Terrorism: the myth?

[Black Dog]

For the past five years, Americans have been regularly regaled with dire predictions of another major al Qaeda attack in the United States. In 2003, a group of 200 senior government officials and business executives, many of them specialists in security and terrorism, pronounced it likely that a terrorist strike more devastating than 9/11 -- possibly involving weapons of mass destruction -- would occur before the end of 2004. In May 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that al Qaeda could "hit hard" in the next few months and said that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on U.S. soil were complete. That fall, Newsweek reported that it was "practically an article of faith among counterterrorism officials" that al Qaeda would strike in the run-up to the November 2004 election. When that "October surprise" failed to materialize, the focus shifted: a taped encyclical from Osama bin Laden, it was said, demonstrated that he was too weak to attack before the election but was marshalling his resources to do so months after it.

On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, "Today's terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon."

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?

One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

...

Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.

Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?

[Charles Anthony]

Could it be that we should bow down and give thanks to the HomeLand Security MakeWork Hysteria Department for all of the continued success at diverting us from all of the believedtobelinkedtoAlQuaeda terrorists?

[jbg]

Could it be that we should bow down and give thanks to the HomeLand Security MakeWork Hysteria Department for all of the continued success at diverting us from all of the believedtobelinkedtoAlQuaeda terrorists?

No, to the brave troops that are keeping the jihadis busy elsewhere.

[Liam]

It's clear to me that the Bush folks have played up our fears of terrorism for political gain, but that does not mean that there is not a real threat lurking out there. In my opinion, the fact that al-Qaeda hasn't mounted a huge strike on US soil since 9/11 has more to do with their patient and covert planning than any insinuation that the threat is not real. I don't at all endorse the Bush tactics in fighting this war (invading Iraq, breaking Geneva, secret prisons, lack of due process, infringement on civil liberties, warrantless wiretapping, you name it) but I personally would prefer to believe that the threat is real and be wrong than think there is no threat and be proven wrong.

[PocketRocket]

Not everyone has the courage and/or idiocy (which of these options you choose depends upon your belief in those who would inspire such individuals) to kill themselves whilst killing others.

Maybe they've simply run out of people willing to die for their cause and this long delay is because of the time it is taking to find/train more.

LIAM's points are all well made.

There have, after all, been several attacks since 9/11, but they have been in other countries.

The threat continues, but it is simply not quite the bogey-man that Bush and company would have us believe.

Still, when dealing with a rabid dog, I suppose it is best to assume that the dog will try to bite you.

[Black Dog]

No, to the brave troops that are keeping the jihadis busy elsewhere.

It is also sometimes suggested that the terrorists are now too busy killing Americans and others in Iraq to devote the time, manpower, or energy necessary to pull off similar deeds in the United States. But terrorists with al Qaeda sympathies or sensibilities have managed to carry out attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere in the past three years; not every single potential bomb thrower has joined the fray in Iraq.

It's clear to me that the Bush folks have played up our fears of terrorism for political gain, but that does not mean that there is not a real threat lurking out there. In my opinion, the fact that al-Qaeda hasn't mounted a huge strike on US soil since 9/11 has more to do with their patient and covert planning than any insinuation that the threat is not real.

Another common explanation is that al Qaeda is craftily biding its time. But what for? The 9/11 attacks took only about two years to prepare. The carefully coordinated, very destructive, and politically productive terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 were conceived, planned from scratch, and then executed all within six months; the bombs were set off less than two months after the conspirators purchased their first supplies of dynamite, paid for with hashish. (Similarly, Timothy McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City in 1995 took less than a year to plan.) Given the extreme provocation of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, one would think that terrorists might be inclined to shift their timetable into higher gear. And if they are so patient, why do they continually claim that another attack is just around the corner? It was in 2003 that al Qaeda's top leaders promised attacks in Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Yemen. Three years later, some bombs had gone off in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan (as well as in the unlisted Turkey) but not in any other of the explicitly threatened countries. Those attacks were tragic, but their sparseness could be taken as evidence that it is not only American alarmists who are given to extravagant huffing and puffing

[Wilber]

I was watching an interview of John Manley on the 11th. He said the difference between Canada and the US is that the US is living on September the 12th and much of Canada is still stuck on the 10th.

[daddyhominum]

I was watching an interview of John Manley on the 11th. He said the difference between Canada and the US is that the US is living on September the 12th and much of Canada is still stuck on the 10th.

I like that. Quite clever. Certainly applies to me. I have no sense of fear of terrorism or anticipation of an attack on me or my loved ones.

I don't say it can't happen but that I have no sense that it is an imminenet danger.

[Black Dog]

I was watching an interview of John Manley on the 11th. He said the difference between Canada and the US is that the US is living on September the 12th and much of Canada is still stuck on the 10th.

Of course a country that experienced such a traumatic event would be terrified of it hapening again. That doesn't mean the threat is any greater. Look: 9/11 was big, but in many ways, it was a fluke. It was a large, complex and expensive operation requiring a high degree of organization and sophistication. The chances of something like 9/11 or bigger happening again are pretty damn small. I've been arguing that terrorism's immediate effects are small and that the real impact is all in how we react to it. If we're reduced to a constant state of fear by the possibility of dying in a terrorist attack (which remains miniscule) and are thus willing to do things otherwise unthinkable in a liberal democracy (such as, say, authorizing torture, curtailing civil liberties, adopting racial profiling) then we're really doing the terrorists' work for them.

[Elder]

Does it occur to anyone that they may just be waiting for us to let our guard down? Bin Laden was out and about blowing up embassys long before 9/11. It was only after that that a crusade against terrorism was put together. I'm willing to bet the moment we blow off terrorism as nonexistant, they'll hit us again.

It also is quite possible that, despite whatever they may say too us, it may be that they really don't want to try anything like that and once again stir up the sleeping giant. The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq are not necessarily popular in the western world, but that could change with another large attack. They may have a few politically bright people who know how to work with public oppinion in their own countries as well as in ours.

On the other hand, maybe they don't like the results of the 9/11 attacks. The wars probably put a lot of pressure on their organizations, that and they now have 2 Islamic countries which have been invaded by western forces with western ideas introduced, or at least attempts at such. The Terrorists can't be happy about this.

Either way, my point is, they probably want to lay low right now as far as we are concerned, at least for now. That could very easily change.

[Riverwind]

I'm willing to bet the moment we blow off terrorism as nonexistant, they'll hit us again.

This kind of thinking is a recipe for a never ending 'war on terror' - and a way to gurantee lifetime employment for people and organizations involved in 'counter-terrorism'.

[Black Dog]

Does it occur to anyone that they may just be waiting for us to let our guard down? Bin Laden was out and about blowing up embassys long before 9/11. It was only after that that a crusade against terrorism was put together. I'm willing to bet the moment we blow off terrorism as nonexistant, they'll hit us again.

No one is saying there's no terrorism. But for all the fear and all the hype, they've been might quiet on the domestic front. It's also worth noting that, not only have the terrorists been quiet, but the people charged with catching potential terrorists here have been coming up pretty much empty in spite of the growth of the state security apparatus. Now, I suppose it's possible and there waiting patiently, but I can't image what they might be waiting for.

It also is quite possible that, despite whatever they may say too us, it may be that they really don't want to try anything like that and once again stir up the sleeping giant. The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq are not necessarily popular in the western world, but that could change with another large attack. They may have a few politically bright people who know how to work with public oppinion in their own countries as well as in ours.

If so, they aren't showing it. Conservative Islam is pretty widespread in the Islamic world, but the militant variety doesn't seem to have a particularily large following. People in the west tend to conflate support for Conservative, political Islam and its goals (such as dumping western-backed totalitarian regimes) with support for terrorism as a method. If that were the case, we could expect to see a lot more 9/11-style terrorism. But we haven't.