In "Against All Enemies," former counter-terrorism specialist Richard A. Clarke writes word for word what former President George W. Bush wanted to do in terms of invading Iraq against the advisement of his counter-terrorism board. I often thought back to Michael Moore’s documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," and the scene where famous pop singer Britney Spears is interviewed backstage of one of her concerts. The interviewer asks her what she thinks of Iraq and the War on Terror and you see her face freeze up. She hesitates before she says, “Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." Then the interviewer hesitates before he asks her, “Do you trust our President?," and she responds, “Yes, I do.”

I feel that, on some level, the naivete that Ms. Spears portrayed in that interview represents many things within the overall population in regards to questioning the war on terror. We as a nation were/are still terrified and traumatized by 9/11. We were terrified and wary of the rumors that were said about Bush’s involvement in 9/11 (which Clarke does not insinuate) and the war in Iraq (which he does insinuate), and we ultimately did not want to show a disunified nation both to our fellow Americans and our enemies. At the same time, I often question that if Bush did not take the actions that he did, would President Obama have been able to finish the mission of tracking down Osama Bin Laden?

I have to say that I do believe that Bush’s actions were necessary in order to find Bin Laden, even if there wasn’t integrity behind them. In the past, if a kingdom was attacked by another kingdom or village, in retaliation, the kingdom that was attacked would attack and burn down the offending kingdom and the two neighboring villages as a show of strength and intimidation. On some level, that was the message that America was conveying to the rest of the world: if you attack the U.S., they will retaliate with their full force and burn down their country, the neighboring countries, and all else who MIGHT be involved. I can’t say that I am proud of America, but I can't say that I would have done things much differently if I were in charge.

Much of Clarke’s book details the military actions behind the mobilization into Iraq. Clarke himself sounds like a military general and strategist more than anything else and it is heavily conveyed within his memoir. Though his memoir has a profundity to it, only someone who enjoys the military mindset and the art of war would be fully engaged in his writings. He details the military actions in Iraq as if it is not so much a war, but a forced occupation… meaning that instead of fighting for a particular goal, the U.S. armed forces invaded Iraq to accomplish a goal, a goal that Clarke does not outwardly state, but does heavily imply. He implies that the Bush administration had its own agenda which DID involve finding Osama Bin Laden, but there were ulterior motives, which again, he frustratingly implies, but leaves it up to the reader to make up their own mind. He does not imply that it was due to money or oil as many people thought.

What Clarke says is that the threat was not the existence of weapons of mass destruction, not the weapons themselves, but the potential to create said weapons in the future. “As to nuclear weapons, Iraq had demonstrated its ability to create a large, covert nuclear weapons development. CIA had demonstrated its inability to notice such a large program. Together, those two facts were a legitimate source of concern. The means to deal with that risk were present, however, in intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, active control of Iraqi imports related to nuclear development, and the use of other nations’ intelligence services… Nothing in 2002 Saddam intended to build nukes, much less use them, and certainly not imminently” (268). Clarke, a key figure in the U.S. governmental defense, one who has been in the thick of national security for two decades spanning three presidencies, and according to several sources (including his own book) was in every conference room that counter-terrorism agenda was discussed and implemented by the U.S., states that not only was the U.S. warned about 9/11 (he himself briefed the President’s cabinet), but once the attacks occurred, they were intentionally used to invade Iraq, which was a plan before 9/11 even occurred. If what Clarke says is the absolute truth, then the implications confirm what all the conspiracy theorists say is true: 9/11 was used for ulterior motives, and lies were fed to the American public in order to justify the government’s actions for invading Iraq.

It was, in fact, wrong to invade Iraq, and Iraq was invaded for reasons that are not clear; “George Tenet and Cofer Black (the counterterrorism chief at CIA) were off and running now, demanding action from friendly intelligence services and preparing at last to send CIA officers into Afghanistan. Colin Powell and Rich Armitage were turning Pakistan around, from half-hearted support of the U.s. campaign against al Qaeda to full cooperation. Later, on the evening of the 12th I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door the conference room. 'Look,' he told us, 'I know you have a lot to do and all... but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way…'. I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. 'But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.' 'I know, I know, but... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…'”(136).

"Against All Enemies" is a controversial book. Everything that is said within it are things that have been whispered in private, usually by ordinary citizens who most people don’t want to take seriously. However, the person who wrote this book was not an ordinary citizen. He was the go-to “counter-terrorism czar” before 9/11, the crisis manager during 9/11, and one of the main analysts during the war against terror. With his unique position and perspective, Clarke is able to detail the TRUE initial reactions to the terrorist attacks, the steps that the government took to combat it (from the government’s perspective), the tremendous power the government wields over the country, and the TRUE motivations behind their actions. One has to wonder, then, how is it that Clarke comes to the same exact conclusions that people who are labeled conspiracy theorists have been saying? Clarke ended the preface of his memoir by stating, “In this era of threat and change, we must all renew our pledge to protect that Constitution against the foreign enemies that would inflict terrorism against our nation and its people. That mission should be our first calling, not unnecessary wars to test personal theories or expiate personal guilt or revenge. We must also defend the Constitution against those who would use the terrorist threat to assault the liberties the Constitution enshrines. Those liberties are under assault and, if there is another, major successful terrorist attack in this country there will be further assaults on our rights and civil liberties. Thus, it is essential that we prevent further attacks and that we protect the Constitution... against all enemies.”