Is Kissinger the right man to get behind the security failures which led to 9/11, asks Ayman El-Amir* The appointment of to lead an independent inquiry into the failure of US government's intelligence agencies to anticipate and prevent the 11 September attacks was given less than a red-carpet reception nationwide. His critics were quick to react by questioning the very essence of his moral fabric. They recalled Dr Kissinger's record during the Cold War years, which, they claim, ranges from manipulation of the Vietnam War to the immoral exercise of American power in Latin America. Writing in The New York Times, Maureen Dowd, a brilliant columnist with a caustic wit, cynically commented on the choice of : "Who better to ferret out (US) government duplicity and manipulation than the man who engineered secret wars (Vietnam), secret bombings (of Cambodia), secret wiretaps (of 17 White House colleagues) and secret coups (Chile, 1973), and still ended up as a Pillar of the Establishment and a Nobel Peace Prize winner?". Between his detractors and admirers, who credit him with Cold War breakthrough like détente and the opening up of China, deserves one last chance. Kissinger's 10-man commission of inquiry, whose members are yet to be named, has been given the wide-ranging mandate of investigating the causes of the 11 September attacks, whether they could have been prevented and what can be done to forestall future occurrences. In signing the bill that formally established the Commission on 26 November, President George W Bush said, "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of 11 September". Under its authority, Kissinger's commission can subpoena individuals and documents, and interview current and former government officials, presumably including Mr Bush and former President Bill Clinton. With such powerful mandate, the 79-year-old Dr Kissinger has a chance to crown his controversial career with a towering climax that could change the conduct and direction of American foreign policy. In any pragmatic analysis of the causes of 11 September, the Kissinger commission will inevitably come up against the defying "why they hate us" puzzle. But a fresh look at an old, and yet unanswered question, may yield a new perspective. The commission may be able to turn the question around: what is it that we are doing to "them" that makes "them" hate us? The question is neither frivolous nor too far-fetched. The 11 September acts of terrorism marked the first time in almost 200 years that the national territory of the US had come under attack, since the British burned Washington in 1814. They also marked the dawn of global terrorism. The ideological underpinnings of these and other attacks are much too complex for simplistic or militaristic answers. The commission will draw the inescapable, and equally unpalatable conclusion, that American hegemony is reaching into every corner of the world, with globalisation as its instrument and long-term objective. And globalisation shows as little regard for the diversity of political regimes as it does for the individuality of nations. Probing into the root-causes of terrorism does not grant it recognition or justification. But it would provide US foreign policy with a moral concept that may prove, in the long run, to be more effective than the creation of the Department of Home Security or a blistering attack on Iraq. The creation of the commission, even with as its chairman, has raised great expectations. Optimists demand nothing less than a full accounting of how such powerful government agencies like the CIA, FBI and NSA have failed in protecting the US national territory against 9/11. What they are expecting is an aggressively "independent" inquiry that should not shy away from questioning some of Washington's most powerful institutions and personalities. For cynics, this is as good as to expect to chop off the head of the goose that lays the golden egg in the nest of Kissinger Associates -- his profitable consulting firm which connects wealthy foreign clients with powerful decision-makers in Washington. Kissinger, of course, was quick to assert that his firm would sever any dealings with clients whose interest may conflict with the independent conduct of his investigation, "if such clients existed". President George W Bush does not need a commission or a report to justify his war against terrorism or to implement his new national security doctrine of preemptive strikes against potential terrorism-breeding grounds. What is even worse is that Americans have little faith in the work or reports of commissions which are established to unearth the truth about national catastrophes. This was the fate of the report produced by the highly- respected Warren Commission, headed by Chief US Justice Earl Warren, which investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F Kennedy. Despite this commission's meticulous work and its 22-volume report, conspiracy theories and a barrage of books documenting them, spun around in the US for decades after the tragic event. has a tough balancing act to perform. His most critical challenge will be to have the moral integrity to ruffle a few Washington feathers that are so fundamental to his investigation and yet so crucial for his lucrative business. Will he and his commission have the moral courage to probe and put on record how the CIA organised, trained and financed Islamic militants to fight the Soviet presence in Afghanistan during the 1980s and thus, disingenuously, gave rise to the concept of holy jihad and Al-Qa'eda network? Will their investigative net be cast wide enough to encompass Israeli occupation, violation and desecration of Palestine that has triggered worldwide Islamic indignation and militant outrage? Mr Kissinger's initial answer is that, "We will go where the facts lead us" and "we are under no restrictions and we will not accept any restrictions". If this sounds too good to be true, it is. It is almost a universally contagious syndrome that when high-profile personalities reach the climax of their careers, they start worrying about their place in history. Kissinger's place is extremely controversial, if not outright notorious. The commission of enquiry into 9/11 may offer him the opportunity for an 11th- hour honourable exit. Will he take it? * The writer is a former correspondent for Al-Ahram in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York
