What vigorous action?

Clinton’s missed opportunities with bin Laden

By Tommy Owens
From the November 2006 Print Edition

On September 24, we all got the chance to see a man struggling to save a crucial part of his presidential legacy. No, that man is not currently working in the Oval Office. It is his predecessor, William Jefferson Clinton. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Clinton did what he does best: turn the tables on his detractors. In this case, we aren’t referring to a bout with Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, or any party member of elected office. In this case, we are dealing with ordinary Americans who are puzzled and vexed about why Bill Clinton did not do enough to catch Osama bin Laden.

Clinton served as commander-in-chief from January 20, 1993, to January 20, 2001. In those eight years, he had ample time and undeniable justification to order a branch of the U.S. government (be it the Army, CIA, or some other group) to kill bin Laden. But bin Laden grew exponentially as a threat to the United States, even declaring war on the ideals it espoused. Approximately 54 Americans died at the hands of bin Laden before George W. Bush was even inaugurated.

The first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers plot in 1996, the U.S. Embassy attacks in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 could have either been prevented by a more proactive government strategy or could have at least been avenged in a stronger manner. Not so, as Clinton claims that "... we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden." Notice the use of that pesky little qualifier: nearly. And what defines "vigorous action?" Firing cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away at an empty terrorist training facility?

He should have sent ground forces into Afghanistan, perhaps Special Forces or elite Army units, to kill or capture bin Laden and his murderous cabal. But this was too difficult for "vigorous action" Clinton. He continued: "[Y]ou can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan." Let us review: Clinton had everything ready to kill bin Laden but he could not bring himself around to call up the president of Uzbekistan? This seems awfully similar to the "engagement" the Clinton administration used with North Korea. That policy was such a "success" that it might have resulted in Pyongyang’s first successful nuclear test.

Clinton goes on to add insult to injury. He adamantly proclaimed that he "got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since." This is not mere spin, but a lie. In December 2001, U.S. forces encircled the remote Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, nearly capturing or killing bin Laden and his top deputies. This was a full three years after Clinton’s "vigorous action."

To be fair, not everything the former president said in this interview was off the mark. He asserted that if he were president, he’d "… have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill [bin Laden]." Fair enough — a doubling of forces in the volatile regions of Afghanistan would not be such a bad idea. Even if bin Laden’s whereabouts are still unknown, 20,000 more soldiers could better help build and train Afghanistan’s fledgling army.

Clinton also correctly catches his domestic political opponents in a bind, with the remark that "it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden." Eager to slam a president embroiled in a sex scandal and other disreputable activities, the Republicans in Congress and assorted talk-radio pundits often, to the country’s detriment, put politics before national security in the case of Clinton’s foreign policy.

Having read and thoroughly enjoyed the 42nd president’s autobiography, My Life, I can actually say many good things about the man. He is incredibly intelligent. His ability to frame the issues in ways beneficial toward his policies is quite amazing. He is extremely well-spoken and, for the most part, has a true desire to improve the America he so cherishes. He is a breath of fresh air when you compare him to Democrats before him (Jimmy Carter) and after (Russ Feingold, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary). But his patriotism and his seemingly benign agenda cannot mask the fact that he severely overlooked foreign policy when it came to his presidency. Six years after he left Washington, we are still reeling from the consequences of his mistakes.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot