Could the CIA and FBI Have Stopped 9/11?

We may have misinterpreted 9/11 as a harbinger, when it was really just an outlier.


Well before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. officials had plenty of reasons for paying close attention to Al Qaeda. In addition to the 1998 bombings at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, Osama bin Laden had made his hatred of the United States well-known in a series of interviews and grandiose statements going back to 1995.

Given this long history, and given the ample evidence that Al Qaeda posed a threat to Americans, Washington's failure to stop the attacks has been a source of considerable attention and consternation. As with so much in intelligence collection and analysis, the central challenge is in separating the signal from the noise.

The 9/11 Commission report identified a series of opportunities to disrupt the 9/11 attacks, laying much of the blame on a lack of coordination and communication between the CIA and FBI, with some additional criticism leveled at the National Security Agency. In particular, the report focused on 10 instances from January 2000 to August 2001 when information regarding Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi, two Saudi nationals residing in the United States, should have been shared between the CIA and FBI. Mihdhar, Hazmi, and three others hijacked and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11. When the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General reviewed how the FBI handled intelligence before 9/11, it dedicated a chapter to information related to Mihdhar and Hazmi. According to these and other studies, a combination of bureaucratic impediments and personality clashes impeded efforts that might have complicated, or even thwarted, Al Qaeda's nefarious plans.

Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, for example, focuses on the turf battles between Alec Station (the CIA's Bin Laden unit headed up by the mercurial Michael Sheuer), the FBI counterterrorism guru John O'Neill, and White House advisor Richard Clarke. O'Neill had left the New York FBI office just prior to the attacks and taken a job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He was killed on 9/11, but both Scheuer and Clarke wrote books generally celebrating their role in trying to stop the attacks and faulting those who didn't listen.

Numerous other books, articles, and documentaries by more objective and disinterested observers have explored the CIA versus FBI story too. One of the first post-9/11 accounts, The Cell, even put it in the subtitle: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It.

Some serious and seasoned observers anticipated that the failure to share information within the sprawling national security apparatus could expose the United States to preventable dangers. In May 2001, President George W. Bush tapped Brent Scowcroft to head up a 12-member commission to assess the intelligence community and make recommendations for reform.

According to Scowcroft biographer Bartholomew Sparrow, the commissioners concluded that post–Cold War budget cuts contributed to low morale within the intelligence agencies prior to 9/11. Quoting from interviews with several commission members, Sparrow writes in The Strategist: "There was a general recognition that 'the whole concept of central intelligence had broken down. And largely because of budgetary reasons,' because the Department of Defense 'controls so much of the budget.'"

But Scowcroft also sensed that the intelligence agencies were focused on the wrong threats. "At the review board's first meeting," in July 2001, "Scowcroft said that terrorism had to be the nation's highest national security priority, but that the United States had not yet come to grips with the matter." The 9/11 Commission reached a similar conclusion. "The specific problems" associated with poor coordination and communication, the commissioners wrote, "are symptoms of the government's broader inability to adapt how it managed problems to the new challenges of the twenty-first century."

Scowcroft, the only person to have served as National Security Advisor to two different presidents, presented his recommendations to Vice President Dick Cheney in August 2001, and then returned about a month after the 9/11 attacks with a similar message. As Ron Suskind wrote in The One Percent Doctrine: "Knowing what we need to know, when we need to know it, Scowcroft said to Cheney, would mean rethinking the nature of intelligence. The intelligence function was now parceled out among a wide array of agencies, and intelligence services of the military branches." Scowcroft's conclusion: "We need a massive intelligence research library."

That isn't exactly how it played out. For one thing, the competition between the CIA and the Pentagon continued, with the latter winning many of the battles. While the intelligence agencies' budgets ballooned after 9/11, the Department of Defense grew even more. Meanwhile, the creation of a new office—the director of national intelligence—to coordinate among the various intelligence agencies engendered resistance. The post-9/11 reorganization of the various counterterrorism and homeland security agencies remains a work in progress.

Some impediments to information-sharing were there for good reason. Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith advised just after 9/11 that it would be "premature to conclude" that "rules and regulations, which have been designed to constrain the activities of an intelligence agency in a democracy…need to be thrown out just because of this one terrible intelligence failure."

He noted that Congress was already enacting new laws, and relaxing earlier restrictions to, for example, "make it easier….[to use] wiretaps to collect information," and to make that information "available to the intelligence community for foreign intelligence purposes." Smith thought these changes were appropriate, but he warned that the prior regulations "were put in place for good and valid reasons at the time. They have worked to protect the rights of American citizens, because we are still worried about an overreaching national security and law enforcement apparatus. And we're still worried about protecting American rights under the Fourth Amendment. We can move too quickly; we can move the line too far in the wrong direction, and find that we are abusing the rights of Americans."

Some now question whether the costs of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, writ large, were offset by the benefits. These include the abuses visited upon American Muslims and others. They also include the opportunity costs—how focusing on foreign terrorists, for example, may have prevented us from seeing other threats.

As we assess the counterterrorism measures instituted after 9/11, we should beware of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. Immediately after 9/11, Americans expected there to be a wave of similarly spectacular terrorism incidents. Because that didn't occur, some have concluded that those measures must be why. But that isn't necessarily the case: We may have misinterpreted 9/11 as a harbinger, when it was really just an outlier. John Mueller and Mark Stewart have suggested that the enormous effort by the CIA and FBI to find terrorists since 9/11 mostly amounted to "chasing ghosts." Mueller's running database of the known terrorist cases in the United States since 9/11 suggests that there is a fine line between diabolical and delusional; some would-be terrorists don't deserve to be taken seriously.

In short, making it easier for the feds to find a needle in a haystack may mostly reveal lots of unthreatening hay.

NEXT: California's 'Landmark' Labor Law Is Still Wreaking Economic Havoc

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, they could not.

    1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.GHu Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

    2. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…EFg And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

      Try it, you won’t regret it!……… VISIT HERE

  2. well they started it, so yeah they could have stopped it too.

    1. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business HNj with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

      Join this right now…………… VISIT HERE

  3. If you would have came out on September 9th 2001 and stated that there was the possibility that terrorists would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, they would have put you in a rubber room with a jacket that makes you hug yourself.

    1. Flying planes into buildings was a work of fiction in 1995.

      1. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business HNj with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

        Join this right now…………… JOEBIDDEN GIFT HERE.COM

    2. Simply not true.

      Ramsey Yousef apartment raid in the Philippines, 1995. Laptop computer was found with a treasure trove of information on what these rats were up to. Also confiscated were drawings and notes of airliners being used as bombs. Philippines notified US intelligence agencies. The Bojinka Plot with Yousef in the Philippines was featured on ABC’s 20/20 YEARS before 9/11. We knew, but bloated, inefficient BIG government dropped the ball on its most important responsibility, our safety. On 9/11 I knew exactly what was up as I had already been warned about it on the television years earlier. I assumed that our alphabet agencies had things under control. Boy, was I wrong!

      What have we learned? Apparently nothing. Borders not secure. People pouring into the country from God knows where. Afghans, any and all, getting fast-tracked into the USA, rather than being properly vetted outside of country.

  4. Could the CIA and FBI Have Stopped 9/11?

    Probably – but why would they want to? Occam’s Razor suggests that the failure to investigate a bunch of Muslims attending flight school was simple incompetence, but when that sort of thing happens over and over and over for about 75 years, you might be forgiven for being suspicious that there’s actually a plan.

    1. The sequelae of 9/11 have certainly done wonders for those agencies’ influence, political power—anyone still doubting that a Color Revolution was successfully performed on the United States in 2020?—-and the personal wealth of their senior staff and contractors. Again, on a list of the wealthiest per capita counties in America, you’ll now find—-at least in the top 20, maybe top 10; I haven’t checked recently—all of the counties bordering D.C. It wasn’t even close to that in the 90s.

    2. Yeah conspiracy theories are too outside of normal parameters for liberaltarians. If TOP MEN somewhere haven’t signed off on the story it simply didn’t happen. I wouldn’t want to make Jesse Walker sad so I’ll posit a couple scenarios and not endorse either one. It’s possible that 9/11 was the biggest failure ever of the US government until that time. Presented with a crisis that it dare not waste, government rewarded it’s failure by expanding the slowly growing police state exponentially. It is also possible that lacking a crises, some ambitious individuals ensured that some people did some things. Was it a conspiracy or was it just a good deal? In the end a whole lot of people who had an interest in expanding the police powers of the federal government got exactly what they wanted. And by the way. Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself.

  5. They didn’t. And were paid to do so. Both received additional funding and function following the event. Maybe less focus on Ruby Ridge and Waco with more on this.

  6. It’s like Condi Rice said:

    No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon … into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile.

    Certainly, as National Security Advisor, Condi could not have imagined of such an attack the CIA could not have.

    Everything the Bushpigs did was a major league fuckup.

    When I hear that Trump was the worst POTUS ever I think of how Bush fucked up everything he did.

    1. “No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon … into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile.”

      Dale Brown did. See my comment upthread.

  7. “Americans expected there to be a wave of similarly spectacular terrorism incidents. Because that didn’t occur, some have concluded that those measures must be why. ”
    Columnist Chris Freind writes today and claims right wingers are principally responsible for expecting a wave of attacks because Joe Biden and our military and intelligence services are incompetent.
    Freind says that twenty years of no such repeat attacks shows that we should have confidence in the professionalism of the military and that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

  8. I was assured it was Jamie Gorelick’s fault.

  9. Replace “Could” with “Would” and you will have your answer.

  10. The CIA (a creation of the British) have been wrong about most everything. Whatever the case (they knew, they suspected, they were lost) I seriously doubt they would or could have stopped anything.

    That said I remember once there was speculation that jumbo jets could be used as missiles, and this was probably back in the 70s or 80s when I first heard it. It’s not without some precedent. Certainly the Japanese flyers were known to use their planes as missiles. There was some nut who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin. It’s not an idea that some goat fucker in Afghanistan came up with. The real trick was learning to fly one, and then taking over during flight. Locking the cockpit doors ended that one.

  11. It was possible to know something was going on as the actor James Woods made 4 of the hijackers a month before 9-11 on a Boston to LA flight. He filed a report with the FAA. The day after 9-11, the FBI was at his door. (He asked how did they get his private phone number. The said they were the FBI.)

    But the truth is, we’re just to big to be able to see all of the clues at one time.

  12. The Clinton Administration imposed rules on intelligence and investigatory agencies to prevent the sharing of data.

    This was done because so many of the Clinton staffers could not pass background checks. So long as the checks were not completed, they could be issued temporary access passes for the White House and other sensitive areas. By not sharing information, the checks were delayed for extended periods, and many never completed.

    Those rules were still in place when the shared information might have done some good.

    The “warning” that Bush got was essentially that someone was going to make some kind of attack, somewhere in the US, sometime indeterminate.

  13. It was not an outlier, because its origin is the government(s) – ours, theirs, both working together. And government is everywhere, always.
    COVID, too, is the work of government(s). China’s? Maybe. America’s? Most likely.

  14. “Could the CIA and FBI Have Stopped 9/11?”
    I’m still not convinced they weren’t in on it.

  15. The “chasing ghosts” link is broken.

  16. The FBI and CIA might have been able to if Clinton had not stopped letting agencies share information.

    But, considering Clinton refused to take Bin Laden down 4 separate times before 9/11, I blame Clinton for the whole thing.

Please to post comments