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.