Having two important professions in a lifetime would usually be satisfying, but I am dismayed at seeing much of one of my professions (journalism) beating up on my other profession (intelligence) over so-called intelligence failures leading up the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Let's be honest: There were no intelligence failures.
Intelligence doesn't come wrapped up like a Tom Clancy novel with a beginning, middle and an end. Intelligence comes in bits and pieces, from numerous sources. It is collected by thousands of agents and analysts in numerous agencies over prolonged periods of time. These thousands of scattered tidbits must be pieced together to form a coherent picture.
Before the 9/11 attacks, an FBI agent in Minneapolis discovered a suspicious Muslim taking flying lessons but not wanting to know how to take off or land. That was an intelligence success. Another FBI agent in Phoenix uncovered several Muslim suspects in flight schools. That was an intelligence success. Their discoveries were ignored. That was a leadership failure.
There were numerous analysts in several intelligence agencies who had concluded that Iraq did not possess "weapons of mass destruction." That was intelligence success. They were ignored. That was leadership failure.
Others knew Iraq was not a partner in the 9/11 attacks. That was intelligence success. They were ignored. That was leadership failure.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa to check out stories that Iraq was seeking processed uranium for a nuclear-bomb project. He found no truth to the stories. That was intelligence success. The administration ignored him and launched a character-assassination attack against him. That was leadership failure.
The CIA had briefed President Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, on reports that the al-Qaida terrorist network was planning attacks in the United States and intended to hijack aircraft. That was intelligence success. The information was ignored and no effort to prevent the hijackings was made. That was leadership failure.
Had leaders combined the discoveries by the two FBI agents with the CIA report, a clear picture of the 9/11 attacks would have emerged. Not doing so was leadership failure, not intelligence failure.
To be valuable, intelligence from domestic sources must be coordinated at the top; that would entail U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft at the Justice Department. Intelligence from foreign sources must be coordinated at the top at the Pentagon by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The coordinated intelligence then must be combined at the highest level-- the White House.
All three failed. That is leadership failure, not intelligence failure.
After the political community, with backing from the journalism community, heaped blame all over the intelligence community for the failures of political leaders, those same politicians are trying to reorganize the intelligence operations to deflect blame.
The failure of much of journalism is reflected in an Associated Press news story published in the P-I on Sept. 9, which reported that seven out of 10 Americans, who get nearly all their information from journalists, blamed the failures on the CIA and nearly that many blamed the FBI or airport security.
Let's be thankful that a few journalists have been alert enough not to be caught up in the herd mentality crying "intelligence failure."
Americans should know that so-called strong and steady leadership in the war against terror is of no value when the leaders are incompetent.
We deserve better.