Paul Pillar Goes Public (Again)
Today's Washington Post reports that another former CIA official, Paul Pillar, is going public with his harsh criticisms of the Bush administration. This is, of course, not a big surprise. Langley has been a clearinghouse for intelligence officials - including Pillar - who disagree with the Bush administration's foreign policies in recent years. (e.g. Michael Scheuer) Pillar himself has long been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.
The Post's account is written by Walter Pincus, who is no stranger to anonymous CIA sources. Pincus doesn't apply any measure of skepticism to Pillar's claims and, as I discuss below, this is a problem. Pillar has a forthcoming piece in Foreign Affairs magazine and that piece is the basis for some of Pincus's reporting. Pillar rattles off the usual nonsense about how there was no connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda (insert hundreds if not thousands of facts and evidence that demonstrate otherwise here) and how intelligence officials were "subtly" pressured by the Bush administration through pointed questioning. Of course, I bet he doesn't offer any specific evidence for the latter claim.
But if Pincus had paused for even a moment to consider the work of the man he was reporting on he may have had a different take. In many ways, Pillar’s career reflects the failings of a pre-9/11 outlook on terrorism. Before Pincus reported Pillar's arguments without hesitation, he should have considered Pillar's record as a terrorism analyst.
Consider, for example, a piece Pillar wrote for the online publication Security Management in May 2001, “Is the Terrorist Threat Misunderstood?” Pillar focuses on small-scale threats to American businesses overseas and concludes:
Terrorism, especially anti-American terrorism, is here to stay. Countering it requires the concerted attention of all those who are affected by it and who stand to lose if it goes unchecked. Whether in the headlines or not, American businesses will remain in the terrorists' sights--and security managers must be vigilant in seeking ways to make their sites less vulnerable.
As Pillar makes clear in his piece, the threat to American businesses is one he perceives as almost entirely focused “on U.S. commercial interests overseas.” There is no mention of any terrorist’s desire to strike at the heart of America proper. Neither the attempt on the World Trade Center in 1993 nor al Qaeda’s millennium plot on the LAX airport, for example, weighed heavy in his thinking. Pillar was apparently not too concerned with the possibility of a terrorist strike on American businesses here in the U.S. (say, in the World Trade Center) or a strike at non-commercial American interests either (e.g. the Pentagon). Nor did al Qaeda’s then recent attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 alter Pillar’s thinking on the terrorists’ ability to strike non-commercial, military targets. [Edit: Obviously, I am not arguing that Pillar should have known that the WTC or the Pentagon was going to be attacked. It is amazing that he focused exclusively on small-scale business interests overseas.]
Pillar not only misdiagnosed the terrorists’ intended targets, but also muddled the basic defining characteristics of the terrorists that posed the most imminent threat. Pillar broadly defines the threat as "anti-American terrorism," which is "here to stay." But just several months prior to 9/11 he did not think al Qaeda was even worthy of a mention in his piece. He does mention Ramzi Yousef – the perpetrator of the 1993 WTC plot – as a "free lance" terrorist and the Egyptian group al-Gamaat al-Islamiyya. But there is no mention of al Qaeda proper or of well-known terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, or Ayman al Zawahiri, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any of the other lesser-known masterminds of al Qaeda and 9/11.
Should we not expect more from a career CIA analyst charged with monitoring terrorist threats to this country?
Pillar described the terrorist threat in quasi-Marxian terms:
One reason the United States is so often in the terrorists' gun sights is that terrorism is the quintessential weapon of the weak against the strong. Powerful in so many other ways--economically, militarily, and politically--the United States can still be stung by terrorism, even terrorism committed by small and otherwise insignificant groups.
U.S. interests are also targeted because of the special resentment that many terrorists hold toward the United States. American businesses overseas figure prominently in this terrorist perspective. U.S. commercial activity is seen as the leading edge of the American economic and cultural dominance that the terrorists hate so much.
Leftist attacks on U.S.-owned businesses are often considered blows against "economic imperialism." Attacks by Greek leftists in 1999 alone included hits against offices of American Express and Chase Manhattan, a General Motors dealership, and a McDonald's.
You would never know from this description that the main objective of America’s primary terrorist adversary was to establish a caliphate throughout the Middle East. You would also never know that this adversary, al Qaeda, posed a large-scale threat to American interests here and abroad. In fact, it is amazing how dissimilar reality is and was from Pillar’s shallow attempt at diagnosis.
Whatever one thinks of Richard Clarke, another self-styled critic of the administration, it is difficult to imagine that he would sit down in May 2001 to write a piece on terrorism that failed to include any mention of al Qaeda, and yet, find room to mention an attack by Greek leftists on a McDonald’s franchise. Even Clarke understood that the threat posed by al Qaeda was much greater threat than that posed by anti-American leftists in Greece.
Ironically, therefore, Pillar demonstrates precisely how much the terrorist threat was “misunderstood” in some corridors of the CIA prior to September 11, 2001. I will have more to come on Pillar as he makes his rounds in the media circuit. But for now, let me just say that Pillar never corrected his flawed approach to analyzing the terrorist threat.
Dan Darling also notes Pillar's reputation as a prominent leaker.
Paul Mirengoff explains that Pillar was actually his college roommate at one point. I would wager that Paul M. would demolish Paul P. in a debate over terrorism and U.S. foreign policy at this point.
The Post's account is written by Walter Pincus, who is no stranger to anonymous CIA sources. Pincus doesn't apply any measure of skepticism to Pillar's claims and, as I discuss below, this is a problem. Pillar has a forthcoming piece in Foreign Affairs magazine and that piece is the basis for some of Pincus's reporting. Pillar rattles off the usual nonsense about how there was no connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda (insert hundreds if not thousands of facts and evidence that demonstrate otherwise here) and how intelligence officials were "subtly" pressured by the Bush administration through pointed questioning. Of course, I bet he doesn't offer any specific evidence for the latter claim.
But if Pincus had paused for even a moment to consider the work of the man he was reporting on he may have had a different take. In many ways, Pillar’s career reflects the failings of a pre-9/11 outlook on terrorism. Before Pincus reported Pillar's arguments without hesitation, he should have considered Pillar's record as a terrorism analyst.
Consider, for example, a piece Pillar wrote for the online publication Security Management in May 2001, “Is the Terrorist Threat Misunderstood?” Pillar focuses on small-scale threats to American businesses overseas and concludes:
Terrorism, especially anti-American terrorism, is here to stay. Countering it requires the concerted attention of all those who are affected by it and who stand to lose if it goes unchecked. Whether in the headlines or not, American businesses will remain in the terrorists' sights--and security managers must be vigilant in seeking ways to make their sites less vulnerable.
As Pillar makes clear in his piece, the threat to American businesses is one he perceives as almost entirely focused “on U.S. commercial interests overseas.” There is no mention of any terrorist’s desire to strike at the heart of America proper. Neither the attempt on the World Trade Center in 1993 nor al Qaeda’s millennium plot on the LAX airport, for example, weighed heavy in his thinking. Pillar was apparently not too concerned with the possibility of a terrorist strike on American businesses here in the U.S. (say, in the World Trade Center) or a strike at non-commercial American interests either (e.g. the Pentagon). Nor did al Qaeda’s then recent attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 alter Pillar’s thinking on the terrorists’ ability to strike non-commercial, military targets. [Edit: Obviously, I am not arguing that Pillar should have known that the WTC or the Pentagon was going to be attacked. It is amazing that he focused exclusively on small-scale business interests overseas.]
Pillar not only misdiagnosed the terrorists’ intended targets, but also muddled the basic defining characteristics of the terrorists that posed the most imminent threat. Pillar broadly defines the threat as "anti-American terrorism," which is "here to stay." But just several months prior to 9/11 he did not think al Qaeda was even worthy of a mention in his piece. He does mention Ramzi Yousef – the perpetrator of the 1993 WTC plot – as a "free lance" terrorist and the Egyptian group al-Gamaat al-Islamiyya. But there is no mention of al Qaeda proper or of well-known terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, or Ayman al Zawahiri, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any of the other lesser-known masterminds of al Qaeda and 9/11.
Should we not expect more from a career CIA analyst charged with monitoring terrorist threats to this country?
Pillar described the terrorist threat in quasi-Marxian terms:
One reason the United States is so often in the terrorists' gun sights is that terrorism is the quintessential weapon of the weak against the strong. Powerful in so many other ways--economically, militarily, and politically--the United States can still be stung by terrorism, even terrorism committed by small and otherwise insignificant groups.
U.S. interests are also targeted because of the special resentment that many terrorists hold toward the United States. American businesses overseas figure prominently in this terrorist perspective. U.S. commercial activity is seen as the leading edge of the American economic and cultural dominance that the terrorists hate so much.
Leftist attacks on U.S.-owned businesses are often considered blows against "economic imperialism." Attacks by Greek leftists in 1999 alone included hits against offices of American Express and Chase Manhattan, a General Motors dealership, and a McDonald's.
You would never know from this description that the main objective of America’s primary terrorist adversary was to establish a caliphate throughout the Middle East. You would also never know that this adversary, al Qaeda, posed a large-scale threat to American interests here and abroad. In fact, it is amazing how dissimilar reality is and was from Pillar’s shallow attempt at diagnosis.
Whatever one thinks of Richard Clarke, another self-styled critic of the administration, it is difficult to imagine that he would sit down in May 2001 to write a piece on terrorism that failed to include any mention of al Qaeda, and yet, find room to mention an attack by Greek leftists on a McDonald’s franchise. Even Clarke understood that the threat posed by al Qaeda was much greater threat than that posed by anti-American leftists in Greece.
Ironically, therefore, Pillar demonstrates precisely how much the terrorist threat was “misunderstood” in some corridors of the CIA prior to September 11, 2001. I will have more to come on Pillar as he makes his rounds in the media circuit. But for now, let me just say that Pillar never corrected his flawed approach to analyzing the terrorist threat.
Dan Darling also notes Pillar's reputation as a prominent leaker.
Paul Mirengoff explains that Pillar was actually his college roommate at one point. I would wager that Paul M. would demolish Paul P. in a debate over terrorism and U.S. foreign policy at this point.
posted by Thomas Joscelyn at 1:55 PM
<< Home