Book Review - Against All Enemies

Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror
By Richard A. Clarke
Free Press. New York, NY. 2004. 291 pages

Reading “Against All Enemies” was more of an involved experience than reading other books that currently find themselves on my rotation. It’s neither in the camp of engaging narrative nor instructional description. Reading this book felt more like a one-sided conversation with someone more knowledgeable in their field than myself. The author’s got a very conversational written voice.
That’s both the strength and weakness of the monograph. The former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism is someone who knows his material through personal experience, rather than through the historian’s craft. Clarke’s assertions are made upon personal authority rather than carefully footnoted references and his conclusions are drawn by reason alone. This makes his work more a testimonial of his experiences at the terrorism desk with four presidents, and his frustrations with the Second Bush Administration.
The main crux of the book is to tell two stories, either of which would be interesting on its own. The first is about the War on Terrorism, the discovery of Al-Qaida, the hunt for Bin-Laden, the September 11th Attacks and War on Afghanistan. The second is about the discord in the White House.
The litany of names and abbreviations to remember are difficult without a quick reference section which would have seriously helped the book. The book came out in 2004 and was timed to embarrass George W. Bush during the election against John Kerry, much like the Michael Moore film “Fahrenheit 911.” Like the film, the book has nothing positive to say about Kerry and functions instead as an attack on Bush. Clarke has little bad to say about Bush on a personal level (unlike the choice commentary reserved for Paul Wolfowitz and John Ashcroft) but focuses more on the generally hostile relationship between the elected executive staff and the permanent bureaucracy.
Clarke came to the White House under Reagan, was promoted under George H. W. Bush and came to the fore under Bill Clinton. Like many technocrats who enjoyed the favour of Clinton, he had difficulty acquiring the trust of the incoming Bush cadre. It’s quite obvious the respect and admiration with which he held former President Clinton.
His personal anecdotes of the first three presidents are interesting, especially when considering how de-politicized they were. Elections aren’t discussed, presidents come and go as though they were managers transferred from other departments. The revolving door of Secretaries of State and other advisors is a little hard to keep track of for someone who hasn’t been paying attention to politics for a long time. It’s important to remember that while policies change with newly elected factions, the departments that implement those policies represent a relatively stable group of professional civil servants. The breakdown of the relationship between the executive and the bureaucracy is a central theme in book and one that should noted by anyone looking at the trials and tribulations of the Bush years.
As someone who’s read many books and articles, heard many lectures and debates on the topic of the War on Terror, it was refreshing to read from someone who never thought to include any sociological caveats. He doesn’t bother to try and explain Islam, radical Islam, Islam in America or any such topic. He doesn’t vilify Muslims or try to mollify sensitive emotions by talking about the past glories of Islamic civilization. He assumes that the reader is mature enough to understand that Osama Bin Laden is bad but that doesn’t mean that you should go and give the swarthy-looking guy two cubicles over a rough time. It was refreshing not to be condescended to.
In the wake of the book’s original publication, there were predictable criticisms of it. Walter Pincus from The Washington Post and Louis Freech of the FBI both recalled conversations differently than were recorded in the book, but I tend to consider that two people rarely recall the same event in the same way, and I’d hope that the passages were chronicled around at least a kernel of truth. Dick Cheney said that Clarke was “out of the loop” by September 11th, 2001 and didn’t have a reliable insider opinion to put forth on the administration, while Condoleezza Rice made the opposite claim, saying that he was in the loop and trying to deflect blame for security shortfalls that led to the day’s events. Were Cheney correct, and the chief counter-terrorism advisor to the National Security Council was on the outs and not consulted prior to, during or immediately after the September 11th attacks, that certainly raises some questions. I imagine that the reality is that Clarke was frustrated at not being listened to, and that he did feel part of the blame for the monstrous security lapse on that day. At the end of the day, the lapse of security on that day was an institutional failure, not an individual’s. Clarke is trying to carry a sword and defend the honour of his institution.
The last section of the book, entitled “Right War, Wrong War” deals with the wars in Afghanistan (right war) and Iraq (wrong war.) He claims that the Bush regime dishonestly associated the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq with the attacks, and neglected the fight against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan in favour of unfinished business in Iraq. This allowed for Al-Qaida to regroup, reform and survive, and the ‘wrong war’ also drew much needed resources from the ‘right war’ and from domestic security projects.
Clarke has been portrayed as a leftist in rightist media and as a whistle blower in leftist press. In reality, Against All Enemies puts him under neither banner. He’s a lifelong Republican who was involved in a departmental (not politically partisan) pissing contest between the Executive and Bureaucratic branches of government. As for being a whistle-blower, everything in the book was public record before the pages went to press. Its timeliness has since passed the book’s significance from journalism to history, and is now a testimonial as to how governmental dysfunction not only wastes money, but sacrifices security and lives. For that reason, it’s well worth the read.