th – and were subsequently promoted by the Bush administration. None of the investigating officers whose investigations were blocked have been promoted, despite their actions having been proven right. We also know that a report from the Project for a New American Century in 2000 – named ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ said that getting the increased military spending the report called for faster would require “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” PNAC members included future Vice President Dick Cheney and future Bush administration members Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The 2002 US National Security Strategy stated that “The events of September 11, 2001...opened vast, new opportunities.” (see page 28 of the NSS)

The best way to protect Americans from terrorism may not be to give far more people a motive to hate or wish revenge on them through wars, air strikes, occupations and torture. It may be to ensure that there’s a competent, trustworthy government in the US and intelligence and law enforcement agencies which are given motives to co-operate with one another rather than compete for recognition and funding.

Sources

(1) = CNN ELECTION CENTER ‘The Republican National Convention’
Aired September 2, 2008 - 21:00 ET,
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/02/ec.03.html

Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny : Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil’, Palgrave MacMillan, N.Y & Houndmills, U.K, 2003, paperback edition, Chapter 3

Project for a New American Century September 2000 , ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, page 51 reads "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.” , http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm and http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The National Security Strategy of the United States 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html , page 28

Washington Post 14 Apr 2004 , 'Ashcroft drawn into row over September 11', http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9653-2004Apr13?language=printer (Ashcroft rejected FBI agents request for more funds and agents to be assigned to counter-terrorism and the 9-11 commission heard that 'One day after telling the Senate that combating terrorist attacks was his highest priority, Ashcroft issued a memo on May 10, 2001, outlining the Justice Department's strategic goals that contained no mention of counterterrorism.')

New York Times 22 Dec 2001, 'Flight School Warned F.B.I. Of Suspicions', http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E5D71F3EF931A15751C1A9679C8B63 , (An instructor at a Minnesota flight school warned the F.B.I. in August of his suspicion that a student who was later identified as a part of Osama bin Laden's terror network might be planning to use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon, a member of Congress and other officials said today.)

Guardian 21 May 2002 ‘Ashcroft drawn into row over September 11’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/21/september11.usa

(He [Ashcroft] has accused his critics of undermining the fight against terrorism. But it is becoming clear that before September 11 he had little interest in counter-terrorism, and diverted resources from measures to prevent terrorism towards those aimed at more traditional targets, such as drugs and child pornography ….

On September 10 last year, the last day of what is now seen as a bygone age of innocence, Mr Ashcroft sent a request for budget increases to the White House. It covered 68 programmes, none of them related to counter-terrorism.

He also sent a memorandum to his heads of departments, stating his seven priorities. Counter-terrorism was not on the list. He turned down an FBI request for hundreds more agents to be assigned to tracking terrorist threats. )

Guardian 15 June 2002 ‘Cracks show in Bush's White House’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/15/usa.julianborger

(Mr Ashcroft, who carries the banner for the Christian right, spent his first months in office seeking to divert justice department resources from counter-terrorism to crusades against drugs and pornography. Even after September 11, scores of FBI agents have been tied up by a prolonged surveillance of a New Orleans brothel, and a crackdown was ordered against medical marijuana.)

Guardian 22 May 2002 ‘The return of politics’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/22/usa.comment

CNN 15 May 2002 ‘Senator: U.S. didn't connect 'dots' before 9/11’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/inv.fbi.terror/index.html
(FBI Phoenix memo drafted July 2002 asked if unusual number of Arab students taking flight lessons in US could be part of known Bin Laden plane hijacking plan)

Washington Post 16 May 2002 ‘Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers’,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23188-2002May15?language=printer
(Bush warned by FBI in Aug 2001 memo that Bin Laden planning to hijack planes in US)

Observer 6 Jun 2004 ‘UK spymasters shrugged off al-Qaeda recruit's warning’,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1232389,00.html
(Al Qaeda recruit warned FBI in New York about UBL’s hijacking plan in April 2001)

Washington Post 03 Jun 2004 ‘CIA Failed To Share Intelligence On Hijacker - Data Could Have Been Used to Deny Visa’,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49366-2002Jun2¬Found=true (CIA found one 9-11 hijacker met with known terrorists by late 2000/early 2001 – did not inform FBI or immigration service)

Reuters 20 Sep 2002 ‘CIA knew about 3 hijackers in 2000 - 9/11 inquiry’,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/reuters092002.html

Guardian 03 Jun 2002 ‘Hijackers 'trailed by CIA before attacks'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/03/usa.september11
(18 months before 9-11, but didn’t inform FBI or Immigration Service)

Independent 19 May 2002 ‘Bush told in August of specific threat to US’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-told-in-august-of-specific-threat-to-us-651658.html (excerpt below)

In 1996, Abdul Hakim Murad, a Pakistani terrorist convicted of trying to destroy 12 American jumbo jets as they flew over the Pacific, intended to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia. He had learnt to fly at several US flying schools, but the FBI discounted the threat of such suicide attacks.

Minneapolis Star Tribune ‘Eagan Flight Trainer Wouldn't Let Unease About Moussaoui Rest’, http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11642646

Guardian 17 May 2002 ‘US asks: just what did Bush know?’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/17/usa.september111

As far back as 1994, the French authorities foiled a plot by Algerian terrorists to fly an airliner into the Eiffel tower. The next year, the Philippine police warned the US that Ramzi Youssef, responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993, had contemplated flying a commercial plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The Independent 25 February 2004 ‘Germans told CIA of 9-11 hijacker’,
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=494788
(German gvt gave CIA name and telephone number of one of the Sep11th hijackers in 1999 - CIA did nothing)

USA Today 28 May 2002 ‘Letter shifts heat to FBI’,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/28/letter-fbi.htm

She [FBI agent Coleen Rowley] said supervisors in Washington, and one unidentified supervisory agent in particular, not only failed to respond to potentially important information, but also worked against Minnesota agents who sought search warrants against Zaccarias Moussaoui, a flight student who had been arrested on immigration charges in August. The French-Moroccan is now charged with being part of the al-Qaeda conspiracy that carried out the attacks.

A Minnesota agent who interviewed Moussaoui last August wrote in his notes that Moussaoui, 33, might be interested in flying a jet into the World Trade Center. Despite Minnesota agents' suspicions about Moussaoui — which later were confirmed by French intelligence reports linking him to al-Qaeda — Rowley said FBI headquarters refused to support a search of Moussaoui's laptop computer.
Even after the Sept. 11 attacks had begun, Rowley wrote, "the (supervisory special agent) in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Minneapolis' prior suspicions."

Time Magazine 21 May 2002 ‘The Bombshell Memo : Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller - An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter’,
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Boston Globe 15 Sep 2001 OFFICIALS AWARE IN 1998 OF TRAINING
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8671297.html

Guardian 14 Jun 2002 ‘UK spies fooled by scale of raid on US’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/14/politics.september11
(MI6 warned CIA Bin Laden attacks causing thousands of casualties imminent months before 9-11)

Independent 07 Sep 2002 ‘Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-the-taliban-minister-the-us-envoy-and-the-warning-of-september-11-that-was-ignored-607124.html (Taliban foreign minister warned US govt Al Qaeda planning major attack in US weeks before 9-11)

9-11 September 11th Warnings Ignored Timeline

Summer 1992 – Emad Salem, an FBI informant who has infiltrated an extreme Islamic fundamentalist group in the US, informs the FBI that Ramzi Yousef and others are planning a truck-bombing of the World Trade Center. The FBI don’t believe him. They reject his offer to replace real explosives with duds and fire him, before re-hiring him after the February 1993 attack which kills six people and injures around a thousand. A second informant inside the group who gave similar warnings to the FBI was also ignored (source = Bovard* 1993 p32-38)

1994 - An Algerian terrorist group threatens to fly a hijacked airliner into the Eiffel tower (Guardian 17 May 2002 ‘US asks: just what did Bush know?’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/17/usa.september111)

1996 - ‘In 1996, Abdul Hakim Murad, a Pakistani terrorist convicted of trying to destroy 12 American jumbo jets as they flew over the Pacific, intended to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia. He had learnt to fly at several US flying schools, but the FBI discounted the threat of such suicide attacks.’(Source : Independent 19 May 2002 ‘Bush told in August of specific threat to US’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-told-in-august-of-specific-threat-to-us-651658.html
)

1998 – Federal authorities ‘aware that two Osama bin Laden associates had trained in the United States as airplane pilots, possibly while operating as members of the suspected terrorist's organization….US officials were also aware that bin Laden had recruited American citizens to join his Al Qaeda terrorist group and that many of them received military and intelligence training in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Sudan. Members of the organization lived in California, Texas, and Oregon, among other states.’
(Boston Globe 15 Sep 2001 ‘Officials Aware In 1998 of Training’,
http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=training&s.author=&s.si%28simplesearchinput%29.sortBy=-articleprintpublicationdate&docType=&s.collections=bostonGlobe%3A&date=&s.startDate=2001-09-15&s.endDate=2001-09-15)

1999 - 1999 Library of Congress report to the US National Intelligence Council warns that “suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaeda…could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the [CIA] or the White House (Source : US Joint Intelligence Committee (Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2002, being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) ‘The FBI's Handling of the Phoenix Electronic Communication and Investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui Prior to September 11, 2001’ Statement by Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff, September 24, 2002, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092402hill.html
,cited by Bovard* (2003), Ch3, p45-6 ,385)

March 1999 – German intelligence gives the CIA the name and phone number of one of the future September 11th hijackers. The CIA does not attempt to put him under surveillance(NYT 24 Feb 2004 ‘C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?ex=1225252800&en=ce51b8f44bd6a30c&ei=5070 )

January 2000 – CIA agents monitor two Al Qaeda members as they go to a meeting of the terrorist group and then fly to the US where they train at flight schools on how to fly large jet planes. The CIA does not inform the FBI or immigration services (Guardian 03 Jun 2002 ‘Hijackers 'trailed by CIA before attacks'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/03/usa.september11 )

April 2000 Niaz Khan, a Pakistani with British citizenship, who claimed to have trained in Al Qaeda camps in Pakistan comes to the FBI offices in New York and warns them Bin Laden plans to hijack a Boeing 747 in the US. The FBI officers are told by superiors to ‘forget it and return him to London’, which they do.
(Sources : Observer 6 Jun 2004 ‘UK spymasters shrugged off al-Qaeda recruit's warning ‘,http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1232389,00.html ; Statement by Eleanor Hill to US JIC http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092402hill.html )

2000 to February 2001 - Members of US military intelligence operation Able Danger discover an Al Qaeda cell including 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Officers including Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer plan to inform the FBI, but military lawyers order them to cancel planned meetings with the FBI on the unlikely grounds that this would have ‘violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States’.
(New York Times 17 Aug 2005 ‘Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists’, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?pagewanted=print)

June 2001 - The Egyptian government warns the American and Italian governments of an intercepted Al Qaeda communication saying Bin Laden plans to crash a plane packed with explosives into the G8 summit meeting in Genoa. (Source : Guardian 27 Sep 2001, ‘G8 summit may have been Bin Laden target’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/27/globalisation.afghanistan )

July 2001 Anti-aircraft missile batteries are set up at Genoa airport for the G8 summit leaders’ arrival based on the Egyptian warning
(Source: Independent newspaper, Independent 20 July2001 ‘Genoa summit: Anti-aircraft guns and 150,000 protesters await world's leaders’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/genoa-summit-antiaircraft-guns-and-150000-protesters-await-worlds-leaders-678349.html)

July 2001 FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends the Phoenix Memorandum to FBI headquarters, warnings that many people, possibly linked to Bin Laden’s hijacking plot, are learning to fly at the same flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. The memo is ignored by his superiors.(CNN 15 May 2002 ‘Senator: U.S. didn't connect 'dots' before 9/11’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/inv.fbi.terror/index.html

August 2001 – A flight school instructor in Nevada phones FBI agents to warn that one of his students – Zacharias Moussaoui - wants to learn how to take off in a plane, but not to land it – and that a plane full of jet fuel could be crashed into buildings as ‘a flying bomb’ (Minneapolis Star Tribune ‘Eagan Flight Trainer Wouldn't Let Unease About Moussaoui Rest’, http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11642646)

August 2001 – Coleen Rowley and other FBI agents arrest Moussaoui, notify FBI headquarters that they believe he is part of a larger hijacking plot by Bin Laden and that the plan is to crash planes into buildings. Senior FBI HQ staff refuse their agents’ plea to request warrants from the Department of Justice to allow them to search Moussaoui’s flat and computer, even after French intelligence confirms Moussaoui’s links to violent extremist groups. When they finally agree to request a different type of warrant from the DoJ the FBI HQ staff don’t include information that their agents had requested be included, or any of the information provided by French intelligence. Even after 9-11 FBI HQ claims the plot discovered by Rowley and others was a ‘co-incidence’ and nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. The HQ staff are later promoted. (Sources : US Joint Intelligence Committee (Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2002, being conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) ‘The FBI's Handling of the Phoenix Electronic Communication and Investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui Prior to September 11, 2001’ Statement by Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff, September 24, 2002, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092402hill.html
Cited by Bovard* (2003), Ch3 ;
Minneapolis Star Tribune ‘Eagan Flight Trainer Wouldn't Let Unease About Moussaoui Rest’, http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=11642646; USA Today 28 May 2002 ‘Letter shifts heat to FBI’,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/28/letter-fbi.htm ; Time Magazine 21 May 2002 ‘The Bombshell Memo : Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller - An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter’,
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html )

6 August 2001 - A US intelligence memo, delivered to President Bush at his ranch in August 2001, stated 'Clandestine, foreign government and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America".....Al Qa'ida members - including some who are U.S citizens - have resided in or traveled to the US for years...A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks...We have not been able to corroborate...that in 1998..,Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft. Nevertheless FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.' The Bush administration made no attempt to improve airport security even after this memo and other warnings from the FBI and CIA.
(Source = National Security Archive of the United States, 'President's Daily Brief, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" 6 August 2001 (2 pp.), declassified 10 April 2004' , http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm#docs and http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf )

* = Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny : Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil’, Palgrave MacMillan, N.Y & Houndmills, U.K, 2003, paperback edition, Chapter 3