There’s a theory going around that the attacks of 9-11 were encouraged, at least in part, by President Clinton’s actions in Somalia. In a nutshell, the theory is that, when American blood was spilled, Clinton decided to get out of Dodge rather than stay and finish what the U.S. had started. Osama bin Laden saw this as a sign of fear and saw the U.S. as a scardy-cat paper tiger. This emboldened him to plan the 9-11 (and other) attacks. Presumably, had Clinton kicked Somali butts, bin Laden would have more respect for Americans, or been more fearful.
Just to refresh memories, here’s a quick history of America’s Somali Adventure.
Somalia was fighting a civil war. Famine ensued. In March of 1992, a ceasefire allowed the U.N. to send in humanitarian assistance and unarmed military observers. The U.N. efforts don’t actually begin until mid-August. Unfortunately, warlords hijack most of the relief supplies as soon as they hit the ground. U.N. aid worked are attacked. Somalis continue to starve. The U.N. asks member nations to assist with the humanitarian efforts.
In December of 1992, George Bush (the first one) orders 25,000 U.S. troops into Somalia. The first marines hit the beach on December 9, 1992. “Operation Restore Hope” is underway.
On May 4, 1993, U.S. forces, now commander-in-chiefed by Bill Clinton, turn over command to an upgraded U.N. force whose mission is much expanded beyond humanitarian relief. The new U.N. force is now “nation building,” restoring infrastructure and keeping the peace.
Clinton draws down the U.S. forces to just 1,200 combat troops plus another 3,000 support troops .
On June 5, 24 Pakistani soldiers are ambushed and massacred during inspection of a Somali arms cache. It is believed that warlord General Mohamed Farrah Aidid is responsible. On June 12, U.N. and U.S. forces attack various Aidid related targets in Mogadishu. In July, a U.S. missile attack on a building where clan leaders are meeting kills Somalis. Investigating the incident, four western journalists are beaten to death by a mob of angry Somalis.
In August, ten American troops are killed or wounded by remotely detonated land mines. 440 elite troops from Delta Force and the U.S. Rangers (Task Force Ranger) arrive in Mogadishu. Their mission: capture Aidid.
October 3-4 Task Force Ranger, searching for Aidid, launches an assault on the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu. There ensues a 17-hour battle in which 18 US troops are killed and another 84 are wounded. On October 7, Bill Clinton announces that all U.S. troops will be out of Somaila by March 31. The hunt for Aidid is abandoned. U.S. combat troops are temporarily increased, in order to ensure the safe retreat of forces already in country.
And that’s the crux of the argument: 18 dead and 84 wounded was too much American blood shed. Americans just don’t have the stomach for much of a fight. Americans bled, Clinton cut and ran, Osama bin Laden was emboldened by this, confident he could strike at America with impunity. That’s the theory. Is there any evidence that U.S. actions in Somalia actually influenced bin Laden?
Let’s see what bin Laden had to say about it. In October, 2001, bin Laden was interviewed by Al-Jazeera television. The transcript of that interview says, in part:
We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America — the United States — that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God. We experienced combat against the Russians for 10 years, from 1979 to 1989, thanks be to God. Then we continued against the communists in Afghanistan. Today, we’re at the end of our second week. There is no comparison between the two battles, between this group and that. We pray to God to give us his support and to make America ever more reluctant. God is capable of that.
So there it is in Osama’s own words. America had this “aura” that terrified people. Somalia proved that America was weak and would run from a real fight, our tails between our legs. No longer viewed as invincible, America was now known to be vulnerable.
While Clinton’s Somali decisions may certainly be a factor, in my opinion, Clinton’s real failing was in cutting back on “HUMINT” — the human intelligence operations that provide information and insights that simply cannot be gleaned from satellite photos (imagery intelligence — IMINT ) and communication intercepts (signals intelligence — SIGINT ). Sometimes, it takes someone actually working inside an organization to find out what’s going on.
Why did Clinton cut back on HUMINT? Well, it was a stupid decision, really. Following revelations that CIA operatives committed human rights violations in Guatemala, the CIA was directed to reform its HUMINT recruitment and to no longer utilize sources who were involved in criminal activity or human rights abuses. This is like telling the cops that they cannot employ CIs (confidential informants — “snitches”) who are drug dealers or mobsters because, well, they’re disreputable and we shouldn’t be associating with them.
I suspect that, in law enforcement and national intelligence alike, the best information comes from those closest to the monitored activity. Thus the restriction against employing “disreputable” sources wasn’t just stupid, it was monumentally stupid. This is the definition of “Throwing out the baby with the bath water.”
The rules also barred agents from posing as priests or journalists, and required CIA recruiters to divulge the identities of their agents to CIA headquarters, thus creating a likelihood of exposure in the event of a security breach at headquarters.
Under the Clinton administration rules, both the quality and quantity of HUMINT suffered. Many believe, as I do, that the 9-11 attacks — years in the planning — could not have remained unknown to our intelligence agencies, had we decent HUMINT in place.
Do I blame Clinton for 9-11? As much as anyone else, yes. Certainly his decisions and policies made 9-11 more possible and more probable. There’s no getting around it.