In the wake of Richard Clarke’s revelatations about the Bush White House’s handling (or in this case, mishandling) of the war on terror, many are drawing comparisons between Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.
That makes sense, of course. It was O’Neill, a former member of Bush’s National Security Council, who said that the administration began plotting a war against Iraq almost immediately after taking office in 2001. Indeed, O’Neill characterized the administration as looking for an excuse to justify an invasion.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein is a bad person and that he needed to go,” O’Neill told 60 Minutes. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.” O’Neill added, “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”
The O’Neill analogy is fair, but for me, the more apt comparison is between Clarke and Rand Beers.
After all, Beers was a special assistant to the president for combating terrorism at the National Security Council. Like Clarke, he served under both Bushes, Reagan, and Clinton. And like Clarke, Beers was a dedicated public servant — who never sought the public spotlight — who felt compelled to come forward and tell the world that the Bush White House has not “match[ed] its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism.”
As Beers explained to the Washington Post last June, he had no choice but to quit when he saw, first-hand, that the White House wasn’t being forthright in its claims.
“The administration wasn’t matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They’re making us less secure, not more secure,” said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. “As an insider, I saw the things that weren’t being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out.”
Upon resigning, Beers also was emboldened to explain that the White House has embraced misplaced priorities.
Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is “underestimating the enemy.” It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. “The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded.”
Like Clarke, Beers believes the Bush administration has failed repeatedly at every step of the war on terror.
On Afghanistan:
[Beers] thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. “Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don’t even know what’s going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan,” he said.
On Iraq:
The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States’ counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an “ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy.”
“I continue to be puzzled by it,” said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. “Why was it such a policy priority?”
On protecting Americans against terrorism on U.S. soil:
Within U.S. borders, homeland security is suffering from “policy constipation. Nothing gets done,” Beers said. “Fixing an agency management problem doesn’t make headlines or produce voter support. So if you’re looking at things from a political perspective, it’s easier to go to war.”
The Immigration and Naturalization Service, he said, needs further reorganization. The Homeland Security Department is underfunded. There has been little, if any, follow-through on cybersecurity, port security, infrastructure protection and immigration management. Authorities don’t know where the sleeper cells are, he said. Vulnerable segments of the economy, such as the chemical industry, “cry out for protection.”
“We are asking our firemen, policemen, Customs and Coast Guard to do far more with far less than we ever ask of our military,” he said. Abroad, the CIA has done a good job in targeting the al Qaeda leadership. But domestically, the antiterrorism effort is one of talk, not action: “a rhetorical policy. What else can you say — ‘We don’t care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?’ “
Republicans critics will counter, of course, that Beers left the White House to go work for John Kerry’s campaign. That is true. But the GOP is completely mistaken when it argues that his new career as a campaign advisor on national secuirity issues makes his perspective less valuable.
Beers was not a partisan activist who had a life-long ambition to help Democrats win elections. Indeed, the Bush White House drove Beers to Kerry’s campaign through its recklessness. When Beers saw how irresponsible the president was on national security, he felt it was necessary to help defeat Bush and help the country.
[Beers] had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he “never felt so strongly about something in my life” than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry’s emphasis on national service.
Richard Clarke has not, as far as I know, decided to get involved with the presidential election, but comparing Clarke’s first-hand impressions and Beers’ first-hand impressions certainly shows some stunning similarities.