T3 B9 David Tucker- Tim Naftali 2 of 2 Fdr- Emails- Letters- Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3...

8/14/2019 T3 B9 David Tucker- Tim Naftali 2 of 2 Fdr- Emails- Letters- Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3 Interviews Fdr for Earlier Naftali Invitation Letters)

1/68

M ail: : INBOX: Changes to Proposed Agreement with Tim Naftali and David Tucker Page 1 of 1

84.01 MB / 476.84MB (17.62%)Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:04:44 -0400From: "" ^

To: "" 4|,""4PCc: "" ^,"" ^,"" ^l

Subject: Changes to Proposed Agreement with Tim Naftali and David TuckerAs front office colleagues are aware, Philip approved the task descriptions forscholars Tim Naftali and David Tucker. Each will write a monograph on U.S.counterterrorism Policy: Naftali covering the period 1968 to January 1993; andTucker from 1985 to 1998.Per previous email notes, our view is that they will be "contractors", and theywill not have access to sensitive information.Philip agreed to compensate each of them a fee-for-task of $15,000 for theirwork.In discussing the specific terms of the proposal, however, both Naftali andTucker thought the fee was somewhat low for what they are being asked to do.Each estimates that their respective research and writing will require upwardsof 400 hours. And they point out that the going government rate for this kindof work is $65 per hour.I think that Naftali and Tucker make defensible a case for a somewhat higherfee, and suggest that we agree to pay each of them $20,000.In addition, each pointed out that it will be essential to their work toconduct research at various presidential libraries around the country, and thattherefore they will incur travel and lodging expenses. We had not thoughtabout this until now, but the request is reasonable, that is, we concur thatthe ability to review presidential documents is critical to the thoroughresearch we want Tucker and Naftali to do.I propose that we budget $5,000 for each of them for travel-related expenses.We should make clear to them in the letter memorializing the terms of ouragreement that they will need to submit to the Commission ticket and hotelreceipts and any other receipts that government regulations require fordocumenting work-related travel.For Chris Kojm: Pending Philip's decision on this, for budget-trackingpurposes, please note the above proposed addition to the fee-for-task, and theproposed travel budget for each.Decisions for Philip:

1} Request approval to increase to $20,000 each the fee-for-task theCommission will pay to Tim Naftali and to David Tucker for their work.

2) Request approval to budget travel funds of $5,000 each for Naftaliand Tucker.Thanks,Mike

http://kmesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/message.php?Horde :=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 8/18/03


2/68

Mail:: INBOX: RE: Conversation with Tim Naftali an d Request fo r Approval of Certain ... Page 1 of 1

79.30MB / 476.84MB (16.63%)Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:32:29 -0400From: Philip Ze likow 4P

To: " " #Reply-to: " " 4?Subject: RE: Conversation with Tim Naftali and R equest for Approva l of Certain PointsMike --

I read your note. Well done. I approve your recommendation on how toproceed.Philip

Original MessageFrom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:24 PMTo: [email protected]: Conversation with Tim Naftali and Request for Approval ofCertain Points

Philip,I had a long and extremely pleasant telephone conversation with TimNaftalithis morning. Details and my request for your approval of a couple ofissuesthat came up are in the attachment.Thanks,Mike

http://kinesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 8/15/03


3/68

Philip:I'm sending this email only to you because I would like tohave your approval on a couple of matters before I raisethose matters with the entire Front Office, for reasons Iwill make clear below.I had a long and most agreeable telephone conversation withTim Naftali this morning. So that you know, the reason wehave not yet sent out the writing task descriptions (whichyou approved last week) to Tucker and Naftali is that theadmin/contractual language is still being worked out. TracyShycoff and I exchanged emails on this yesterday and she ison it. But Dan Marcus had been working on it with her andhe has been on leave all this week. Tracy and Dan willfocus on it upon Dan's return on Monday. We should have theformal letters ready to go by mid-week.I went over the task description with Tim in ourconversation and he thinks it is very good. In the taskingyou approved, we ask Tim to examine U.S. counterterrorismpolicy from 1968 until 1989. He asked that he be permittedto extend his review through the end of President Bush's(Senior) administration, i.e., until January 1993.Essentially, Tim thinks by ending his review in 1989 he willbe cut off in mid-stream during a period when interestingthings are going on: the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.I think he makes a good case and I suggest we agree tolengthening his review. This will mean that there will be acouple of years more overlap with David Tucker's piece butthat, I think, should be viewed as a good thing.Compensation: You approved $15,000 payment each to Naftaliand Tucker. I raised this figure with Tim and asked for hisreaction. He said he thought it was somewhat low. Heexplained that he is under contract now (some researchproject for the army? or other usg entity?) and he is paidat the rate of $65 an hour. He calculates the work we areasking him to do could require 400 hours. Thus, he thinkssomething in the neighborhood of $20,000 - $25,000 would befairer. In your original email to me (July 31) approvingthe proposal to have Naftali and Tucker write monographs youwrote: WI approve your going forward with the plan you haveproposed. You can offer more money if you need to."Subsequent to that, Chris K. requested that I get back tohim if I "do not get their agreement at 15K." (I think,although I am not sure, that Chris was not objecting topaying more, he just wanted to ensure he had a good grasp ofthe total numbers for budget-tracking purposes.)


4/68

Expenses: Tim Naftali then raised a point that I must admitI had not thought about. He said that he would need abudget to cover travel expenses, for going to and spendingtime at various presidential libraries to research. Timalso said that he would like to go to Israel where he coulddo research on terrorism, and where he has many contactsamong retired Shin Bet officers who are knowledgeable aboutterrorism during the period we are asking him to examine.Philip, it makes perfectly good sense to me that we fundNaftali's and Tucker's expenses involved in researching atpresidential libraries. I think, however, that the trip toIsrael is harder to justify. It suggested to me also thatin future conversations with Tim, I (and Warren) will needto make clear to him that the focus of what we are askinghim to do is really at the presidential and principals'level: what choices were Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bushmaking regarding how to respond to terrorism during theireras? I don't think that, however interesting down-in-the-weeds actions in Israel were at the time, they will shedgreat light on the higher-level issues we are mostinterested in recounting.I'd like to suggest the following: 1) we approve a $20,000payment each to Tucker and Naftali for the task of writingthe monographs, the task-descriptions of which you haveapproved. That represents $5,000 more for each than youoriginally approved. But, Naftali makes a good case and ifthey do the good work that we expect it will be worth it.2) we approve up to $5,000 each in travel expenses (researchat presidential libraries, etc.), for which they will haveto submit receipts, tickets, the usual array of gov'trequirements associated with travel for gov't purposes. Ithink we should nix funding Naftali's proposed trip toIsrael, unless you see reasons I'm missing that justify it.So, I'm asking your approval for the higher fee-for-taskfigure, and for the $5,000 travel budget for each. Philip,please let me know whether you agree with this. If you do,I will then send an email to "front office" proposing thesemodified terms. Again, I don't expect Chris to oppose, buthe will question this and I just want to ensure you areinformed in advance for "top cover" purposes.Tim had another good point. He knows he will not beresearching sensitive documents. But there are a number offormer officials, in some cases high-ranking officials fromthe 70's and 80's that he thinks will shed light on u.s.counterterrorism policy during the period in which theyexercised responsibility. Clearly, neither Naftali or


5/68

Tucker are staffers; but they will be on contract with theCommission. And Tim wonders whether there is some kind ofcachet they can have that will assist them in opening thedoors they need opened for interviewsfor example, a letterspecifying they are doing work on the Commission's behalf?(Tucker has raised the same issue with me.) This requestraises a number of issues and we will need Dan M.'s andSteve D.'s input. I just wanted to flag it to you.It was a pleasure talking to Tim. He's clearly a smart guyand he is eager and enthusiastic to begin work. DavidTucker's enthusiasm for the project is equally evident.Warren and I will work closely with both.Philip, I apologize for the length of this note, but I knowyou are following this closely and I wanted to ensure youare fully in the loop.Mike


6/68

Mail : : INBOX: RE: Next Stepswith Tucker an d Naftali Page 1 of 2

76.48MB / 476.84MB (16.04%)Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:22:02 -0400From: "" 4F

To: Tracy Shycoff ^Cc: "" 4f,"" 41

Subject: RE: Next Steps with Tucker and NaftaliTracy -- I'm out next week, but Dan will be back, so you can pursue this withhim. I think that Mike can explain to them the terms of the contract we areputting together, and they can certainly start work if they want to, but it isreally up to them whether they want to wait to see the official contract or getstarted without it.Quoting Tracy Shycoff :> Mike--I'm going to be speaking with a contracting officer for GSA on Monday> and will ask them about this item also. I'll then work with Steve to come> up with the appropriate contract. I don't see any reason why you can't> contact the two contractors to get them started in the meantime. Steve--do> you agree?>> Tracy J Shycoff> Deputy for Administration and Finance> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks> Upon the United States> 202-401-1718> 202-358-3124>> Original Message> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:46 AM> To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]> Subject: Next Steps with Tucker and Naftali>> Hi Tracy:>> How are you doing?>> Per various email exchanges last week, Philip has approved tasking two> academics, David Tucker and Tim Naftali, to write monographs on the history> of> Counterterrorism policy. Chris raised a coupld of questions, even after> Philip's approval, and I answered them to Chris's satisfaction. So, he is> supportive, too.>> I wanted to ask you what the next step is. Do we send letters to Tucker and>> Naftali confirming what they want them to do and what we pay them?>> Philip has approved the language I proposed defining each of their> research/writing tasks for the commission. We can easily roll that language>> into the letters. We also have a deadline for when we would like them to> complete their work and submit it to us.>> I assume these would go out under Dan Marcus's or Steve's signature? Or> should> they be sent under Philip's signature.



7/68

Mail:: INBOX:RE: Next Stepswith Tucker an d Naftali Page 2 of 2

> Let me know how I can assist in this. Should we draft a letter to each and> have you and Dan/Steve fill in the admin/legal details? What do you> suggest?>> Thanks for your help, Tracy. I know you are extremely busy and that this is>> just one thing on your plate.>> Thanks,>> Mike



8/68

Mail: : INBO X: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 5

50.11MB/476.84MB (10.51%)Date: Fri,8 Aug 2003 19:10:29 -0400From: "" ^

To: "" 41Cc: "" 4P,"" 9,"" Chris:>> Thanks for your comments. Per my interim reply yesterday, I promised a more>> detailed reply to your points.>> The overlap in the studies: When you, Philip, Dan Byman, and I first> discussed> this during the 2nd week in June, the original plan was to have Tim Naftali> and> David Tucker each examine the same set of years--in other words, complete> overlap. We agreed that we could then pick and choose from their work.>> Later, it seemed to make more sense to divide their review, largely> differentiate the periods they cover, but still maintain some overlap. In> the> task descriptions, the demarcation between Naftali's assignment and Tucker's>> was somewhat arbitrary. There is about 4 years of overlap, the period> between> 1985 (where Tucker begins) and 1989 (where Naftali ends).>> I still think some overlap is a good idea. Bear in mind that we can do what> we> want with the monographs they produce. Neither you, nor Philip (nor> Commissioners for that matter, should they be interested in how we handle> this)> have weighed in on the ultimate use of these monographs. I should think that>> at a minimum, they will be helpful to Team 3 as we do our writing, and> perhaps> ultimately higher management will decide the monographs should be included as>> annexes to the Commission's report. Even in that case, we would be able to> edit out any overlap, and resolve any inconsistencies in Naftali's and> Tucker's> work.>> That's my view of the overlap question. But obviously I am prepared to> change> the task descriptions if you feel strongly about this.>> Regarding your point about the U.S./Soviet Cold War struggle and how it> affected our response to terrorism: During the Cold War, U.S. policy makers>> who crafted counterterrorism policy had to consider how our actions against

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webm ail/imp /message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/8/03


9/68

Mail : : INBOX: Re: Task Descriptionfo r Tucker an d Naftali Page 2 of 5

> terrorism would affect U.S. and Soviet efforts to gain the upper hand in the>> Middle East. As Tim Naftali will be primarily covering counterterrorism> policy> during the Cold War, it makes sense for him to address the issue.>> Just to gain a different perspective, we thought it would also be good for> Tucker to consider the issue but only in the last years of the Cold War: Was>> the Cold War still a factor in our counterterrosim policy during the waning> days of the superpower conflict in the late 1980's? But I want to make clear>> that question, as framed in Tucker's task description, was meant to be a> subsidiary question, not the focus of what we are asking him to do. Again,> bear in mind that we can discard whatever doesn't add to our overall> objectives, and as long as it's not going to require much time from Tucker,> won't require any time from us, and there is a chance something interesting> will surface I don't think we lose anything in going ahead with the tasking> as> laid out.>> Chris, that is my position. But I defer to you and will change the task> descriptions if you are not persuaded by my explanation of what we are trying>> to do.>> The Way Ahead: Chris, please let me know if you are holding firm on your> push-> back. Pending that just wanted to update you:>> Tracy Shycoff and Dan Marcus are working on language (contract) memorializing>> our agreement-compensation terms-with Tim Naftali and David Tucker. We can> roll into that the task descriptions that we agree upon. To ease future> editorial work, I will also add the request that they do their work in> Microsoft Word, and advise that before long we will send stylistic guidance> for> their footnoting, etc. (once we have a pretty good idea of those matters at> this end). I'm hoping we can get formal letters fax'ed and or "snail-mailed">> to them next week.>> I'd be happy to talk to you further about any of the above points.>> Thanks, Mike>>> Quoting " " :>> > Mike -- I don't understand why you are having these two studies overlap --> > '68-> > '89 in one case, arid 1985 to 1998 in the other. You are also asking them> > both> > to comment as to the nature of terrorism as part of the US/Soviet cold war>> > struggle. This is really outside our mandate, and one party treating it is>> > sufficient. Rather, I would have the second study pick up from the point> of

http:/Mne sis.swishrnail.com/webm ail/imp/message.php?Horde= 6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/8/03


10/68

Mail:: INBOX: Re: Task Description fo r Tucker and Naftali Page 3 of 5

> > the end of the Cold War and the changing nature of terrorism.> > Quoting " " :> > > Philip,> > > Last week you approved the proposal to have David Tucker and Tim Naftali> > > write> > > monographs on the history (since 1968) of U.S. counterterrorism policy.> > > This is the specific tasking that I propose for each of them. Request> your> > > concurrence and/or any additions or modifications you would like to see> in> > > the> > > description. In short, is this on the right track?> > > Begin Text of Tucker and Naftali writing descriptions

> > > (Naftali)

> > > The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during> the> > > second half of the Cold War, particularly from 1968 (often considered> the> > > birth> > > of modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance> of> > > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a> maj or> >> > > driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary> > threat.> > > Was> > > terrorism viewed as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of> concern> > > with> > > rogue states, or a domestic problem?

> > > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism> > > strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal matter or a> national> > > security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement,> > > intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies took the> > 1ead,> > > and how did they coordinate with each other?

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/8/03


11/68

lail:: INBOX: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 4 of 5

> > > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.> > > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and> > > advance> > > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.> national> >> > > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?> > >> > >> > > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional> > analysis> > > of> > > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you> > discover> > > in> > > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can> > offer> > > our> > > input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.> > >> > >> > > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15,> 2004.

> > > (Tucker)

> > > The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy for the> > > years> > > immediately before and after the end of the Cold War. We suggest you> > review> > > the> > > period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of> > > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a> major> > > driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?

> > > Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism> > > viewed> > > solely as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with> rogue> > > states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem> > with

> > > policy makers? How was al-Qa'ida viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?>> > >> > >> > > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism> > > strategy during this time. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal> > > matter> > > or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through



12/68

M a i l : : INBOX: Re: Task Description for Tucker an d Naftali Page 5 of 5

> law> >> > > enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which> agencies> >> > > took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?> > >> > >> > > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.> > > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and> > > advance> > > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.> national> >> > > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?> > >> > >> > > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional> > analysis> > > of> > > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you> > discover> > > in> > > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can> > offer> > > our> > > input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.> > >> > >> > > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15,> 2004.

http ://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501 efa47a9c... 8/8/03


13/68

ail: : INBOX: Re: Task Description fo r Tucker an d Naftalii Page 1 o f 349.59MB /476.84MB (10.40%)^>ate: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:36:26-0400From: "" 4P

To : "" 4PCc: "" 4!P,"" monographs on the history (since 1968) of U.S. counterterrorism policy.>> This is the specific tasking that I propose for each of them. Request your> concurrence and/or any additions or modifications you would like to see in> th e> description.> In short, is this on the right track?> Begin Text of Tucker and Naftali writing descriptions T^y

> (Naftali)

The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during thsecond half of the Cold War, particularly from 1968 (often considered thebirthof modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance ofterrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a majordriver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat.Wasterrorism viewed as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concernwithrogue states, or a domestic problem? |/

We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism xiM/strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal matter or a nationalsecurity concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement,intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies took the lead,

> and how did they coordinate with each other?

> Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.> counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and> advance> other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S. national> power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?



14/68

Mail : : INBOX: Re: Task Descriptionfo r Tucker an d Naftali Page 2 of 3

> In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis> of> important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you discover> in> your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can offer> our> input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.>>> The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.>>> (Tucker)>>> The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy for the> years> immediately before and after the end of the Cold War. We suggest you review> the> period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of> terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a major> driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?>>> Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism> viewed> solely as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with rogue> states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem with>> policy makers? How was al-Qa'ida viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?>>> We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism> strategy during this time. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal> matter> or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law> enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies> took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?>>> Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.> counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and> advance> other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S. national> power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?>>> In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis> of> important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you discover> in> your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can offer> our> input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.>>> The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9fD2ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03


15/68

Mail:: INBOX:RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 4

49.38MB / 476.84MB (10.36%)Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:43:26 -0400From: "" 4|

To: Tracy Shycoff 4?Cc : "" 4f

Subject: RE: Task Description for Tucker and NaftaliThanks Tracy.

r\ ^ U 1\ewe have the contracts ithe task descript ions that Philip has just approved for Tim Naftali and DavidTucker.MikeQuoting Tracy Shycoff :> Mike--Dan a nd I discussed the mechanics o f this yesterday. We'll work o n i t> a nd ge t a c o n t r a c t in plac e quickly.>> Tracy J Shycoff> Deputy fo r Administration and Finance> Nation al Commission o n Terrorist Attacks> Upon the United States> 202-401-1718> 202-358-3124>> ----- Origina l Message -----> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:20 PM> To: mhurl ey@9-ll co mmission .gov> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected];> sdunne @9-llcommission .gov; tshyco ff@9-llco mmission .gov;> [email protected]; [email protected]> Subject: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali>> Mike -->> Well done. No edits.>> Philip>>> \Quoting " " :>> > Philip,> >> > Last wee k yo u approved the proposal t o have David Tucker and Tim Naf t a l i> > write> > monog raphs on the histo ry (since 1968) of U.S. counterterrorism policy.> >> > This is the s p e c i f i c t as ki n g tha t I propose for e a ch of them. Request> your> > c o n c u r r e n c e arid/or any additions o r modifi c a t i o ns yo u would like t o s ee in> > the> > d e s c r i p t i o n . In short, is this oi l the right track?> > Begi n Text o f Tucker and Naf t a l i w r i t i n g d esc r i p t i o n s

http://kinesis.swishmail.corn/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03


16/68

ymiiil:: INBOX: RE: Task Description fo r Tucker an d Naftali Page 2 of 4

> >> > (Naftali)

> > The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counter-terrorism policy during> the> > second half of the Cold War, particularly from 1968 (often considered the> > birth> > of modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance> of> > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a> major> > driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary> threat.> > Was> > terrorism viewed as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern> > wi th> > rogue states, or a domestic problem?> >> > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism> > strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal matter or a> national> > security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement,> > intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies took the> lead,

and how did they coordinate with each other?> >> > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.> > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism a r i d> > advance> > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.> national> > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?> >> > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional> analysis> > of> > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you> discover> > in> > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can> offer> > our> > input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.> >> > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.

> >> > (Tucker

> The Commission, wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism polic y for the> years

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmaiyimp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03


17/68

/ ia i l : : INBOX: RE: Task Descriptionfo r Tuckeran d Naftali Page 3 of 4

> > immediately before and after the end of the Cold War. We suggest you> review> > the> > period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of> > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a> major> > driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?> >> > Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism> > viewed> > solely as part, of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with rogue>> > states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem> with> >> > policy makers? How was al-Qa'ida viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?> >> > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism> > strategy during this time. Did policymaker's see terrorism as a criminal> > matter> > or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law>> > enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which> agencies> > took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?> >> > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.> > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and> > advance> > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.> national> > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?> >> >> > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional> analysis> > of> > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you> discover> > in> > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can> offer> > our> > input arid so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.> >> >> > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/irnp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03


18/68

il:: INBOX: RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 4 of 4



19/68

Mail : : INBO X: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 1 of 6

INBO X Compose Folders Opt ions Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks M e mo s Calendar Logout OPen folder'44.56MB / 476.84MB (9.35%)

INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim M o v e | c o p y lThis m e s s a g e to 3(4 of 875) CDelete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print Back to INBOX ^Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:48:47 -0400

From: Daniel Byman ^fTo: "" 4|

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali1.2 unnamed text/html 9.40 KB^

Mike,See attached.The only point I saw from Chris' email was about the date, so please let me know if there was something else. I recommend s(so if they hand it in late by 1January we'll still be fine).Philip is right ~ 1980 is a strange date. I don't know why I had this in mind other than it was a nice round number. I suggest ttCold War period (1968-1989), while Tucker look at the transition (1985-1998). There will be some overlap, but not that much,them answer similar questions, with a few additional ones for Tucker related to al-Qa'ida.The ideal person to add to this is Warren. If he's not up to this, we may want to ask him to be in touch with Naftali andTuckerthis) when he recovers. He'll be the one adding to their work.I popped Naftali a note to say that things look good and that we'd be in touch with specifics soon. Please let me know if youwith anything.Dan

[email protected] wrote:D a n ,The points Chris makes should be factored in to the paragraphs I've asked youto write (see previous email).Do you think 15K will be enough for this? I haven't discussed sums with Tuckeryet (except for referring to 20K when Philip first mentioned that figure duringour discussion on this in mid-June).Mike

Forwarded message from "" Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2 0 0 3 15:36:58 -0400From: ""

Reply-To: "" Subject: Re: David Tucker and Tim NaftaliTo: ""

Mike -- come back to me if you do not get their agreement at 15K. Also, whatdue date do you propose? It should be one that enables you to draw from theirwork as you write your monograph.

Quoting "" :

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9fD2ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03


20/68

I N B O X : Re: Fwd:Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 2 of 6

Mike --I approve your going forward with the plan you have proposed. You can offermore money if you need to.I'm not sure that 1980 is the right dividing line, but I leave that to yourdiscretion.This should be handled with the simplest kind of contract that Tracy can workup. They would be contractors to us, and would not have access to ourclassified information.PhilipPhilipQuoting " " < m h u r l e y @ 9 - 1 1 commiss ion.gov>:

Chris:You asked that I provide you with additional specifics on Team 3's

proposal

forDavid Tucker and Tim Naftali's contribution to Team 3's work. They follow:

First, per previous discussions Dan Byman and I have had with you and

Philip,

we think there is a need for a historical review of U.S. Counterterrorismpolicy. Some Commissioners have made this point. We do not consider it a

principal thrust of what Team 3 is doinglooking at Counterterrorism

policy

from 1998 until 9-11, the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and we arecombating terrorism now and will be in the future. But a historical

overview

will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the

rationale

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c.. . 8/1/03


21/68

IN BO X : Re: Fwd:Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 3 of 6

to

below.Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.counterterrorism policy from 1968 (first modern international terroristact--pflp hijacking of international airliner) through 1980; and David Tucker

doone on ct policy from 1980 through 1998. In addition to Tucker's scholarly

credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in CIAandin ASD/SOLIC from 1985 through 1998, and that perspective and knowledge ofmanyof the key players and DoD doctrines would inform his work. Some overlapbetween the Naftali and Tucker monographs would be good.Why do we need this?It's true that we could just recommend Tucker's book "Skirmishes at the

Edge

ofEmpire--U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 1970 - 1990" to Commissioners for

their background. But that would not answer the interest of the Americanpublic. The choices policy makers were making from 1998 until 9/11, andpossibly even after, were very much conditioned by how terrorism was

viewed

andresponded to during the previous 25 years. This is the stage upon which

al-

Qaida walked. That is, we had standard operating procedures formed in this

period, and we only adjusted them slowly as the new, and much differentthreatbecame clearer. This is important context and at least some in the publicwillwant to know it. Our story will be incomplete if we don't address it in

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde :=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03


22/68

r:: INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 4 of 6

appropriate way.Placing it in an annex will provide the context but at the same time it

won' t

divert from the main focus of our work and it won't cut into the time of

Team

3members.How much should they be paid?At our meeting on this in June, Philip said that he would be willing to pay

each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure came

off

the top of his head during the conversation, i.e., it was not a matter he

had

given deep thought. I would suggest that we might wish to pay each of them

$15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.Decision:Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.If you and Philip agree, request guidance on how to proceed. (Per Philip's

guidance from the June discussion, Dan contacted Naftali and I contactedTuckerto broach the proposal, making clear no final decision had been reached.Bothindicated strong interest at the time. Following that contact, the

proposal

was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again, if

you

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webm ail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9fD2ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03


23/68

INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 5 of 6

agree, should we send letters to Tucker and Naftali specifying both what we

would like them to do and the compensation they will receive for the work?Thanks,Mike

End forwarded message

I 2 Naftali and Tucke r descriptions.doc application/msword 31.52 KB

(Naftali)The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during the second half of the Cold War, particularly from 'considered the birth of mode rn terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance of terrorism in overall U.S. forekminor concern or a major driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism view ed aSoviet struggle, an issue of con cern with rogue states, or a domestic problem?

We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. coun terterrorism strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a


24/68

< :: INBOX: R e: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 6 of 6

concern with rogue states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem with policy makers? H


25/68

Mail:: Sent Items: Re Tucker & Naftali Page 1 of 1

43.52MB / 476.84MB (9.13%)Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:54:05 -0400From: "" 4P

To: "" 4|Subject: ReTucker & NaftaliDan:

I think I forwarded you yesterday Philip's approval for having Naftali andTucker do monographs for us. Tracy Shycoff is working on the contractual memo.I would appreciate if you would do the following.Could you spell out in a couple of paragraphs what we would like Naftali to do;and then do the same thing for Tucker.What I'm looking for is the specifics, the guidelines for what they aresupposed to produce.I think you have the best sense of this. I'll review what you come up with.We'll forward it to Philip for his o.k. and that will then be the basis of whatTucker and Naftali will do. It needs to be clear to them.Bear in mind that Philip wasn't sure that 1980 was the best dividing line. Hedidn't say why. Whatever is the boundary between what we are asking Naftali todo and what we are asking Tucker to do should have a rationale supporting it,one that Philip will find persuasive.I agree some overlap is good.Probably we will send this out as a kind of memo along with a letter signed byPhilip that specifies the general nature of the work and the compensation that~willT5&> paid for it.I appreciate your help and am open to any other suggestions.Regards,Mike

,o /

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php ?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03


26/68

.Mail:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 1 of 5

43.21 MB / 476.84MB (9.06%)Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:23:45 -0400

^ From: "" 4|To : "" 4|Cc: Tracy Shycoff 4P,"" 4|1," " 4J,"" ^,"" 4P

Subject: Re: David Tucker and Tim NaftaliTracy -- I'm not much of a govt contracts lawyer, but since we want thisproduct from these particular scholars, it could, I believe, be justified as asole-source contract if you don't think we can do a fixed-price contract forpersonal services. DMQuoting " " :> Tracy -->> These are unique scholarly products for which there are not an array of> competitive vendors. But if it's easier to do it as a personal services> contract . .>> Philip>>> Quoting Tracy Shycoff :>> > Mike, I am happy to work on this with you. However, I think that I first> > need

_ ^^ > > to speak with Dan or Steve regarding the contract. It.seems to me that> these> >> > would be contracts for a specific product rather than a personal services> > contract like we have used for many of our contract employees. If that's> the> >> > case, I need some guidance on sole source justifications for the> contracts.> >> > Dan/Steve thoughts?> >> > Tracy J Shycoff> > Deputy for Administration and Finance> > National Commission on Terrorist Attacks> > upon the United States> > 301 7th Street, SW Suite 51.25> > Washington, DC 20407> > 202-401-1718> > 202-358-3124 (fax)> >> >> > Quoting "" :> >> > > Mike --> > >> > > I approve your going forward with the plan you have proposed. You can> > offer

* > > >> > > more money if you need to.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 7/31/03


27/68

lil:: INBOX: Re:David Tuckerand Tim Naftali Page 2 of 5

> > > I'm not sure that 1980 is the right dividing line, but I leave that to> your> >> > > discretion.> > >> > > This should be handled with the simplest kind of contract that Tracy can> > work> > >> > > up. They would be contractors to us, and would not have access to our> > > classified information.> > >> > > Philip> > >> > > PhilipQuoting " " :> > >> > > > Chris:> > > >> > > > You asked that I provide you with additional specifics on Team 3's> > > proposal> > > > for> > > > David Tucker and Tim Naftali 's contribution to Team 3's work. They> > follow:

> > > > First, per previous discussions Dan Byman and I have had with you and> > > Philip,> > > >> > > > we think there is a need for a historical review of U.S.> Counterterrorism> >> > > > policy. Some Commissioners have made this point. We do not consider> it> > a> > >> > > > principal thrust of what Team 3 is doing- -looking at Counterterrorism> > > policy> > > >> > > > from 1998 until 9-11, the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and we> are> >> > > > combating terrorism now and will be in the future. But a historical> > > overview> > > >> > > > will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the> > > rationale> > > >> > > > below.> > > >> > > > Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.> > > > Counterterrorism policy from 1968 (first modern international> terrorist> > > > act--> > > > pflp hijacking of international airliner) through 1980; and David> Tucker> > > to> > > > do> > > > one on ct policy from 1980 through 1998. In addition to Tucker's> > scholarly



28/68

E l : : INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 3 of 5

> > > > credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in> > CIA> > > > and> > > > in ASD/SOLIC from 1985 through 1998, and that perspective and> knowledge> > of> > > > many> > > > of the key players and DoD doctrines would inform his work. Some> overlap> >> > > > between the Naftali and Tucker monographs would be good.> > > >> > > > Why do we need this?> > > >> > > > It's true that we could just recommend Tucker's book "Skirmishes at> the> > > Edge> > > > of> > > > Empire--U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 1970 - 1990" to> Commissioners> > for> > >> > > > their background. But that would not answer the interest of the> American> >> > > > public. The choices policy makers were making from 1998 until 9/11,> and> >> > > > possibly even after, were very much conditioned by how terrorism was> > > viewed> > > > and> > > > responded to during the previous 25 years. This is the stage upon> which> > > al-> > > > Qaida walked. That is, we had standard operating procedures formed in> > this> > >> > > > period, and we only adjusted them slowly as the new, and much> different> > > > threat> > > > became clearer. This is important context and at least some in the> > public> > > > will> > > > want to know it. Our story will be incomplete if we don't address it> in> > > some> > > >> > > > appropriate way.> > > >> > > > Placing it in an annex will provide the context but at the same time> it> > > won't> > > >> > > > divert from the main focus of our work and it won't cut into the time> of> > > Team> > > > 3> > > > members.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webm ail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 7/31/03


29/68

> l a i l : : INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naft a l i Page 4 of 5

> > > > How much should they be paid?> > > > At our meeting on this in June, Philip said that he would be willing> to> > pay> > > > each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure> > came> > > off> > > > the top of his head during the conversation, i.e., it was not a matter> > he> > > had> > > > given deep thought. I would suggest that we might wish to pay each of> > them> > > > $15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.> > > > Decision:> > > > Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.> > > > If you and Philip agree, request guidance on how to proceed. (Per> > Philip's> > > > guidance from the June discussion, Dan contacted Naftali and I> contacted> > > > Tucker> > > > to broach the proposal, making clear no final decision had been> reached.> > > > Both> > > > indicated strong interest at the time. Following that contact, the> > > proposal> > > > was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again,> if> > > you> > > > agree, should we send letters to Tucker and Naftali specifying both> what> > we> > > > would like them to do and the compensation they will receive for the> > work?> > > > Thanks,> > > > Mike



30/68

Mail: : INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 1 of 3

43.27MB / 476.84MB (9.07%)Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:58 -0400From: "" 4?

To : "" 4fCc: "" "" 4P'! "" ^, "" 4P'

Subject: Re: David Tucker and Tim NaftaliMike -- come back to me if you do not get their agreement at 15K. Also, whatdue date do you propose? It should be one that enables you to draw from theirwork as you write your monograph.

Quoting " " :> Mike -->> I approve your going forward with the plan you have proposed. You can offer>> more money if you need to.>> I'm not sure that 1980 is the right dividing line, but I leave that to your> discretion.>> This should be handled with the simplest kind of contract that Tracy can work>> up. They would be contractors to us, and would not have access to our> classified information.>> Philip>> PhilipQuoting " " :>> > Chris:> >> > You asked that I provide you with additional specifics on Team 3 ' s> proposal> > for> > David Tucker and Tim Naftali 's contribution to Team 3's work. They follow:

> > First, per previous discussions Dan Byman and I have had with you and> Philip,> >> > we think there is a . need for a historical review of U.S. Counterterrorisin> > policy. Some Commissioners have made this point. We do not consider it a>> > principal thrust of what Team 3 is doinglooking at Counterterrorisin> policy> >> > from 1998 until 9-11, the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and we are> > combating terrorism now and will be in the future. But a historical> overview> >> > will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the> rationale> >> > below.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmaiyimp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03


31/68

:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 2 of 3

> >> > Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.> > counterterrorism policy from 1968 (first modern international terrorist> > act--> > pflp hijacking of international airliner) through 1980; and David Tucker> to> > do> > one on ct policy from 1980 through 1998. In addition to Tucker's scholarly> > credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in CIA> > arid> > in ASD/SOLIC from 1985 through 1998, and that perspective and knowledge of> > many> > of the key players and DoD doctrines would inform his work. Some overlap> > between the Naftali and Tucker monographs would be good.> > Why do we need this?> > It's true that we could just recommend Tucker's book "Skirmishes at the> Edge> > of> > Empire--U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 1970 - 1990" to Commissioners for> > their background. But that would not answer the interest of the American> > public. The choices policy makers were making from 1998 until 9/11, and> > possibly even after, were very much conditioned by how terrorism was> viewed> > and> > responded to during the previous 25 years. This is the stage upon which> al-> > Qaida walked. That is, we had standard operating procedures formed in this> > period, and we only adjusted them slowly as the new, and much different> > threat> > became clearer. This is important context and at least some in the public> > will> > want to know it. Our story will be incomplete if we don't address it in> some> > appropriate way.> > Placing it in an annex will provide the context but at. the same time it> won't> > divert from the main focus of our work and it won't cut into the time of> Team> > 3> > members.> > How much should they be paid?> > At our meeting on this in June, Philip said that he would be willing to pay> > each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure came> off> > the top of his head, during the conversation, i.e., it was not a matter he> had



32/68

a i l : : INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 3 of 3

> > given deep thought. I would suggest that we might wish to pay each of them> > $15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.> > Decision:> > Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.> > If you and Philip agree, request guidance on how to proceed. (Per Philip's> > guidance from the June discussion, Dan contacted Naftali and I contacted> > Tucker> > to broach the proposal, making clear no final decision had been reached.> > Both> > indicated strong interest at the time. Following that contact, the> proposal> > was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again, if> you> > agree, should we send letters to Tucker and Naftali specifying both what we> > would, like them to do arid the compensation they will receive for the work?> > Thanks,> > Mike



33/68

^


34/68


35/68

Message Page 2 of 3

Thanks for your work. It added to our understanding of terrorismand what the USG did about it, and enriched our report.I would urge you to limit the introduction (which you refer tobelow) to only a very few factual sentences, and those should bekept neutral in tone, rather than analytic or editorial. This Fridayis the last day for most of the Commission's staff and we simplydon't have time to do additional editing.Again, great job.Mike

Original MessageFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:53 PMTo: Mike Hurley; Warren Bass; 'Warren Bass'Subject: FW : FW : Naftali's Report2nd try.

Original MessageFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:44PMTo: 'Warren Bass'; Timothy J. Naftali1Cc: 'Mike Hurley1Subject: RE: FW: Naftali's ReportThanks Warren.

Just so you have a sense of where I stand now. I have received edits from Yoel for all butthe Bush chapter. He offered to come in last night to do it. I told him to have a weekend. Ihave edited all but Reagan II, which I amworking on again today. When I get Yoel's lastsubmission I will check it against my edited Bush chapter to see whether we all caughteverything.Tomorrow I will do that (assuming Yoel sends me his remaining comments tomorrow) andfinish a short introduction. I'd like you to have the entire piece Tuesday.BTW I have taken some time to read the 9/11 report. It is a beautiful piece of work. I havemore to say about it and what I think it does for the study of government, let alone thetragedy, but that can wait for another time. The Warren Commission unfortunately did notget a chance to interrogate Oswald but reading between the lines I think I caught that thestaff was able to provoke reinterrogations of KSM. You seem to have maximized access toinformation of all kinds.On a parochial note, I was pleased to see a few footnote references to the 1968-1993 piecewhich wasdescribed as a Commission analysis. I feel a lot of pride in being associated inthis way with your work.Tim.Original MessageFrom: Warren Bass [mailto:[email protected]]

7/26/2004


36/68

Message Page 3 of 3

Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 2:46 PMTo: Timothy1NaftaliCc: Mike Hurley; [email protected]; Kevin ScheidSubject: RE: FW: Naftali's Report

Tim, just FYI, from LonyI think she makes a good point.Original Message

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:33 PMTo: Warren Bass; Kevin ScheidCc: Mike HurleySubject: Re: FW: Naftali's ReportIn a messag e dated 7/20/2004 10:38:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,[email protected] writes:Report

If it is not too late. I can't really say too m uch on the other points, but I thinkCharlie Allen (you have probably already told Tim this) had a huge play in CT(as well as other missions) collection across disciplines at the tactical andoperational level - our debate with him has been on how he handled strategicplanning and collection for CT. Turco probably didn't have as much play ashe got into other things including the IOC - but they too eventually had a CTpart of the mission (so at least his people were playing) - after 9/11 he did aswell (the minder would not let him talk much about that since it was after 20Sep 01. Ask Gordon and I typed up my notes the best I could.

7/26/2004


37/68

Mail: : INBOX: Re: Tucker an d Naftali Page 1 of 2

33.22MB / 476.84MB (6.97%)Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:37:55 +0100From: " " ^

To : " " 4lSubject: Re: Tucker and NaftaliSEE CAPS----- Original Message -----From: " " Date: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:13 pmSubject: Tucker and Naftali> Dan,>> I detected a little warming in Chris K. today regarding our> proposal to have> eitehr Tucker or Naftali or both do some background on CT policy.> Chris is> getting the $ numbers for the Commission (what we have left) in a> day or so .> He thinks the picture may not be as bad as he feared.>GOOD NEWS> He asked me the following questions:>> What should their historical review encompass (I think he means> from when to> when)? I'd say from about 1970 to 1998, which is when we pick it> up from> sensitive materials and interviews.

TO BE NITPICKY, HOW BOUT 1968 (THE BIRTHDAY OF MODERN TERRORISM)THROUGH 1998.> How will their review fit into the big picture of what Team 3 and> the> Commission is doing? I'd say as an annex?

MOST OF IT AS AN ANNEX, BUT THE 1993-1998 STUFF SHOULD BE GREATLYAUGMENTED BY OUR WORK, I WOULD THINK. BUT THEN WE HAVE TO DO IT ...> Why do we need this? Why can't we just recommend Tucker's book to> the> Commissioners? I'd say that's fine for the Commissioners but the> American> public might want to see this placed in context. I think that the> choices> policy makers were making from 1998 to 9/11 were very much> conditioned by how> terrorism was viewed and responded to in the previous 25 years.NICE WAY OF PUTTING IT. SAY THAT THIS IS THE STAGE UPON WHICH AL-QAEDA WALKED. THAT IS, WE HAD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FORMED INTHIS PERIOD, AND WE ONLY ADJUSTED THEM SLOWLY AS THE THREAT BECAMECLEARER .



38/68

:: INBOX: Re: Tucker and Naftali Page 2 of 2

> Spell out why we need a monograph from them. Should they both do> it? Should> they work on different parts? Maybe Tucker from 1970 -1990;> Naftali from 1990> to 1998.PZ ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT THEM BOTH DOING THE SAME PERIOD. I LIKETHE IDEA OF HAVING SOME OVERLAP, BUT ASKING NAFTALI TO CONCENTRATEMORE ON THE EARLY YEARS, AND TUCKER TO DO THE LATER YEARS (SAY AFTER1980 OR SO) . BUT OVERLAP IS GOOD. I HOPE THAT SOMEONE LIKE WARRENWOULD THEN TAKE THESE AND USE IT AS BASIC MATERIAL, WHICH HE WOULDTHEN REWRITE WITH HIS OWN STUFF ADDED.

> How much should they be paid? Remember at the meeting we had> Philip just> tossed out the figure $20,000 for a 50,000 word manuscript. Maybe> we could pay> them each $10,000 for a 30,000 word manuscript.SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD FIGURE.>> Dan, would appreciate your thoughts on anbetter justification we> can offer, the better chance we will get the approval> to forge ahead.>> I think this background is important to Team 3's overall effort.> This all has> to be placed in its historical context, so it can be seen how> different the a-Q> threat is, and why it demanded non-traditional response before> 9/11, but didn't> get one .

DO YOU WANT ME TO DO A MORE FORMAL WRITEUP OF THE JUSTIFICATION? IFSO, I'LL TRY TO GET TO IT SOON -- I NEED TO BLOCK OFF SOME TIME FROMFAMILY .

> Mike>>

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webma il/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 7/22/03


39/68

Mail: : Sent Items: Tucker an d Naftali Page 1 of 1

32.50MB /476.84MB (6.82%)Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:13:03 -0400From: "" 4|

To : "" 4PSubject: Tucker and NaftaliDan,I detected a little warming in Chris K. today regarding our proposal to haveeitehr Tucker or Naftali or both do some background on CT policy. Chris isgetting the $ numbers for the Commission (what we have left) in a day or so.He thinks the picture may not be as bad as he feared.He asked me the following questions:What should their historical review encompass (I think he means from when towhen)? I'd say from about 1970 to 1998, which is when we pick it up fromsensitive materials and interviews.How will their review fit into the big picture of what Team 3 and theCommission is doing? I'd say as an annex?

Why do we need this? Why can't we just recommend Tucker's book to theCommissioners? I'd say that's fine for the Commissioners but the Americanpublic might want to see this placed in context. I think that the choicespolicy makers were making from 1998 to 9/11 were very much conditioned by howterrorism was viewed and responded to in the previous 25 years.Spell out why we need a monograph from them. Should they both do it? Shouldthey work on different parts? Maybe Tucker from 1970 -1990; Naftali from 1990to 1998.How much should they be paid? Remember at the meeting we had Philip justtossed out the figure $20,000 for a 50,000 word manuscript. Maybe we could paythem each $10,000 for a 30,000 word manuscript.Dan, would appreciate your thoughts on any/all of the above questions. Thebetter justification we can offer, the better chance we will get the approvalto forge ahead.I think this background is important to Team 3's overall effort. This all hasto be placed in its historical context, so it can be seen how different the a-Qthreat is, and why it demanded non-traditional response before 9/11, but didn'tget one.Mike

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501 efa47a9... 7/21/03


40/68

Message Page 1 of 3

Mike HurleyFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:43 PMTo: Warren BassCc: Timothy J. Naftali'; Mike HurleySubject: RE: Naftali's Report

Warren,I don't mind holding on to the 9/11 piece a few extra days. The issue for me is that I need to return to the final editfor my Khrushchev book and w ant the 9/11 piece to be in the completed category.The memo to you looks like it will be very, very short. So far (and I am nearly done) I think there are only twoplaces in the entire m anuscript w here I disagreed with an editorial suggestion. We need to discuss how Ihandle Jeanne Dixon's prediction, which did play a significant role in the formation of the Cabinet Com mittee(1972), and the last page of the Bush section, wh ere I conclude the hostage story. I did trim both sections tosoften the tone, but both stories are important to the evolution of US CT strategy. With all due respect, I believethe Team 2 comm ent that "these people stayed around" in response to my point that a generational shift occuredin 1992 is not accurate. Turco may have still been in CIA but his beat were NOCs and he assures me that he wasnever consu lted by CTC 's leadership. Revell and Baker we re gone. Charlie Allen was around but I'm not sure hemattered much to CT in the 1990s. Does Tucker mention him ?Tim.

Original MessageFrom: Warren Bass [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:40 PMTo: [email protected]; Yoel TobinCc: Timothy J. Naftali; Mike HurleySubject: RE: N aftali's ReportSounds great, guys. Thanks fordoing this, Yoel.Yoel, will you send Tim, Mike, and I a brief progress report sometime tomorrow late morning, just so wecan take stock of whether Tim should go ahead and send his version to the FO, or whether it'll be worth hiswhile to hold fire for a bit longer while he waits on your comments? The FO is still snowed with pre-rolloutdetails, so we may be better of f doing the latter. But let's touch base tomorrow and see where we are.Also, Tim, ifyou have that memo wediscussed, we should work through that before we move the draftahead to the FO.Having the final report done is a big load off; I do have my own monograph to write and otherresponsibilities, but I think wehave a good way ahead here. Thanks again for all your help, guys.Warren

Original MessageFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:24 PMTo: Yoel TobinCc: Timothy J. Naftali'; Warren BassSubject: RE: Naftali's Report

7/19/2004


41/68

Message Page 2 of 3

Dear Yoel,I would appreciate your comments and can imagine the pressure you have been under. I will besending in a draft late tomorrow but expect a little back and forth with the Front Office before themanuscript appears in August. I'd suggest that you not bother with typos and stylistic issues. Yourcolleagues, I believe, have found most, if not all, of them. Please read for factual or interpretiveerrors.Thanks.Tim

Original MessageFrom: Yoel Tobin [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:23 PMTo: [email protected]: Timothy J. Naftali; Warren BassSubject: RE: Naftali's ReportProfessor Naftali:I was talking to Warren a couple of hours ago - would it still be possible for me to take alook at your draft and give you any comments tomorrow? I apologize for missing thedeadline, but it has been very intense around here with the publication of the Commissionreport.Yoel TobinTeam 1,9/11 Commission

Original MessageFrom: Warren BassSent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:08 AMTo: staffCc: Timothy J. Naftali'Subject: Naftali's ReportColleagues,Attached please find a copy of Tim Naftali's draft report on the evolution of U.S.counterterrorism policy from LBJ to George H.W. Bush. We hope that the draft canultimately become a stand-alone monograph. We're deeply grateful to Tim for all hishard work and dogged research on thisand glad to have someone of his statureworking on the project.I'd be grateful if (in your abundant spare time) any and all of you would add yourow n comments and edits on any of these sections, as your interest, expertise, andworkload dictates. Tim's given us a terrific first cut, and the collective wisdom of thestaff will surely help the piece along.

1. Please send changesdirectly to Tim at the above email;[email protected] will also work.2. Please coordinate throughyour team leadersor the team pointstaffer of your choice so Tim doesn't drown in comments; ideally, it'd beeasiest tojust get one mark-up per team.3. Please mark up all changes on the above Word files in track changessoTim can accept them as quicklyas possible, rather than doing paper edits.4. Please markyour files as, for instance, "Ford section T4edits 071404"or

7/19/2004


42/68

Message Page 3 of 3

the like.5. Please remember that thisis an unclassified, open-source-based piece, sopleasedont insert classified. That said, ifyou seeerrors, pleasemakesure we fix them.6. Please be attentive to issues of evidence and sourcing.7. Since time is short, please suggest fixes rather than just flaggingproblems.8. I've done an edit myself for styleto makethe piece have more of the voiceofour other publicly released productstrying to keep the vivid prose whileavoiding chattiness, digressions, or judgments of a type unlikely to passmuster with our commissioners. Butplease keep an eye out for style issuesas well. (My edit, thanks to the genius of FedEx, has not yet beenincorporated but is making its way to Tim via Irelandit's a long, sadstory.) Ultimately, this is a Commission workproduct, and we should keepto the samejust-the-facts-ma'am standards ofevidenceand sobriety thathave served us well.9. Thepiece, while unclassified, is Commission Sensitive.

I'd be hugelygrateful ifyou would make everyeffort to get youredits to Tim byCOB onWednesday, July14. That way, we can incorporate changes and forwarda draft to the Front Office withina few more days. Ifyou'd like to weigh in but fearyou won't be able to hit that deadline, please drop me a line or pop by to chat, andwe'D find a w ay to makeit work.If you haveanyquestions, please giveme a call, or feel free to be in touch with Timto talk things through, either at home at l lorbycell at| |Many thanks, all. .Warren

9/11 Personal Privacy

7/19/2004


43/68

Message Page 1 of 2

Mike HurleyFrom: Warren BassSent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:21 PMTo : 't [email protected]'Cc: Mike HurleySubject: tim's piece

Sounds goodI'll thank 'em.Enjoy the wedding... and really, don't kill yourself to hit COB Monday. Have a weekendwe all would if we could.Honestly, the FO is so drowned in final details and roD-out prep that it's hard for me to imagine they will havemuch time for other projects til after the report's launched. So I'd definitely take the time early next week to makethe T2 change in the Reagan section if you think it'll help, as it sounds like it did on Nixon. And if there are fixesyou don't like, just roll 'em into that memo and we'll work 'em over.

Original MessageFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:26 PMTo: Warren BassSubject:RE:Team 1 (Hyon Kim) sent minor editorial fixes , but had clearly read the entire piece. Susan Ginsburgasked me whether I knew of something called the Burkholder report from GHW Bush, which I had not.You and Team 2 are the reason why this will be a much better monograph.I am heading off to N YC for a wedding in a couple o f hours. I will be working on the train and should beable to send it all back to you by COB Monday. The only hang up is that Team 2 wa nted me to break outstuff about non-military CT in RW R, which requires some effort. I did add some of that to the R N sectionand much improved it and I don't mind doing this for RWR.Tim.

Original MessageFrom: Warren Bass [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:10PMTo: tjn3y@v irginia.edu; Mike HurleySubject:RE:Great, tim. We're drowning in final report stuff and likely to stay that way all wknd, but pleaseplunge ahead rolling in all the changes, and we'll shoot to get a staff-edited draft to the front officesoon. Have nagged people, and wiD do so again. Pis let us see a list of who's weighed in, will you?Thanks,Warren

Original MessageFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:12 AMTo: Mike Hurley; Warren BassSubject:

7/19/2004


44/68

Page 2 of 2

Mike and Warren,I have received some comments from other staff members and they are helpful.Thanks.Tim.Timothy J. Nafta l iDirectorPresidential Recordings ProgramKremlin Decisionmaking ProjectMiller Center of Public Affairs2201 Old Ivy RoadPO Box 400406Charlottesville, VA 22904

7/19/2004


45/68


46/68

MikeHurlevFrom: TimothyJ. Naftali [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:52 PMTo: Warren Bass; Mike HurleySubject: Clarke mistakes

Mike and Warren,Well done on surviving the Rice to prepare for Rice.I thought you should know that I have found more errors in the Clarke book.1) He says that the first rendered terrorist Fahwaz Younis was guilty of killing threeAmericans. Actually no one died, American or otherwise, on the plane he hijacked.2) He has the USS Vincennes shooting down the IranAir plane AFTER the Pan Am 103 goesdown. Of course the sequence was reversed, which is why we suspected the Irans attackedPan Am 103.3) He has the Iran-Iraq war ending in 1989.4) He misdates the Khobar towers bombing, arguing that a speech President Clinton gave inthe winter of 1996 occurred AFTER Khobar Towers.Weird mistakes.By the way, you will get the remainder of my piece tomorrow.Tim.


47/68

Message Page 1 of 1

Mike HurleyFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [tjn3y@ virginia.edu]Sent: Tuesday, A pril 06, 2004 9:42 AMTo: Warren Bass; Mike HurleyCc: Marquittia ColemanSubject: Clarke's book

Warren and Mike,For what it's worth, let me tell you that Clarke's book has a lot of historical errors. For example, Clarke places theassassination of Meir Kahane by Nosair in 1992 instead of 1990 and says that Pan Am 103 was blown up duringBush 41 's presidency [It happened under Reagan in December 1988] and asserts that 278 Americans died in theMarine Barracks bombing in 1983 when it was 241 that died.None of these errors is critical but they do suggest sloppiness. I can imagine hewrote his book quickly butperhaps there is some sloppiness in areas that the Commission cares about.It is curious that none of the reviews of the book picked up on these checkable errors.Tim.

4/6/2004


48/68

Message Page 1 of 1

Mike HurleyFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:17 PMTo: Warren Bass; Mike HurleyCc: Marquittia ColemanSubject: One more Rice and the Millenium Case

Mike and Warren,Sorry for the typos in the previous email I amsaving myeditor's eye for the CT piece for you. [Including Clarke'sname]:)It occured to me that it would be useful to know whether she had had time to look at the after action report on theMilennium terrorist threat that Berger hadcommissioned. Presumably it made recommendations for improvingdomestic security. Didn't that success rest on a lucky break -- an unusually attentive custom's officer?TimTimothy J. NaftaliDirectorPresidential Recordings ProgramKremlin Decisionmaking ProjectMiller Center of Public Affairs2201 Old Ivy RoadPO Box 400406Charlottesville, VA 22904

4/5/2004


49/68

Message Paelof

Mike HurleyFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [tjn3y@v irginia.edu]Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:27 AMTo: Mike Hurley; Warren BassCc: Marquittia ColemanSubject: The Remaining Sections

Dear Mike and Warren,I have two more sections to send to you. One covers Reagan's second term (Achille Lauro, Libya, Abu Nidal) andis shaping up to be as long as the Nixon chapter and a much shorter Bush chapter. I have another project to turnto at the end of next weekend, so I will do everything I can to get them to you in an acceptable form this w eek.I do hope that you find my sections useful as you write your final report.Tim.Timothy J. NaftaliDirectorPresidential R ecordings ProgramKremlin Decisionmaking ProjectMiller Center of Public Affairs2201 Old Ivy RoadPO Box 400406Charlottesville, VA 22904

3/30/2004


50/68

Message Page 1 of 1

Mike HurleyFrom: Timothy J. N aftali [ t [email protected] ]Sent: Thursday, March 25 , 2004 3:04 AMTo : Mike Hurley; Warre n Bass; Marquittia ColemanSubject: LBJ Section

Dear Mike an d Warren,Here is the next section. I have left to send you the brief JF K intro, the long Reagan section and the comparativelysmall GHWB section.Nice seeing yo u today [and you, too, Marquitt ic] I enjoyed the public hearing an d once I have exported the lastsections have some com me nts that might be useful to you as you work up your final staff report. I believe that theevidence from 1968-1993 bears ou t what DGI Ten et said about a system ic failure. What disappointed me aboutthe questioning of Armitags later was that no cn e asked him whether in restrospect he felt he had to unlearnsome of the lessons he had learned in the Reagan-era war on terrorism. I think the answer is "yes," an d thisexplains some of why the Bush team - with all of its collective foreign-policy expe rience - was behind theeightball on this issue. Some of that will be implicit in what I am sending you but the other elements I could tease ou tfor you in a separate memo or in a meet ing at your off ice.Tim.

3/25/2004


51/68

Message Page 1 of 2

Mike HurleyFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:14 AMTo: Warren Bass; Mike Hurley; Marquittia ColemanSubject: RE: Submission Schedule

Thanks Warren.I, too, amexcited and very grateful to the two of you and PZ. I have by now done a lot of reading on our subjectand there is no one single narrative (David Tucker's book is a very helpful primer but more poli sci than history)on CT and the principals for this period. What a story it is turning out to be - from the hijackings to Detente toWatergate to Lebanon to Iran-Contra to the Gulf War, you hit all of the high and low points of US politicalhistory. By the way, to preview the RWR chapter, the President Reagan you will encounter is not the Reagan thatI, at least, expected: A much more interesting leader.Best,Tim.

Original MessageFrom: Warren Bass [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:57 AMTo: [email protected]; Mike Hurley; Marquittia ColemanSubject: RE: Submission ScheduleThanks, Tim. It's really up to Mike, who has a much better sense than I do about the overall timetablewhythey pay him the bigbucks. That said, I'm not panicked bythis, largely because we're so swamped withhearings prep for March 23-24.So myvote would be to get it right, rather than havingyou knock yourself out. But after the hearings, we'llwant to start turning our attention to the piece.Very excited about the piece; after this much time bashing my head against the walls of EOF, substance is ablessed relief.Best,Warren

Original MessageFrom: Timothy J. Naftali [ma

T3 B9 David Tucker- Tim Naftali 2 of 2 Fdr- Emails- Letters- Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3...

Documents

Transcript of T3 B9 David Tucker- Tim Naftali 2 of 2 Fdr- Emails- Letters- Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3...