9/11 — five years on

In an odd twist of fate, five years after the 9/11 attacks I’m again out of the country, and again in the U.K. I have no idea what to do with that information, but then again, I have no idea what to say about the five-year anniversary. I am sure this lack of ability on ...

By Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast.

September 11, 2006, 2:51 PM

In an odd twist of fate, five years after the 9/11 attacks I'm again out of the country, and again in the U.K. I have no idea what to do with that information, but then again, I have no idea what to say about the five-year anniversary. I am sure this lack of ability on my part will not impair my readers from imparting their comments. UPDATE: Incidentally, the BBC broadcast part 1 of The Path to 9/11 last night. I'm vaguely aware that many Clintonites have complained about the drama portion of this docudrama, and that some have complained about the religious background of the miniseries director. Having seen Part I, my take is that these objections are either overblown or ABC responded adroitly to them. Having watched it, I didn't see anything flagrantly wrong with the Clinton portion -- none of the policy principals look like fools or incompetents. Some of them look like they did not place Al Qaeda as their highest priority, which is certainly accurate of both the Clinton and Bush adminisatrations. On the whole, it was surprisingly gripping -- perhaps because, in part I, there were victories (the capture of Ramzi, etc.) as well as defeats. ANOTHER UPDATE: Having now seen part two as well, it strikes me that the complaint a partisan Democrat could lodge against the program was not what was included but what was omitted. There was no shot of President Bush reading My Pet Goat or otherwise looking wobbly on the day of the attack. There was no scene of Sandy Berger briefing the Bush team about the nature of the Al Qaeda threat, etc. On the whole, however, it was a well-constructed docudrama, and Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton were particularly good. David Greenberg makes an interesting criticism of the whole enterprise: For my part, I think it's an abuse of history to place much blame on either the Clinton or the Bush administration for "not doing more to prevent September 11" (as both teams are often alleged to have done, or not to have done). Anyone can second-guess others' actions with the benefit of hindsight. But historians are supposed to try get into the minds of the actors of a bygone era--and the time before September 11, 2001, does represent, in the matter of counterterrorism, a bygone era. Everybody thought about terrorism differently back then, and it's a historical fallacy to blame Sandy Berger or Condi Rice for not having a post-9/11 mindset. Actually, it's worse than that -- the people who did have the post-9/11 mindset before 9/11, like Richard Clarke, seemed like monomaniacal pain in the asses before the attacks happened. That probably made it easier for Berger and Rice to downgrade their warnings.

In an odd twist of fate, five years after the 9/11 attacks I’m again out of the country, and again in the U.K. I have no idea what to do with that information, but then again, I have no idea what to say about the five-year anniversary. I am sure this lack of ability on my part will not impair my readers from imparting their comments. UPDATE: Incidentally, the BBC broadcast part 1 of The Path to 9/11 last night. I’m vaguely aware that many Clintonites have complained about the drama portion of this docudrama, and that some have complained about the religious background of the miniseries director. Having seen Part I, my take is that these objections are either overblown or ABC responded adroitly to them. Having watched it, I didn’t see anything flagrantly wrong with the Clinton portion — none of the policy principals look like fools or incompetents. Some of them look like they did not place Al Qaeda as their highest priority, which is certainly accurate of both the Clinton and Bush adminisatrations. On the whole, it was surprisingly gripping — perhaps because, in part I, there were victories (the capture of Ramzi, etc.) as well as defeats. ANOTHER UPDATE: Having now seen part two as well, it strikes me that the complaint a partisan Democrat could lodge against the program was not what was included but what was omitted. There was no shot of President Bush reading My Pet Goat or otherwise looking wobbly on the day of the attack. There was no scene of Sandy Berger briefing the Bush team about the nature of the Al Qaeda threat, etc. On the whole, however, it was a well-constructed docudrama, and Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton were particularly good. David Greenberg makes an interesting criticism of the whole enterprise:

For my part, I think it’s an abuse of history to place much blame on either the Clinton or the Bush administration for “not doing more to prevent September 11” (as both teams are often alleged to have done, or not to have done). Anyone can second-guess others’ actions with the benefit of hindsight. But historians are supposed to try get into the minds of the actors of a bygone era–and the time before September 11, 2001, does represent, in the matter of counterterrorism, a bygone era. Everybody thought about terrorism differently back then, and it’s a historical fallacy to blame Sandy Berger or Condi Rice for not having a post-9/11 mindset.

Actually, it’s worse than that — the people who did have the post-9/11 mindset before 9/11, like Richard Clarke, seemed like monomaniacal pain in the asses before the attacks happened. That probably made it easier for Berger and Rice to downgrade their warnings.

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner

Tag: Foreign & Public Diplomacy