Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror

By Richard A. Clarke

Richard Clarke has been one of America's foremost experts on counterterrorism measures for more than two decades. He has served under four presidents from both parties, beginning in Ronald Reagan's State Department becoming America's first Counter-terrorism Czar under Bill Clinton and remaining for the first two years of George W. Bush's administration. He has seen every piece of intelligence on Al-Qaeda from the beginning; he was in the Situation Room on September 11th and he knows exactly what has taken place under the United State's new Department of Homeland Security. Through gripping, thriller-like scenes, he tells the full story for the first time and explains what the Bush Administration are doing.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster UK
• Release date: Dec 9, 2008
• ISBN: 9781847375889

Richard A. Clarke

Richard A. Clarke, a veteran of thirty years in national security and over a decade in the White House, is now the CEO of a cyber-security consulting firm. He is the author of seven previous books, including the bestsellers Against All Enemies and Cyber War.

Reviews for Against All Enemies

[scapegoats · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a very interesting and compelling account of Clark's experiences in counter-terrorism in the decade or so leading up to 9-11. Clark's main point is that U.S. leadership was slow to wake up to the threat, especially Republicans. He has some criticism for Clinton but generally gives him good marks for attempting to institute a comprehensive program. Clark savages the Bush (43) Administration, saying that Bush used 9-11 to fulfill long-held agenda items, including invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11. Clark puts the blame on a conspiracy theory that linked Hussein to the 1993 WTC bombings and subsequent Al Qaeda attacks, links which had no evidence to support them. He also criticizes Bush for his cheapness, refusing to put substantial resources into the war in Afghanistan because he was saving them for Iraq. He also comments that the newly formed DHS was also done on the cheap, making a flawed project that much harder. In essence, he argues that Bush wasn't serious about defeating terrorism because he didn't take time to understand the problem and didn't want to spend the money to counter it.It is remember that this is a memoir and like most memoirs, it paints the author in a good like while taking shots (in this case with howitzers) at the people he didn't like. So take it with a big grain of salt. But with that said, it is difficult for anyone who reads the book to think highly of George W. Bush or his administration, and even harder to take their national security policy seriously.

[nmele_4 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Now long outdated, this was a useful guide to the politics and conflicting priorities that plagued our foreign affairs and national security community in dealing with the thread of terrorism.

[clueless_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A horrifying glimpse into the train wreck relationship between the CIA and FBI immediately before 911. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. After reading the briefing at the end that said, ‘something horrible is going to happen soon, somewhere’ - I can see why Bush didn’t immediately shake billions of dollars free to buy gas masks/radiation burn kits for the entire population of New York City.

Now that Clinton is out of office his brilliance is really beginning to come to light, the story of him here is no different - he was shown to be clever, erudite and very, very effective in wielding his power as president - Bush Jr. was not.

Clark clearly explains many concepts that have been heavily obfuscated and poorly (slantedly) written about in the media. Like al Qaeda, the Taliban, bin Laden the US invasion of Iraq.

Clark’s plea for preparedness is a bit hypocritical I think. It reminds me of all those bomb shelters that were built in the cold war. Of course Clark would see everything from his perspective of being the terrorism prevention/rediness Czar - but isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ask for the country to go further into debt for a ‘maybe/someday’ threat? Kind of like invading a country for a ‘maybe/someday’ capability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

A fascinating well written read.

[jddunn_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Wow, this is enough to scare the shit out of you. Not so much at the strength of Al Qaeda, as the rampant incompetence that has afflicted almost every effort of our government to fight them. Clarke is biased, but mainly in terms of having tunnel-vision for just his issue, IE counter-terrorism and Al Qaeda. However, he turned out to be totally right about said issue, so it gets hard to discount his criticisms of all involved. I don't agree with him totally on methods, but I do agree that this was a very necessary clearcut through the enormous of morass of bullshit that has sprung up around the terrorism issue.

[aketzle · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This was such an insightful book. I learned so much about the history of modern terrorism and al Qaeda, and it reads like a thriller! Highly recommended!

[tommyelf_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The critics claim that he had an axe to grind against Shrub's Administration for not appointing him to a position in their Administration. After reading the book, you can definitely say that -- for about 30 pages in the book. The other 273 pages detail a lot of the failings of four Administrations (the current Administration is not included in this book, simply because they weren't running for office in 2004). At several junctures, Clarke points out that America has not been good about keeping events from happening, but thrives on responding to an event in the aftermath. That sort of jives with the supposed commentary of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the bombing of Pearl Harbor: 'A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.'While a large portion of the book outlines the entire path that lead to the rise of Radical Islam, as well as detailed failures in the strategies set forth by Shrub and his cabinet after their election; Clarke does an outstanding job of providing realistic recommendations on what should take place after the 2004 election. Some of his prognostications, such as the fall of the House of Saud as a political entity in the Gulf region, did not take place; while it can be argued whether or not Pakistan has made clear steps forward into a government that embraces religious freedom or has become the smoldering sparks of a potential Caliphate based on 14th century concepts (also suggested in the book). Against All Enemies provides an excellent historical accounting of just how America had reached that particular point in the so-called 'war on terrorism'. It is far from a complete accounting, and is subject to the bias of one individual - the author himself, and was acknowledged over and over by him throughout the book's various explanations.Some people will proclaim the book to be nothing more than one individual's posturing in order to absolve himself of critical failures in an intelligence service that refused to acknowledge a danger from a foreign entity on American shores. Others, myself included, see this book as the start of a post-mortem study on a process that needs critical, judgmental eyes focused upon it as America steps forward into battling a foe that is not as easily defined or choked off through financial spending as the Cold War foes had been. Whichever the case may be for each individual reader, Against All Enemies is merely one piece of the puzzle. By no means should it be treated as a 'Be-All, End-All' examination of what has and has not been done in counter-terrorism operations. If anything, it can be treated as an excellent starting place which opens many more avenues of examination, which may or may not bear out what has been set forth by Clarke. Like any good forensics examination, corroboration of information from secondary and tertiary sources is what should be considered before stamping the information as 'patently false', 'wishful thinking', 'pure fantasy' or 'unvarnished truth'.

[borg6mx5 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

From the inside, from someone who was there, we can see the failures of President Bush and to a lesser extent, his predecessors contributed to the tragedy of 09/11. Mr. Clarke may be asking for his own exoneration from that event, but he presents a compelling case against the Bush adminstration, that before and after the Twin Towers fell, he and his cohorts took their eyes off the ball and embroiled this country in a war is didn't have to fight. Conservatives will not be swayed by this book. For liberals, it will confirm their worst fears. To anyone who reads it, please keep an open mind.

[carterchristian1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Clarke was one of the first to rush into print on leaving the Bush White House. He was one of the first to have a book to alert the public of Bush's fixation on Iraq at the expense of Bin Laden. Others leaving the White House such as O'Neill, soon followed. How, with this evidence the country is still fighting these old enemies wihout finding Bin Laden is remarkable.While some will say the book is already dated, no longer relevant, I believe that it is very relevant, explaining as it does how badly a tranistion from president to president can be.

[darla_2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I can't give this book 5 stars--horror really isn't my genre, and I'm not a fan of depressing endings.Richard A. Clarke was a counterterrorism expert who served under 4 administrations--from Reagan through G. W. Bush. Against All Enemies tells about the war on terror, focusing primarily on what led up to 9/11 and the response to it.Otto von Bismarck said "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." (or something like that--I've seen it quoted several ways) and that's certainly true in this case. An even better quote might be the daffynition of Politics, n: Poly "many" + tics "blood-sucking parasites".It's ugly. Very ugly. Politicians pursuing their own agendas, refusing to listen to advice that doesn't fit, being distracted from or prevented from taking action because of politics, etc., etc.One last quote: "It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen." ~George E. MacDonald. True, but does it have to be so far in the other direction?If I had it to do over again, I'd read this in small doses instead of straight through. It was way too infuriating and depressing to read all at once.

[plappen_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Richard Clarke has worked in the area of national security for the past 30 years. He was head of counterterrorism affairs for Presidents Clinton and Bush II. In this book, he severely criticizes the current Bush Administration for its lack of interest in terrorism and al Qaeda before 9/11, and its disastrous decisions afterwards.He first explores the Reagan and Bush I reactions to events like Lockerbie, TWA 800, and the Beirut bombing that killed over 200 American soldiers. The word "terrorism" had not yet entered the American lexicon. Whatever else is said about the Clinton Administration, at least President Clinton took the threat from al Qaeda very seriously, and tried to do something about it.There were several opportunities to get Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years. Unfortunately, the reports that he was in a certain building at a certain time were never rock solid. Even if they were totally reliable, it takes time to get the report from Afghanistan to Washington, and for the appropriate orders to be sent to the ships or planes in the area. No senior al Qaeda figure, especially bin Laden, was going to stay in one place for any length of time. If the US had bombed innocent people, it would have been a public relations disaster.The second Bush Administration came into office much more concerned about Iraqi terrorism than about al Qaeda (according to Clarke, for no good reason). When he tried to impress upon senior White House officials the seriousness of the threat from al Qaeda, he was met with bureaucratic delay after delay. Bush's decision to invade Iraq (again, according to Clarke, for no good reason) gave al Qaeda a propaganda coup of immense proportions.After 9/11, the Bush Administration should have worked to improve relations with the frontline states, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, that are most vulnerable to al Qaeda. It should also have worked to improve relations with Islam, in general. These things were not done. Officially, there was no federal money available to fix the gaping holes in America's domestic vulnerability to terrorist attack, but there was plenty of money to invade Iraq.Could 9/11 have been prevented, even if all parts of the intelligence community were running like a well-oiled machine (another area of criticism from Clarke)? Perhaps not. If a major attack didn't happen on that particular day, it would have happened some other day. This book is a huge wake-up call, and it is very highly recommended for all Americans. If I could, I would give this book three thumbs up.

[dickcraig · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Clarke exposes the failures of the Bush Administration to follow up on warnings given by the Clinton Administration. It is an important expose' of how the Bush White House did anything to distance themselves from anything Clinton. Even though it was preaching to the choir, it was a great background to how the war on terror is being fought.

[jcbrunner · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Richard A. Clarke's account of his years as anti-terrorism czar has stood the test of time surprisingly well. Clarke has been a US career official working for all presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. Under Clinton, he became the chief counter-terrorism adviser. This is his story about the fight against terrorism and al Qaeda in particular. It is a story of a failure of intelligence, of a fight against uncooperative bureaucracies, of leadership (Clinton) and lack thereof (Bush), and of the perils of inconsistent foreign policy, in which your nominal allies are the biggest supporters of your enemy.The book starts with a vivid account of September 11, 2001, as witnessed by Clarke in the White House. Crisis management is not an American strength due to its organizational preference for relying on an army of poorly-paid, under-equipped, process-driven agents (in CYA mode) led by managers selected by personal or political connections. The high demand for communication during a crisis eats up all managerial capacity. Subordinates mostly continue with their (now counter-productive) routine actions. Clarke recalls how he and his people, already in the White House, are repeatedly searched and refused access to the Inner Circle. Despite Clarke's later glowing stories about intensive planning exercises, the attacks of 9/11 caught an administration unprepared on all levels - from the non-working WTC walkie-talkies to the non-existent army radar over Washington DC. I doubt whether homeland security has improved US crisis management capabilities. Clarke offers the example of federal anti-terror dollars wasted by local government's "investment" priorities.A second theme of Clarke's book is the difficulty of bureaucracies with mission change and preparing for the "unknown unknowns". The US military-industrial complex was built to contain communism with its huge armies and large weapon systems. The nimble, overlapping networks of terrorists speaking strange languages and hiding at the fringe of civilization was not to the taste of CIA, FBI or the military. It was not only a case of dealing with a new, amorphous threat but also an incredible amount of staggering incompetence such as allowing persons into the US who were on a terrorist watch list and lacked a visa or of not consulting the phone book. Potemkin security!A third theme is the inconsistent and often self-defeating US foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. In a quest to control oil, US forces protect the reactionary Saudi regime, a major promoter of religious intolerance and financier of terrorists.While Clarke merits an A for effort, the results of his work did not prevent or lessen the impact of the terrorist attacks. Too little, too late - Clarke was part of the problem. A problem that got even worse with the creation of a bureaucratic monster called Homeland Security.

[wenegade · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The Clinton protection shields were on, but inadvertantly breached a couple of times in this book.

[chrisadami · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Perhaps one of the best books on what went wrong in the runup, and immediately following, 9/11, from the man who was in charge of counterterrorism under Clinton, and briefly under Bush.

[brose72 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

An insider's look at the mechanizations of the American government and military conglomerate on its war on terrorism and how inept they have been in their decision making and analysis. Some motivations are uncovered and some light is shed on the actual opinions of those making the decisions and how deluded some of those decisions were.

[sluce_6 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Great read. Bought this book.

[jbd1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Clarke's brutal indictment of the Bush Administration's post-9/11 actions; not great prose, of course, but an important contribution to the debate.

[jbreedlove_6 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Clarke sheds a light on the inept responses by the Bush administration to warnings prior to 9/11 and to the Clinton administrations efforts to thwart terrorism.