Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 22, 2004 Contact: (510) 632-1366
media@independent.org
9/11 Commission’s Recommendations for new Counter-Terrorism Center will not Improve Intelligence
Government Should Cut Number of Intelligence Bureaucracies, Not Increase Them, Says National Security Expert Ivan Eland
Oakland, Ca., — Although the 9/11 Commission uncovered government incompetence that should make Americans wonder if the
September 11 attacks could have been prevented and made some useful recommendations, the panel by-and-large avoided the
most important question surrounding the attacks, says national security expert Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow at the
Independent Institute. The commission correctly criticized the performance of U.S. intelligence, diplomacy, law
enforcement, aviation security and the military prior to or on that horrible day, says Eland. The commission also made
useful recommendations to safeguard American liberties-namely reform of the FBI instead of creating a dangerous new
domestic spy agency and improved congressional oversight of intelligence and homeland security agencies.
But like many government and quasi-government bodies after September 11, Eland points out, the 9/11 Commission focused
on dubious recommendations about what the government could do to “improve” its response to terrorism instead of the more
important question of what it could do to lessen the chances of an attack in the first place. For example, the
commission recommended creating a new national counter-terrorism center to coordinate foreign and domestic intelligence
on terrorism and the post of a new national intelligence director that would control the myriad of intelligence agencies
and their budgets. Like the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, however, these proposed reforms would add a
layer of bureaucracy, exacerbating the governmental coordination problems discovered by the commission itself. “To fight
small, agile terror groups, the government should cut the number of intelligence bureaucracies, not increase them,” says
Eland.
“The major flaw in the commission’s analysis and recommendations, however, was one of omission,” says Eland. “They did
not address the underlying causes of the 9/11 attacks. Dealing with the underlying causes is the only way to reduce the
chances of future terrorist attacks. In his statement, upon release of the commission’s report, Thomas Kean, the
commission’s chairman, incorrectly opined that the terrorists hate America and its policies. Even al Qaeda does not hate
America per se. The group’s statements indicate that it hates U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, especially the
U.S. government’s propping up of corrupt Arab regimes. Ending longstanding U.S. government meddling in the Middle East
would achieve more than any of the commission’s recommendations to reduce terrorist attacks on innocent Americans.”
*********
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above
article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that
the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.