Reviews

• 良心的＜暴露本＞！

  ＜９・１１＞の１ヶ月前には、米本土に対するテロが実行されることを、ブッシュ政権の中枢は承知していたという事実を「暴露」した、ベストセラーである。＜９・１１＞については、昨年あたり、フランスなどでは「自作自演」説が盛んにもてはやされた。ただ、事の真偽は判定不可能だろうし、「真相」は今後もわかるはずがないだろう。とはいえ、本書が出版され、さらにその後、ターゲットがニューヨークやワシントンであることを示す機密文書も出てきたことから、「やらせ」説が根も葉もないものではなく、少なくとも「グレー」以上の事実であることは間違いないようである。著者自身、本書の出版には相当、心の葛藤があったようである。けれども、＜９・１１＞は世界を一変させた、歴史的な事件である。決して、闇に葬るべきではない。その意味で、著者の良心と勇気を称えたい。

• 今、米国では、もっとも話題になっている一冊！

  クラーク氏が、計7人の米大統領に仕え、その内、レーガン、ブッシュ(父)、クリントン、そして現ブッシュ政権と党派の違いを超えて4人の大統領のもと、11年間ホワイトハウス内から対テロ対策のプロとして各政権を見てきた経験をもとに、主にクリントン政権と現ブッシュ政権の対テロ対策の取り組み姿勢などを鋭く批判しています。 この本でクラーク氏は、現ブッシュ政権が9/11以前はアルカイダの脅威を真剣に取り上げず、更に直後からはアルカイダへの報復ではなく、政権内の一部閣僚が強くイラクへの攻撃を主張していた事を強く批判しています。 また、9/11調査委員会の公聴会直前の出版時期や、ブッシュ政権の閣僚がこぞってあらゆるメディアに出演してクラーク氏の人格に疑問を呈したり、本の内容の信憑性を火の出るごとく批判したこと（特にコンディ）も重なって、今や、全米ベストセラーになっています。 クラーク氏も本の冒頭で真摯に断りを入れている様に、この本は一個人から見た一連の出来事であり、史上希にみる大規模同時テロまでとその後の政権の評価に最終的な判断を読者がする上での重要な情報を提供してくれています。 最後に、付け足しですが、前半はまるでスリラー小説（トム・クランシー）を読んでいる様な緊張感があります。

• 超お薦めです！

  大抵の本は途中つまらないところがあるのですが、この本は最初から最後までへ～！そうなの～！の連続でとても楽しめました｡中東に対する知識が皆無だった私ですが、著者の丁寧な歴史背景の描写のおかげでかなり勉強できました｡私からのアドバイスとして、この本はいったん読み始めるとおもしろすぎて読むのに没頭してしまうので寝不足になるのを覚悟しないとだめだと思います｡

• 話題の本

  アメリカの議会で以前の安全保障担当者であったこの人のこの本が取り上げられ、ブッシュ政権が9月11日のテロを未然に防ぐことを怠ったのではないのかとの点が問題にされた。 この人物がアルカイダのテロをどの程度警戒していたのかについて、この本ではかなりの可能性で警戒すべきと考えていたと述べているが、ライス補佐官にあてた2002年の報告書ではそれと異なっているそうだ。 今後の推移を見つめなければならないが、大統領選挙の年なので、政権をめぐる話題の本になるだろう。

• Very interesting to read which reasons the government had to downplay the al-qaida threat. And fascinating to look into the machine of state that is geared to create saftey for the nation. so many nuts and bolts are not aligned that one wonders how long it will take before another terrorist attack. Written by an astonished insider.

• It's hard to argue that there is much new here. And it is tempting to view this as Clarke's effort to vindicate himself and secure his reputation as the world's foremost authority on fighting terrorism. But the book does tie things together in convenient and well reasoned parcels, so it is a good, solid document on the issue of Islamic terrorism. Clarke traces the arc of terrorism back to 1979 and the Revolutionary government in Iran. Afghanistan's long woes and the fall of the Soviet Union figure into the equation. He discusses the transition from state sponsored terrorism which essentially ceased at the end of the Iran-Iraq war to network sponsored terrorism of the al-Qaeda kind. Clarke establishes his credentials and his credibility. He has been a central figure working at a high level from the White House to fight terrorism since the mid 1980's. He knows the history of terrorism. He knows its motive forces. He knows the characters involved, and their modus operandi. He understands terror's consequences. He knows what it takes to prepare good responses, and understood for at least four years prior to 9/11 how woefully unprepared the US was (and is) to respond to a large scale attack. He lambastes the FBI for completely ignoring the problem of terrorism before 9/11, though he acknowledges that the problem is partly institutional. The FBI is barred by law from investigating crimes until they occur. And he admits the historical necessity of this point. He lambastes the CIA for completely ignoring terrorism before 9/11. Here again, he points out that the reason had to do with the agency's desire for self-preservation. In this case, a cold war institution fights to preserve its status a decade after its raison d'etre has ceased. And it does so not by engaging where it is needed, but by fighting bureaucratic turf wars. Hmm. He spends a full chapter discussing how he built an anti-terrorism program under Clinton. He discusses how supportive Clinton was to the idea. He shows how brilliant Clinton was in selling the program to staffers and high ranking scientists. He points to some of its victories. One such victory was the prevention of Millenium disasters. The tiny knot of people he worked with noticed that there was much 'chatter' about something happening on January 1, 2000. So alert levels were heightened. But the breakthrough was almost completely accidental. An operative on a ferry from Vancouver acted suspiciously. When confronted, he ran. His car was found packed with explosives meant to be deployed at the LA airport. His interrogation led to another cell in Jordan. A third cell failed accidentally by piling too many explosives into a small boat, causing it to sink in mid-harbor. In one way, this example illustrates how a single centralized, small group of motivated people can energize local law enforcement people to do the leg work it takes to detect terrorist acts before they occur. If this level of functionality had been in place in the Boston Airport on 9/11, we would not be discussing that date here. And this brings us to the question of subsequent failures. By July of 2001, Clarke was so fed up with the total lack of response of the Bush administration to even discuss the issue of terrorism that Clarke had asked to be reassigned to a lower status position working on cyper security. Bush had been neither capable of comprehending the danger nor interested in hearing about it. He was completely uninterested in terrorism, even though (or perhaps because) Clinton had told him it was his top priority. Bush aides were spouting ideas about state-sponsored terrorism that were products of conservative think-tank fantasy. These ideas were historical dinosaurs long before George Herbert Walker Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton. But they were the gospel and all the Bush team were believers. So arrogantly and dogmatically did they hold their prejudices that they simply would not listen to anything Clarke said. This despite the fact that Clarke was arguably the most capable, most knowledgeable, best informed, and most accomplished fighter of terrorism in the USA. It was in this as it has ever been with the Bush administration "Don't confuse us with the facts, because we already know all the answers." (My words, not Clarke's) The section on what happened on 9/11 is slim. And the ideas about what America might have done to prevent it are slimmer. Probably 9/11 would have occurred in exactly the same way had Bill Clinton been President. The thing that could have prevented it - highly qualified and motivated airport screeners - was politically impossible in the post Reagan 'shrink government until it hurts" years. Only real hurt could change this fact. In other words, the governmental problem that contributed most to making 9/11 possible was an attitude about government inherited from the Reagan years. But even if the catastrophe was inevitable based on the political climate, the response to 9/11 would have been different under another administration. Firstly, the Clinton administration would have focussed on Afghanistan. Tora Bora would have been shut down before bin Laden got there. Clarke's team had run the game plan already and planned to be there first. And the manhunt would not have stopped until bin Laden was captured. The war in Iraq would never have happened. The endless and fruitless departmental shuffling in Washington to secure de "Vaterland" ahem creata a "Homeland Security Agency" and a body of law turning the US into a police state in contravention to constitutional principles and bodies of international law would not have occurred. And in the end, America would not be doing as it is now - to quote a bumper sticker - "Making enemies faster than we can kill them."

• Excellent book. Gives an insider view.

• Richard Clarke acted as an anti-terrorism operative under four US presidents, and here he offers a compelling and revealing narrative of one of the most important periods of our lifetime. The book begins with a fascinating chapter that covers the events of September 11th, 2001. Tellingly, Rice leaves Clarke in charge of post-WTC bombing operations, and she goes to the bunker with Mr. and Mrs. Cheney while Clarke and his colleagues stay in the Situation Room, working even as they believe that they will likely be killed in a further attack. The next chapters discuss events in the Middle East, the rise of terrorism and the American response to terrorist acts during the administrations of Reagan, Bush the elder, Clinton and Baby Bush. The book documents the distinct responses to terror threats by the Clinton and Bush administrations: Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1995 designed to go after terrorist funding and another in 1998 specifically to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda, tripled the FBI counterterrorism budget, pushed for Saudi cooperation in terrorist investigations, gave major speeches about the threat of terrorism, secured additional funding for counterterrorism, intervened in Bosnia to undermine efforts by bin Laden to establish a foothold in that country, bombed al Qaeda facilities, issued orders to have bin Laden killed, created the Counterterrorism Security Group, reinforced American embassies worldwide, held dozens of Principals meetings, foiled a number of Millennium plots, and asked for a Pol-Mil plan for al Qaeda, which included planning, goals, resources, timelines and responsibilities, and was later given to Condoleeza Rice in January 2001 though it was adopted by the administration until AFTER September 11th. By 1996, knowing that al Qaeda had a presence in over 50 countries, Clinton and his people "were preoccupied with it". Clarke states that "[Clinton] had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the major new threat facing America, and therefore had greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs." In contrast, during a time of increasing alerts and chatter, George Bush went on vacation. Clarke resigned his post in frustration, and his replacement quit after a few months because the administration was still not going after al Qaeda but was instead concentrating on Iraq and was "using the War on Terror politically". More importantly, they have not been effective in making us safer since 9-11, have weakened our military capabilities, underfunded first responders, reduced civil rights, and squandered the opportunity to unite the American people and build international alliances. While firefighters dug through the rubble of WTC, Bush & Co. were already plotting to use the horrific event for their own political ends. Prince Bandar, in the news recently due to Bob Woddward's book, makes some interesting appearances here, as do Louis Freeh, George Tenet and many others. The FBI and the Pentagon come off especially badly here, but Clarke also gives a lot of credit to individuals who worked hard on this threat, including FBI agent John O'Neill, the counterterrorism expert who is the subject of Frontline's "The Man Who Knew", an excellent documentary about an agent obsessed with al Qaeda and bin Laden, who quit the FBI in frustration, went to work as head of security in the WTC and was killed on 9-11. What critics do not give credit for is that Clarke was a government employee who had built a solid 30-year career and who operated behind-the-scenes. He gave up his privacy and his livelihood, knowing full well that the Bush Slime Machine (aka Karl Rove) would try to destroy his character and his life, but he still came forward because he thought this information was so important. Furthermore, his contentions have been corroborated by other insiders. We all owe this man a debt of gratitude for his actions -- before, during and since 9-11. One thing I've not seen anyone mention is the incredible implication of the title. After dedicating the book to the murder victims of 9-11, Clarke uses the preface to discuss the Constitution. He states that the President, naturalized citizens, bureaucrats, and FBI and CIA agents all take an oath swearing to protect the Constitution "against all enemies". He says that this is our first mission, "not unnecessary wars to test personal theories or expiate personal guilt or revenge. We must also defend the Constitution against those who would use the terrorist threat to assault the liberties the Constitution enshrines . . . It is essential that we prevent further attacks and that we protect the Constitution . . . against all enemies." Wow. So Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft are some of those referred to in the title. And I couldn't agree more. What are we defending if we allow ideologues to change the essential nature of our way of life? if something is wrong, I want someone to step up and point it out, and if I were ever in trouble, I would want Richard Clarke beside me. He is a remarkably brave, competent and articulate individual, and a true hero. Incredible tale with many interesting revelations. Essential reading. Highest recommendation.

• Good reading

Purchase links