Kissinger-Mitchell Panel

By appointing former secretary of state and national security advisor Henry Kissinger to lead the independent Sept. 11 investigation, the Bush administration, once reluctant to have an independent panel at all, guaranteed the commission’s work will be scrutinized. The Democrats’ choice of former Senate majority leader George Mitchell as vice chairman reinforces the high profile of the commission and raises expectations about the results of the work ahead.

But whether the panel produces a report of substance will also depend on the skill and energy of the remaining eight members: Will they be experienced investigators who already understand the rivalries among intelligence agencies and the countless channels and cross-channels of communications within Washington and who appreciate what the possibilities and limitations were in pursuing the information the agencies had gathered about the attacks?

Mr. Kissinger will need to lead a commission looking for trouble. After all, the result already is known – a devastating, simultaneous attack that killed thousands, changed the nation’s outlook on the world and made an international terror organization seem like a sudden deadly force. But al Qaida, the public has since learned, was anything but sudden, and an investigation of how the United States overlooked the organization’s activities and its potential for harm, and at what government level it was overlooked, is entirely appropriate. The panel’s job will be to provide details to a failure and that is certain to make powerful people unhappy.

The doubtful choice of Mr. Kissinger as chairman, given his role in the U.S. policy in Vietnam and South America and his habit a generation ago for secrecy, has been pointed out repeatedly in the last several days. As important and potentially discouraging is the administration’s own views on fully releasing information – the vice president continues to fight to keep secret documents concerning his meetings on energy, despite what the courts have ruled. What happens when the panel needs the White House to be forthright about sensitive information? The appointment of Mr. Mitchell, known for his candor, should at least provide an accurate account of what the commission has learned. Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John McCain are credited with pushing for this investigation despite the White House’s initial refusal, and it will be up to them and other members of Congress to ensure the process is vigorous and fair, even if it shows Congress itself did not respond to threats of terrorism adequately.

The new commission has 18 months to complete its work and will begin where congressional hearings left off. Chances are excellent that there will not be a single event or single chain of events that allowed the intelligence community to fail to fully grasp what became the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The commission’s work will be valuable, however, in examining the web of events it points to various weaknesses throughout the various intelligence nce operations. It should offer detailed recommendations that are clear and practical and can improve the nation’s monitoring of and defense against terrorism.