Professor says blaming Obama counterproductive for Natl. Security

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | January 3, 2010 at 08:50 am

272 views | 70 Recommendations | 12 comments

Quote

Obama was spot on when he said that the airline incident had resulted from a "systematic failure" in our counterterrorism operations. "When our government has information on a knownextremist and that information is not shared and acted on as it should have been, so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could cost nearly 300 lives, a systematic failure has occurred," he said.

Professor J Zelizer, Princeton

A Princeton University Professor of US History and Public Affairs has said that blaming the President regarding the national security failure on Christmas Day is counter productive, and that Obama is correct in his assertion that the CIA had an internal failure of its surveillance system.

Professor J Zelizer says that a bipartisan approach is the valid and reasonable one, and that blaming and partisan games are irresponsible. A broad analysis done by an external agency of our entire homeland security system is what is needed.

Not only was the Nigerain national on board Delta NW flight 253 an easy person to prohibit in his travels, says the professor, but that he sailed through security scans with high explosives on his person is very telling. It has been 9 years since the WTC attacks, and that is ample time to have a systemic protocol which works with relative ease. This protocol, says Zelizer, is what must be readjusted and honed for solutions which are adjusted to the new realities and which really work, and not a focusing on Obama nor his party.

Rather than spending the next few months with each party attacking the other for being responsible, what would be more useful is to have a bipartisan and independent 9/11 Commission-style review of our homeland security programs to see where the holes are and where the system can be improved.
While Obama has promised a review of intelligence systems under the direction of John O. Brennan, the president's top counterterrorism advisor, a much broader analysis will be needed -- one that covers the entire homeland security system, is independent of the executive branch, and is bipartisan in the composition of its membership. The panel would have to invite testimony from allies from around the world to better understand how the global anti-terrorism program is working.

The Christmas incident made clear several problems. The first is that we are still having trouble connecting the dots. This was one of the main problems that revealed in the examination into 9/11; authorities had a substantial amount of information about the perpetrators but they failed to share it with each other or to put the story together.

Intelligence agents from this country are usually dealing with scattered and incomplete information. But given how much was known in this case, including Britain's decision to deny renewal of his visa and to put him on a list to prohibit him from coming back into the U.K., as well as warnings that the CIA had heard from his father, there seems to have been sufficient evidence for international authorities at some point in this process to take stronger preemptive action.

A second question has to do with airline security. Once the decision was made to allow him to fly, it is simply confounding that he was able to bring high explosives on board with relative ease. As UCLA professor Amy Zegart, the author of the best book on intelligence reform, recently told the New York Times: "This textbook Al Qaeda 2001. They tried to hit the hardest target we have, the one on which the most money and attention has been spent since 2001. And yet we didn't prevent it."

The government must review our airline security program. In Politico, Josh Gerstein provided a useful analysis of issues that must receive more consideration now. For example, more thought will have to be given to allowing for the assemblage of a more expansive "no-fly" list. Governments will need to think about additional funding for installing whole-body imaging technology for airports that has been slowed down by privacy concerns and budgetary limitations.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 09:19 on January 3rd, 2010

Yes, quite true! Thank you, Sara.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 12:22 on January 3rd, 2010

It resides within, Nietzsche. She meant it resides within the self. Or are you being sardonic and satirical, my good man?

YankeeJim

at 12:56 on January 3rd, 2010

This was a security failure that reflects the competence of the current adminstration's leadership. Appointments to top spots were made with too much political consideration and insufficient attention to skill, knowldedge and proficiency required. America continues to have a deificent management approach to government.

Rory Cripps

at 15:58 on January 3rd, 2010

This is all well and good. However many Americans blamed Bush for anything and everything that occurred under his watch. Why is it not fair to blame Obama for anything and everything that occurs under his watch?

I, personally, blame the entire U.S. government for the security breach. All the red flags were up!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:30 on January 3rd, 2010

I agree that 'blame' is counter-productive, smk. However, the President does his share in the 'blame-game'. It's the old saying, "What goes around, comes around.":)

Barbara McPherson

at 17:00 on January 3rd, 2010

This near tragedy could have been prevented by technology from the '40s and a little common sense. Sniffer dogs, full body scans, profiling won't be of any help if the people who should be safeguarding the skys aren't doing the basics -- like checking for passports. Of course, finger pointing won't work. Don't get someone to say "Sorry", just fix the problem.

snuffysmith

at 21:24 on January 3rd, 2010

I would agree with a number of his recommendations, but he doesn't have all the correct facts. The failure is with the State Department in the first instance. The CIA is clean on this one in that they gave their information to the National Counterterrorism Center. And oh by the way, this bomber should have triggered a DEA stop and search - he met the DOJ criteria for a DEA stop: 1) traveling alone; 2) no baggage; 3) paid for ticket in cash; 4) one way ticket.

snuffysmith

at 21:51 on January 3rd, 2010

Adviser: No 'smoking gun' in bomb plotfrom The Washington Times stories: News by Anne Gearan ASSOCIATED PRESSUPDATED: U.S. intelligence agencies did not miss a "smoking gun" that could have prevented an alleged attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday. White House aide John Brennan cited "lapses" and errors in the sharing of intelligence and clues about the Nigerian man accused in the foiled attempt. "There is no smoking gun," Mr. Brennan said. "There was no single piece of intelligence that said, 'This guy is going to get on a plane.'" Mr. Brennan is leading a White House review of the incident.

snuffysmith

at 21:56 on January 3rd, 2010

I think President Obama's problems with the U.S. intelligence community has been one of the most under reported stories for 2009. When he declared his intent to nominate a special prosecutor to investigate CIA torture abuses last year, this was perceived by many as a direct attack against the CIA and those who have been contracted to work for them. Having a legal sword over your head is not a good way to maintain morale and motivation within any organization, an environment that can only help our enemies and dissuade those who want to help us.

My prediction; these "problems" are going to get worse.

Karen Hatter

at 22:06 on January 3rd, 2010

Prior to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, under the Bush administration, it had been stated that too many agencies, acting independently, jealously guarding 'their' intelligence in 'their' corner of the yard, helped facilitate the actions of 9/11.

Now it seems, there's even more bureaucratic chaos, with the same tendency to continue to hold information 'close to the vest', within various sectors of the intelligence gathering community.

Iffy (not verified)

at 00:24 on January 4th, 2010

The security problem could be resolved by doing the following: 1) after 9/11, politicians should have been honest about the west being at war and just like in past wars, requiring the sacrifice and involvement of EVERYONE, to defeat it and win (not having significant numbers of young people being lazy, drugged up scum bags who haven't been asked to do anything), 2) just like in WWII, we need to be clear as to who we can - or cannot trust - and to profile that group: no apologies.