Before Sept. 11, America was complacent about a hateful foe.
We can learn lessons from examining our inability to come to grips with a deadly threat before the terrorist attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. The lessons can touch every segment of society, particularly the government. By examining the past, we may find ways to lessen furtue dangers.
Learning, however, can best be accomplished in a calm and objective manner. So far, America seems far from ready to pursue productive discussions about the 9-11 attacks.
The emotional nature of the subject is clear in the headlines speaking of “furor” over the existence of government reports on the al-Qaida threat before Sept. 11. That kind of language means that the discussion is more about pinning blame – perhaps on President Bush, no less – than about finding ways to do better.
It may be that, as a nation, our suffering is still too intense to undertake the kind of distanced evaluation that could prove most valuable. It’s also possible that our political system is so steeped in partisan attack that a serious study cannot be undertaken by elected officials, at least not this soon after Sept. 11. An appointed panel may be the best answer, and maybe that should wait a little longer.
Much of the discussion so far tends to glance over key points that are, nevertheless, being made by many journalists and officials. The threat existed in the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration, and in both administrations, there were efforts undertaken to deal with al-Qaida. President Clinton authorized missile strikes against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1998; Osama bin Laden may have only escaped narrowly. As the Christian Science Monitors pointed out Monday, the Bush administration had focused on the danger from al-Qaida within its first few weeks in office.
Perhaps it is all the more tragic to realize that more attempts to weaken al-Qaida were under study, but that is reality. It is all 20-20 hindsight to scream about what might have been done, if only more had been done or if something had succeeded in destroying al-Qaida.
It seems wholly proper for government officials and agencies to re-examine their own actions and make changes to tighten security and intelligence, for instance. Much of that has been occurring ever since Sept. 11. Re-examination, though, also involves the public and society generally, including the press. Did any of us take terrorism seriously enough before Sept. 11? To the degree that we were frightened, did we respond effectively?
On Sept. 9, this editorial board wrote about terror threats, but largely in the context of strengthening security on the Canadian border. We suggested that new knowledge gained from questioning Ahmed Ressam, convicted in a terror plot after being arrested at Port Angeles, “will help European and U.S. authorities head off any number of plots here, in Europe and elsewhere.” In hindsight, that assessment was terrifyingly over-optimistic.
We can endlessly kick ourselves – or, more likely, others – for not having been alert enough. Or we can try, as a country, to learn lessons and do better.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
