07/23/04 B.

Jenkins

Interview with Stephen Hadley by Bart Gellman, Washington Post. Jan 16. 02: Focus on
the Military

Notes that The Plan and strategy was developed before 9-11. As of September 4, the
military as part of the plan was to have the option to use military force against the Taliban
and al Qaeda. P. 565.

P. 557 We had a meeting, a deputies committee meeting on April 30th. And we addressed
what's our overall approach to al Qaeda. We talked about what we could do to increase
our aid to the Uzbeks. We talked about what we could do to increase assistance to the
Northern Alliance. We talked about going after, more aggressively, al Qaeda's
fundraising. And we talked about the need for a public diplomacy strategy to go along
with this.

The direction to the military (as part of the plan) was to create these options both
against Al Qaeda and against the Taliban. This is based on the decision of September 4,
and it was ready for the President's signature. They wanted the military to go against al
Qaida and their leadership command, control, communications and training facilities.
They also wanted the military to develop options for targets against the Taliban, including
leadership, command and control, ground forces and logistics. There was a diplomatic
front end.

P. 566. It was clear at that point that you're not going to get Al Qaeda without tackling
the Taliban. This was about terrorists and those that give them safe haven. You either had
to get the Taliban to give up al Qaeda or you were going to have to go after both the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, together. You must either brake them apart or go after them
together.

P. 566. Are you really prepared to show some seriousness of going after this, or your're
not - and one of the things - again, I know it's outside September 11th, but - the planning
that we are calling for is, as you can see, as I describe it, you can't do all those things just
with cruise missiles. If you are going to do the things I describe and what the military was
chosen - was directed to plan for, you are going to have to use air forces and you are
going to have to use ground forces. And that's what they were told to do.

P. 567 You've got to be serious about it, you can't say no casualties and stand off
weapons only, you've got to go in and put boots on the ground and American young men
and women at risk, in order both to get the job done and also to show that you're serious
about it. And that's really what the President - those are the two things that I think
characterize the approach of the administration.

You've got to deal with both Taliban and al Qaeda. And having read to you the tasking
that the military was given, you can only do that with all of your military forces. You
can't just do it with the cruse missiles.
07/23/04 B.Jenkins

It is a phased strategy that we lay out. And in some sense, whether you have to use the
military option is going to depend in some sense whether the first part of your strategy
fails or succeeds.

The other thing I would say is that the covert piece, what George has asked, planned and
then prepared to do, is also much more robust and involves putting people in country and
putting them at risk.

P. 571. The very last thing. I reported that the last administration forward-based the
submarines and the AC 130, in case they got a lead on where bin Laden was. I also - what
I didn't report, but I now know is they took those offline before they left. And I hear that
they were not put back on line before 9/11 and I wonder about that.

If I could add, the Predator's ready, the armed Predator is shown to work by June, but
doesn't get deployed. So that's what I'm trying to capture here. Strike asset.. .that's
forward-based.
Interview with Ivo Dalder

Notes on the military:

Dalder: The primary mission of the Guard should be homeland defense. DoD is doing
fine otherwise. NORTCOM is good in responding. DoD will do whatever it is told to do.
It will do it well. However, it is not a player in homeland security and should be. 80% of
intelligence assets are in DoD.

3 days after the Embassy bombings, I saw Clarke who stated we would put boots on the
ground. There was a recommendation to put boots on the ground (Special Forces) and
Shelton did not disagree. However, TLAMS were chosen instead. Without Monica, we
could have done something. They knew who did it. There was a window but the Monica
issue closed that window. It was impossible for him. Even the strikes he did do were
condemned.

After the Cole, (only 17 sailors), there was no way we could bomb between October 12
and November 5 because of the elections. Gore was behind. To have bombed would have
been difficult. After November 5 you can bomb. Interestingly, there was a presidential
debate between Bush and Gore the night after the Cole and the Cole did not come up
once!

There are two assumptions in national security policy that should be challenged:
1. the military only fights wars overseas. The US is the only country that its military
does not defend its borders. 9-11 questioned that validity.
2. The primary enemies can be destroyed from a long distance and with great precision.
Not necessarily the case.