9/11 Thoughts

[stevenehrbar]

Why haven't we (the U.S.) been attacked again?

I mean, it isn't that we've successfully disrupted Al Qaeda, because lots of attacks have been hitting other countries.  If you can hit the Underground, you can hit Americans in London, after all.

Anyway, the question was bothering me, and I can only come up with three theories, two which don't satisfy me and the third suspect because it feels like self-congratulation.

1) Homeland Security is doing a great job.  While Al Qaeda could, quite easily, attack Americans in other countries, it is for some reason concentrating only on attacks on U.S. soil.  And we're catching every attempt.  I don't think that's reasonably possible.

2)  They're attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, and consider that to be the same thing as attacking U.S. civilian targets.  The biggest problem with this theory is that attacking British forces in Iraq clearly didn't satisfy them.

3) After, Somalia, the first WTC attack, Khobar Towers, the African embassies, and the Cole, with Vietnam and Beiruit as historical indicators,  Al Qaeda thought we'd retreat, or at most do something symbolic in reaction to the 9-11 attack.  Instead, we invaded two countries, took thousands of casualties, and re-elected the man who sent us off to war. 

So our reaction was one that, at least to the minds of Al Qaeda-type terrorist scum, was one of action, determination, and strength.  Accordingly, they've decided to hold off for at least the remainder of this Administration, and concentrate on the "weak".  So they tried Spain, and by their standards won there.  Then they tried Britain, hoping to make the British retreat.  They're avoiding America because they're worried that an attack will strengthen Bush, and Bush will respond with more military force.

As someone who voted for Bush twice, that sounds like a good theory to me.  Which makes me very suspicious of it.

Comments

[selenite.livejournal.com]

4) Being attacked on their own turf (Afghanistan, Iraq, efforts by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc) has disrupted their organization and pulled resources into countering the attacks. So they don't have effort to spare for launching more major attacks. The attacks they have done are using "resources in place", i.e. residents of the target country willing to undertake attacks. The USA presumably has fewer/less competent RIPs than Britain or Spain.

Corollary: Successful pacification of Afghanistan and Iraq, if not followed by a new offensive, will allow AQ to regroup and launch new attacks. Which worries me, since I don't think we've got much national will left to keep on the offensive.

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

Plausible. My only objection comes down to, if they can use RIPs to attack the Underground, why not a U.S. embassy, consulate, barracks, airbase, or other facility in Britain? Is our security that much better than it was before the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings?

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Good question. I think the AQ operatives for the embassy bombings were much better trained than the London ones. It might also depend on the exact motivations of the London bombers, were they hating Bush, Blair, British society in general, or what? Not much data on the last, I'm afraid.

[bimmer1200.livejournal.com]

I think there are elements of all these involved. AQ has, historically, going years between attacks on the US. Partly it is intentional, and partly it is a factor of getting resources into place.

So with a long time line, improved scrutiny (I doubt DHS has squat to do with it, but the CIA and FBI are busting their humps and I imagine the ones they aren't stopping they are making move slower). Add in the opportunity costs of having to deal with us on their home turf and the resolve we have shown, I think that's why.

But I wouldn't go celebrating yet. Remeber there was something like ten years between WTC I and WTC II.