If you haven't followed the pre-9/11 story closely, this book provides a good introduction (but The Age of Sacred Terror is much better); if you have been following it closely, the book doesn't tell us anything fundamentally new (though there are of course lovely details), but rather confirms what we already knew:
- The Clinton administration - up to and including the president - understood very well the gravity of the terrorism threat, but was too weak to force the military, CIA, FBI to act decisively, and was unwilling to try to persuade public opinion of the gravity of the situation.
- The Bush administration - up to and including the president - wilfully, stubbornly, and arrogantly refused to understand the gravity of the terrorism threat, though they were strong enough (as Rumsfeld had already shown) to push the national security levers. They simply pushed the wrong levers up to 9/11, and again after Tora Bora.
Which is worse? For me - pre 9-11 - they are equally bad; Clinton failed to gain civilian control over the military and so conducted an unsuccessful foreign policy (except in economics where Rubin quickly gained control over the levers of power and used them effectively). Bush et al wilfully blinded themselves with ideology, and the result was the same. Nothing substantive got done. The big difference is not PRE-9/11 but POST 9/11. Here, Clinton's intellect would have understood the situation properly and the gravity of the situation would have freed his hands to act, whereas the Bush team remained blinded by ideology and sent us into the Iraq folly.
Clarke himself is kinder to Clinton than I am. His main goal was to get people in the executive branch to understand the threat and clearly appreciated Clinton's quick comprehension of the situation (and Clarke also clearly admires Clinton's formidable intellect). Clarke instead blames the bureaucracy for thwarting Clinton. I blame Clinton for being thwarted by the bureaucracy, especially the military.
I suspect many here will disagree, or not?