Retaliatory Cruise Missile Attack Essay

The Issue under Consideration: The retaliatory cruise missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan following the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, have elicited criticisms of administration decision-making procedures concerning terrorism. Both government and civilian observers have noted a general inconsistency in the restraint shown after terrorist attacks and the timeliness of consequent US retaliations. In this case, critics also cite the sequestration of senior security advisors from relevant government officials during the deliberations about retaliatory options; the gagging of dissenting opinions after the decision to retaliate had been made; and the seemingly inadequate evidentiary justifications for the selected targets. Taken together these criticisms of the US retaliatory strikes indicate a questionable oligopoly in administration decision-making procedures concerning terrorism. I suggest that an oligopoly on decision-making makes the deliberative process more …show more content…
Attorney General Janet Reno raised concerns that there was not enough evidence to justify the planned US cruise missile strikes- specifically the attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. This concern was echoed by other government officials who were unconvinced of the plant’s ties to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. However, senior officials disregarded these concerns and went so far as to gag junior officials from voicing their concerns over the US military action. Senior security officials were convinced early on that their assessment was correct, and were consequently unreceptive to criticisms. Furthermore rather than consider contrary evidence to their assessment, senior officials overemphasized their shared knowledge for the basis of their deliberative