9/11 Commission tells truth, but not whole truth

Of all the autopsies performed on 9/11, the most revealing is the one conducted by the commission assigned to dissect it.

More than enumerating the administrative failures that led to the tragedy, and making sensible suggestions to rectify them, the 9/11 Commission has said something more profound:

America remains ill-informed about the people and places that pose the greatest danger to it.
War alone will not defeat terrorism.
That all 19 Sept. 11 terrorists were Al-Qaeda Muslims does not mean all Muslims are Al Qaeda.
America defeats itself when it abandons its moral core.

The 10-member panel also faults George W. Bush for abandoning Afghanistan too soon.

On Iraq, the panel speaks volumes with its silence on Bush's claim that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism, which it demonstrably is not.

America must rethink its approach to the Muslim world, especially failing states that can become terrorist havens. Afghanistan was. Parts of Pakistan, West Africa and Southeast Asia are, particularly slivers of Philippines and Indonesia.

All these ideas would be very familiar to readers of this column over the last five tumultuous and tragic years.

Yet the commission does not go far enough. Not so much in faulting Bush more, but in shying away from pushing its own assessments to their logical conclusions.

For example, the spectacular failure of America's $40 billion (U.S.) a year intelligence operations cannot be explained solely by bureaucratic silos and ineptitude or the shortage of spies because of too much reliance on satellites and pilotless drones.

The larger point has to be that you cannot possibly comprehend the intelligence from a country, a culture and a people if you don't have a clue about them or their language. Or you are hostile to them for religious, racial or ideological reasons.

Post-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq prove the point.

I will cite other examples as we go through the commission's key findings sideswiped by the ones that were headlined.

Rather than the Bush formula of going guns blazing hither and yon, the commission says we need a "global preventive strategy that is as much, or more, political as it is military." Amen.

That's exactly what Jean Chrtien said, and got pilloried for it.

On Muslims, the panel says: "The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam." Correct.

"The enemy is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, by Osama bin Laden and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both."

That's only half true.

The intolerance does not emanate from a failure to separate religion and state. Theologically, they're inseparable. Many Muslim-majority nations are constitutionally Islamic. That does not make them all terrorist.

Bin Ladenism is a political polemic, violent and terrorist, wrapped in religious terms.

The commission ignores the issues that won bin Laden many adherents. It tiptoes around the occupation of Iraq, which has spawned a wave of scarier bin Laden clones.

It is not surprising, then, that the panel ends up prescribing a vacuous PR initiative:

"The U.S. must define its message ... Communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people, including students and leaders outside of government."

But no amount of propaganda can cure the problem of America not living up to its ideals. You cannot soft-sell the double standards that mark most of your dealings with the Muslim world.

It's not enough to say in the abstract, as the panel does, that "we should offer an example of moral leadership in the world," but stay silent when America invades Iraq unilaterally in the face of worldwide opposition.

Or kills thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of freeing them.

Or violates human rights by being a direct or indirect party to torture and, worse, whitewashes an Abu Ghraib.

Or arrests thousands and deprives them their day in court.

Such of my reservations aside, the panel comes as close as any American group can in taking on a "war president." No wonder the White House is peeved.

The commission is right to assert that America is still vulnerable, more than any other open democratic society, but that it is safer now than before 9/11, having rightly attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and captured or killed most Al Qaeda leaders.

The panel is also mostly right in its analysis of the countries where the war on terrorism is being waged.

On Afghanistan, the U.S. mission is "overwhelmingly orientated toward military and security work," not civil institutions. And the troops are "narrowly focused on Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants," not on stabilizing the country, so life can improve.

On Pakistan, the panel urges continued support for President Pervez Musharraf, a man of "enlightened moderation" who urges his people to shun extremism.

"It's hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan in the struggle against Islamist terrorism," the panel says.

It suggests money for military and education. But what about leaning on the general to bring democracy?

On Iran, it says there's "strong evidence" that up to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers transited through that country, but "there is no evidence" Iran was aware of their plot.

Saudi Arabia, from whence hailed 15 of the hijackers, had no involvement in 9/11 or financing Al Qaeda. But bin Laden did raise money there.

However, Saudi Arabia remains "a problematic ally," in that both sides "prefer to keep their ties quiet." Better to "confront problems in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform." Well said.

The commission's report - more than 500,000 copies of which are in bookstores - is not only a useful but also a highly readable document.

Too bad the commissioners couldn't bring themselves to telling the whole truth.