Why not?
I don’t think this is one of those issues where you can say ‘If we reacted to every warning we received…’ etc etc. The intelligence agencies involved have a duty to protect and defend. The mission statement of the CIA is:
‘Providing accurate, evidence-based, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence related to national security; and
Conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security as directed by the President.
If the cry is inadequacy, then the US citizen has a right to ask why the government cannot fulfil its duty to them, and require provision to be made to prevent reoccurrence.
Throughout the years of the Cold War, both the CIA and the FBI worked in the shadows and outside the gaze of publicity to ensure that real threats to the security of the West were countered effectively. During the eras of Eisenhower and Kennedy, those missions were taken to a highly pro-active and controversial apogee with the operations in Central America, Iran, Greece and Italy. Only when ‘interfered with’ such as with the Bay of Pigs did these operations come to notoriety. But the fact remains that with one obvious exception, Communism was excluded from the West at a time when it could have gained a threatening foothold.
At the end of the Cold War, the desire to ‘cash in’ on supposedly obsolete defence budgets meant that ‘humint’ and the agent in the field were cut back in favour of satellite and electronic intelligence gathering. This meant that spooks worked in Langley or Washington instead of in the back yard of the enemy, whomsoever he may be. Right under the noses of the politicians who arguably hampered their effectiveness. Now their budgets and resources are lumped into the same pot as every other government department, and the real needs of US security and defence are measured alongside the desire for huge tax cuts, health care, and energy policy.
So is it an excuse to say you just don’t have the resources to monitor everything? Well if you want the potential savings to the US, just look at how much 911 has cost you and the whole of the rest of the world. The USA has a history of introspection, preferring ‘Splendid Isolation’ to engaging with the global community. In the past, when the US has ignored events and situations for long periods, somebody comes and kicks you up the ass. Just like Pearl Harbour, just like Admiral Durnitz, just like 911. Petty interdepartmental politics were allowed to interfere with the real mission, with the folks on the hill overriding the experts on the ground. Federal attempts to secure surveillance of E-traffic and phone calls have been met with howls of derision from the liberals.
You need to re-examine America’s position in the World. Can you continue to say ‘I’m alright Jack and the hell with the rest of you’, or will you actively pursue global threats in the way you once did. Once upon a time UBL would have had an unfortunate accident and no-one would have heard of Al Qaeda. You may find that you have to ‘Know everything, see everything, hear everything’, and the public may well have to get used to a far greater degree of surveillance than they have endured in the past. But if you can earn their trust, and assure them that the right people will use that information, and that partisan politicians will be excluded from that process, the public will go with you. They don’t moan about the information gathered on them every time they use their credit cards or buy an airline ticket, so they would surely accept surveillance that protects them from a mad mullah.
Go back into the shadows, clean out the sewer rats, work behind the scenes. Don’t allow the security of the Unites States to become an issue for the beancounters and ‘resource level efficiency’. Get your heads out of the sand and look around you. You cannot any longer allow the influence of minority lobby groups affect the external policy of the USA. You listen to them, and yet not the UN. If you had adopted a different line on the Mid East, it’s arguable that UBL would never have gained the level of support he now enjoys amongst Muslim nations. And had you dealt with Saddam as a black-op, you would not have found yourselves dancing to his tune.
Your security lies in thorough, apolitical intelligence backed with effective and well resourced ‘keyhole surgery’.