Intro

This article describes my impressions of the full 9/11 commission report. My intention was to highlight important points made in the report, and to provide my analysis and impressions of the government failures, al Qaeda’s operation, and the Commission’s recommendations. I’ve attempted to cite page numbers of most of the facts I’ve used in this report. Page numbers refer to the paperback version of the report. Your mileage may vary if you are looking at the hardcover or PDF versions.

Initial Impressions

The 9/11 Commission’s Final report focused on six themes.

  • The Events of 9/11
  • Development of Modern Terror and the US Response
  • Al Qaeda’s Preparations for the “Planes Operation”
  • US Intelligence activity responding to al Qaeda’s plot(s)
  • What went wrong
  • How to fix it

 

Chapters 1 and 9 focus on the events of 9/11. Chapter 1 focuses mostly on the hijackings and crashes, while chapter 9 focuses on the emergency services response to the WTC and Pentagon attack. The final timeline of events answers several questions that I’ve had since the morning of 9/11, including the reports of a fifth place (there was confusion surrounding American 11, some in NORAD/FAA thought it was heading to the DC area, even after it impacted into the north tower).  If you read no other parts of the report, I recommend reading chapters 1 & 9.

While I can hardly call it the Federal Government or New York’s finest moment, I think they did the best they could that day in the situation they found themselves in. The sole exception there was airport security and the CAPPS program. Several of the 19 hijackers were flagged for further scrutiny under CAPPS. Unfortunately under pre-9/11 rules all that happened was that their bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that the passengers boarded the plane. Once again, we were fighting the last war (in this case PanAm 103).

Pre-9/11 Terror & US Response

 

During the period of 1990-2000, the US experienced 2 major terror incidents on US soil (WTC in 93 and OK City in ’95) and only one of them was caused by Islamic fanatics. There were several other attacks against American interests overseas, the embassy bombings, USS Cole and Khobar Towers. Finally there was the millennium plot to bomb LAX that customs was able to catch.

 

The first unfortunate aspect of the US response is related to WTC’93. The FBI and law enforcement handled the matter so well that “it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism (p72)”. In addition the “successful prosecution contributed to the widespread underestimation of the threat… the public image that persisted was not of clever Yousef but of stupid Salameh going back again and again to reclaim his $400 truck rental deposit (p73)”.  We got lucky – only 6 people died – and as a result we got lazy.

Counterterror actions

American responses were mostly ineffectual prior to 9/11. In 1983 Regan pulled the troops out of Beirut, in response to the barracks bombing. This is “cited by jihadists as evidence of US weakness” (p96). Other prominent failures included Desert One, Black Hawk down and the subsequent withdrawal. This, in my view, left the first Bush and Clinton administrations reluctant to strike decisively against global terror.

Governmental organizations

FBI

The report goes into the organization structure of the FBI – the agency primarily thought of when fighting terror. The FBI operates under the “office of origin” (p74) system where all investigations are driven from the field offices, not from Washington. For example, the WTC investigation, and all subsequent FBI related UBL investigations, originated out of the NY field office because that is where the WTC bombing took place. As the report notes: “Field offices other than the specified office or origin were often reluctant to spend much energy on matters over which they had no control and for which the received no credit”. Furthermore FBI “priorities were driven at the local level by the field offices, whose concerns centered on traditional crimes such as white-collar offenses and those pertaining to drugs and gangs. Individual field offices made choices to serve local priorities, not national priorities” (p74).

Since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 the FBI was tasked with performing domestic counterintelligence. However counterintelligence and criminal investigations often used different tools. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) limited how warrants obtained in the pursuit of intelligence investigations could be used in criminal cases. This led to the formation of “a wall” at the FBI[1]. For information to pass between the criminal side and the intelligence side, it had to be approved by the DOJ’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR). The report shows how several times this extra layer of bureaucracy prevented investigators from putting together the pieces and getting an idea of the hijacker’s plans. One FBI Deputy Director went so far as to say “too much information sharing could be a career stopper” (p79).

FAA

Within the FAA, the focus was more on sabotage then on hijacking. The Gore Commission’s report on aviation security didn’t even mention the possibility of suicide hijackings (p83). Prior to 9/11 the FAA did have a no-fly list, but it only contained 12 names. It did not reference any lists from CIA, FBI or the State Dept. Finally the FAA approved and disseminated what is known as the “Common Strategy”. It taught compliance with hijacker’s demands, get the plane on the ground, and let law enforcement or the military handle the problem”. As the report notes (p85) reinforced cockpit doors would have done little good. One pilot said: “Even if you make a vault out of the door, if they have a noose around my flight attendant’s neck I’m going to open the door”.

DOD

The report does give credit the DOD and the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986. It restructured the military into the regional commands (like CentCom) and restructured the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The heads of the different branches are responsible for training and equipping their troops, while the regional commanders are responsible for directing operations in their fields. This has led to a much closer working relationship between the 4 branches of the Armed Forces.

Summary and Analysis of al Qaeda Operations

People & Events

·        Usama bin Ladin (UBL) – his career began in the struggle against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His involvement was mostly as a fundraiser for the mujahideen. This activity gave him key contacts he used later in raising money for al Qaeda. Shortly after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, UBL moved to the Sudan on an invitation from the then dictator. Prior to 1996 UBL was known to be a terrorist financier, not the leader of a global terror network (p108).

  • Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka KSM in the report). He was the mastermind behind the Planes Operation, Related to Ramzi Yousef (of WTC93 fame).
  • Mohammed Atta – Egyptian pilot of flight 11, Leader of the hijackers, one of the Hamburg contingent.
  • Ramzi Binalshibh – Another of the Hamburg contingent, born in Yemen. Because of this ancestry he was unable to obtain a visa to the US and thus was not one of the hijackers. He assisted KSM in funneling money to the hijackers in the US and acted as a communications relay.
  • Marwan al Shehhi – Pilot of UA 175, another of the Hamburg contingent, born in UAE.
  • Zaid Jarrah – Pilot of flight 93, another of the Hamburg contingent, born in Lebanon, formed a relationship with Aysel Senguen the daughter of Turkish merchants.
  • Hani Hanjour – Saudi, received his commercial pilot license in the US in 1999, before returning to Saudi Arabia. There he tried to get a job as a pilot but could not. Ended up in an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Piloted American Airlines flight 77.
  • Hazmi – Muscle Hijacker on flight 77
  • Mihdhar – Muscle Hijacker on flight 77

 

In late 1998 KSM formally joined al Qaeda. Shortly there after UBL approved what became known as the “planes operation”. KSM’s original plans called for 10 planes, all the 9/11 targets plus nuclear power plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state. KSM was going to personally hijack the final plane, land it, kill all the men and issue a screed about US intervention. UBL eventually approved a more limited plan that called for only 4 planes.

January 2000 – Hazmi & Mihdhar arrive in LA. They decide that they don’t like LA and move to San Diego. There they rent a place, decide they don’t like it, put in an application for another, decide they don’t like that and finally rent a room in someone’s house (p215-220).

They were sent to the US to learn English and become pilots. Neither had any language aptitude and by the end of May gave up their attempts to learn to fly (p222). Mihdhar decided to return to Yemen in June of 2000. In December of 2000 Hani Hanjour arrived in the US and was met my Hazmi. They left San Diego for San Jose to get flight lessons. Both ended up in Arizona where Hanjour got his commercial license. Both had difficulties due to language issues.

In summer of 2002 Atta, Shehhi and Jarrah arrived in the US for flight training. Atta and Shehhi were pretty incompetent at learning to fly. They changed flight schools often, were rude to the instructors, and failed many exams (p224).  Jarrah got his single engine license in August, and promptly left the country to visit Aysel in Germany.

Over the holidays the Hamburg Three left the country again, returning in early January. While they were gone they met with KSM in Bangkok. Upon returning they spent time bouncing between the Atlanta and Virginia Beach area. They eventually split up, settling in New Jersey and Florida to await the muscle hijackers.

Twelve of the 13 muscle hijackers were Saudis, the other was from UAE(p231). In interrogations KSM said that the Saudis were picked because they comprised 70% of the al Qaeda recruits (20% being Yemeni) and they had an easier time getting a visa. The muscle hijackers began arriving in the US in April of 2001(p237).

Other Countries

Iran assisted al Qaeda in not stamping passports to those traveling to Afghanistan (p240). Iraq had at times offered sanctuary to al Qaeda, there is no evidence that UBL ever took Saddam up on the offer. UBL thought his position in Afghanistan to be more secure (p66), which it was up until November 2001. The US had been attempting to put pressure on the Taliban to evict Bin Laden, but there wasn’t much we could do. It’s not like hitting them with trade sanctions would do much, and bombing them back to the Stone Age would only set them back about two weeks. Pakistan was also supportive of al Qaeda granting free travel to and from Afghanistan.

Money

Al Qaeda spent only about $400,000 - $500,000 on the 9/11 plot (p169); however it has a $30 million annual budget. Much of the money was raised by donations and siphoned off from Islamic NGOs. About two thirds of al Qaeda’s expenditures were to the Taliban for safe haven. Most of UBL’s personal assets were confiscated by the Saudis and therefore UBL didn’t fund much of al Qaeda via his personal wealth (p170). He did not make much money off of narco-trafficking, conflict diamonds or the manipulation of the stock market prior to 9/11 (p171).

Commentary

            While UBL and KSM had their acts together, the terrorists selected for the attack were flakes. Since travel was such a security issue for al Qaeda, their frequent trips home were unprofessional. Had the US put together a real terror watch list, and had INS not been asleep at the switch, one or more of the pilots could have been caught and possible given up the 9/11 plot.

 

Summary and Analysis of US Response to the al Qaeda & the 9/11 Plot

Intelligence & Covert Ops

The CIA had numerous plans to use Afghan rebels and the Northern Alliance to capture UBL. DCI Tenet nixed one in 1998. From my perspective Tenet and the WH didn’t want to stir up too much trouble. Most of their concerns were related to PR issues, but the effects of a botched mission on Pakistan were also considered (p114). Clinton approved an operation on Dec. 24th 1998; however the rebels never got a chance to get UBL.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers had connections to KSM, who in turn had connections to those believed responsible for the USS Cole bombing. At various points Mihdar and Hazmi traveled to Bangkok to meet with KSM. The FBI took notice of this, but communication issues between the CIA and FBI, and the FISA wall prevented them from flagging the hijackers as terrorists (p266).

The Counterterrorism Security Group, headed by Richard Clarke, was the White House office responsible for coordinating counter-terror policy. There was lack of direction from the CSG on how to respond to foreign threats to domestic targets (p264). A July 5th 2001 briefing to the INS, FAA, Coast Guard, Customs, from the CSG told them that they were “not to disseminate the threat information there received at the meeting” (p258). That briefing also focused mostly on threats to foreign targets, and thus the domestic agencies “did not perceive a call to action” (p264).

The change in administrations didn’t change things substantially. Clarke was kept on as head of the CSG, although he no longer reported directly to the cabinet secretaries but to their deputies. He took this to be a demotion. Much of Clinton’s intelligence staff was retained. Tenet stayed on at CIA, Clarke at the CSG, Sheldon as chairman of the JCS, and Freeh at the FBI (p200).

 

Diplomacy

The report says that while the Sudanese defense minister claimed to have offered up UBL to the US, the commission found no evidence of such an offer (p110).

From 1998 onwards the State Dept. tried to get the Taliban to get rid of UBL or turn him over to the US. It repeatedly stated that the US would hold the Taliban accountable for UBL’s actions.

It also tried to get Pakistan to put pressure on the Taliban, but with sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear tests, the US didn’t have much leverage. Within State, the India-Pakistan tension took priority over Afghanistan.

The US did attempt to get Pakistan to put pressure on the Taliban, but the Pakistani government supported the border stability the Taliban offered. Furthermore Congress placed sanctions on Pakistan after the nuclear test, tying the State Dept’s hands when if came to possible carrots.

Summer of 2001

            Chapter 8 of the report describes the intelligence received during the summer of 2001. While the volume of reports was high, very few indicated that hijackers would try and capture planes and hit major landmarks inside the US. DCI Tenet said “the system was blinking red”, but the intelligence was non-specific. Some reports indicated:

  • Abu Zubaydah was planning an attack in a country that might be Israel, Saudi Arabia or India (p255).
  • A possible hostage plot against Americans abroad to force the release of prisoners (p256).
  • Something “very, very, very, very big” was about to happen (p257).

By late July the spike in intelligence stopped (p260).

 

Response to these unspecific reports included moving visa applications from the US embassy in Saudi Arabia to local travel agencies (thus removing the number of people entering the Embassy compound). CentCom raised the force protection on troops under its command (p257). Several terrorist operatives were detained by foreign governments (p258). July 18th the State Dept issued a warning about terror attacks on the Arabian Peninsula.  On July 31st the FAA issued a report indicating a threat on the Arabian Peninsula and/or Israel. 

The commission concluded: “Most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented. Many officials told us that they knew something terrible was planned, and they were desperate to stop it. Despite their large number, the threats received contained few specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that attacks were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified “US Interests”. We cannot say for certain whether these reposts, as dramatic as they were, related to the 9/11 attacks” (p262).

Moussaoui

In mid-August 2001, the FBI was turned on to a jihadist named Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui was in Oklahoma receiving flight training. He had $32,000 in his bank account with no plausible method for explaining where the money came from. Moussaoui was arrested because he overstayed his visa. The Minnesota field office wanted to search his laptop, but they didn’t have enough probably cause for a criminal warrant. They applied to get a FISA warrant, however the best evidence they had was that Moussaoui was connected to Chechen rebels. The FBI headquarters did not make the FISA application. The Minnesota field office went to do more digging. On September 3rd they asked the British government for more information on Moussaoui. Nothing more happened on the case till after 9/11.  One telling incident reported by the commission was a conversation between the Minnesota field office and an agent at FBI headquarters. The HQ agent “complained that the Minneapolis FISA request was couched in a manner intended to get people ‘spun up’. The supervisor replied that was precisely his intent. He said he was ‘trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center” (p275).

Commentary

            We knew that UBL wanted to kill Americans based on his 1998 fatwa (47). However all previous terror attacks never generated enough outrage and interest among the general public to become primary policy concerns.

            Neither the Clinton nor the Bush Administrations ever responded to the attack on the USS Cole. Clinton waited on getting definitive proof (193) and the Bush administration felt the issue was “to stale” (202) by the time they all got settled into their new offices.

            To have effectively gotten rid of bin Laden would have required putting American troops in harm’s way. Based on the legacies of Desert One, Black Hawk down and to some extent even Vietnam, this was a risky political venture. As the current war in Iraq illustrates, even the deaths of 3000 Americans offers only a limited window of popular support for military action.

Analysis of Commission’s Recommendations

The commission makes several recommendations in the last two chapters of the book. They are broadly broken down into what to do, and how to organize the government to do it. I’ll only cover the highlights of the recommendations.

 

One telling recommendation went after the Cold War notion of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. They said: “Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not respect these principles [individual opportunity, economic freedom, the rule of law, and political openness], the US must stand for a better future. One of the lessons of the long Cold War was that short-term gains in cooperating with the most repressive and brutal governments were too often outweighed by the long-term setbacks for America’s stature and interests (p376).”

 

“Recommendation: A comprehensive US strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children’s future” (p379). There is a direct correlation between economic prosperity and economic and cultural freedom. Only by building self sustaining economies can these people move beyond violence and join the civilized world.

 

While I can agree with the commission’s foreign policy recommendations, their recommendations with regard to domestic security are somewhat suspect. I can accept a biometric screening system for foreign nationals (389); however their recommendations with regard to identity documents (390) sound like a national ID system. While for border security this is not too big a concern, the creeping reach of government programs means it will eventually be used for tracking citizen’s movements within the US. That is not acceptable, no matter how many people terrorists kill.

 

The commission does take on congress when talking about Homeland Security funding assistance, saying “it should supplement state a local resources based on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel” (p396).

 

On the organizational front the commission recommends the creation of a National Counterrerrorism Center, staffed with representatives of the various agencies. The director should have managerial authority over those serving under him. (403)

 

They also recommend the creation of a National Intelligence Director. This person will take on some of the duties of the DCI, such as “leading the intelligence community” and acting as the President’s “analyst in chief”. Currently the DCI acts in three roles, the two mentioned above, and as a cabinet level principal of a major agency. In addition the DCI is given no authority over the various intelligence agency’s budgets, limiting his ability to lead the intelligence community (p411).

 

Finally the commission recommends that the congress create a single oversight committee for all intelligence (p421).



[1] This wall was formalized in 1995 by AG Reno. Commission member Jamie Gorelick (then Deputy AG) was responsible for chairing the working group that formalized the procedures. According to the Commission’s report, Gorelick rescued herself from this part of the report.