Decay and complacency behind the facade

[Robbien]

. . .

The CIA, usually portrayed as ruthless and omniscient, turns out to have had no spies and barely any informers in the enemy camp. Against al-Qaida, it was virtually blind and its leaders were paralysed by caution. When it did chance on two of the plotters and put them under surveillance in Malaysia in 2000, it almost immediately lost track of them.

The FBI, another supposed pillar of power, had sharp and dedicated agents around the country but their warnings were ignored by time-servers in Washington.

The bureau's computers were ancient and a barrier to the sharing of information.

The Norad military command, primed to defend against nuclear missiles, had not taken seriously the possibility that a commercial plane could be turned into a missile by hijackers.

The immigration service - so vigilant in barring some migrant workers from entry - failed to spot the hijackers' bogus passports, questionable cover stories and false statements on their visa application forms. Worst of all, the report presented a picture of a country failed by two administrations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1267542,00.html

[Miss Authoritiva]

1. This is the part I will never understand.

"But the report peered behind the facade and showed the decay and complacency of a country which assumed itself so invulnerable that it ignored a string of "blinking red" signs."

Did the government really assume the country was so invulnerable? Even after the 1993 WTC bombing? Even after the OKC bombing? Even after the bust up of the millennium plot?

I don't buy the "assumed invulnerability" line. I think it was more a cost-effectiveness analysis -- to the government, human life is cheap. I'm sure the multiple coordinated attacks must have stunned them; I'm sure the actual collapse of the Twin Towers must have stunned them, too. And the crash into the Pentagon was a supreme kick in the ass. Ultimately, the collateral financial damage was far more than they truly had bargained for.

Failure of imagination? On the part of some government officials, yes; but not all. Bureaucratic inertia? Okay, a given. But "assumed invulnerability?" No, no, no.

[bemildred]

2. I think these are just polite ways to say they didn't give a shit.

It does seem likely that the ruling class was somewhat taken aback
at the relatively precise targeting of the attacks on their
own bastions of power.

[indigobusiness]

3. The money wasted "protecting" us

could heal the world...completely.

War is a racket.

[Raster]

4. a racket in which companies like, hmmm, halliburton and carlyle...

...make a fortune. start the war, sell and maintain the infrastructure to fight the war, sell and maintain the infrastructure to rebuild after the war...