After the United States was struck by terror 9/11/01, Americans feared that it was just a first attack and that we’d see more in subsequent years. In 7 years, no other successful large scale terror attack has succeeded on American soil. Why not?
In a prescient article “Terrorism on Trial” about the trials which convicted some of the plotters of the terror attacks on American embassies in east Africa, published on May 30, 2001, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson wrote:
Perhaps the most disconcerting revelations from the trial concern Al-Qaeda’s entrenchment in the West. For example, its procurement network for such materiel as night vision goggles, construction equipment, cell phones, and satellite telephones was based mostly in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Bosnia and Croatia. The chemicals purchased for use in the manufacture of chemical weapons came from the Czech Republic.
In the often long waits between terrorist attacks, Al-Qaeda’s member organizations maintained operational readiness by acting under the cover of front-company businesses and nonprofit, tax-deductible religious charities. These nongovernmental groups, many of them still operating, are based mainly in the U.S. and Britain, as well as in the Middle East. The Qatar Charitable Society, for example, has served as one of bin Laden’s de facto banks for raising and transferring funds.
Osama bin Laden also set up a tightly organized system of cells in an array of American cities, including Brooklyn, N.Y.; Orlando, Fla.; Dallas; Santa Clara, Calif.; Columbia, Mo., and Herndon, Va.
I don’t now if any of the cells listed had a hand in providing logistical support for 9/11, but it’s certainly possible. So why hasn’t Al Qaeda – which is a loose network of terror groups – succeeded in attacking the American homeland in the past seven years?
An article yesterday in the LA Times observes:
Al Qaeda remains determined to strike on American soil, anti-terrorism officials say. But it has run up against aggressive surveillance, tough border security and a lack of extremist communities in which to operate. Instead, officials say, it appears to have focused on using Europe to hit targets such as the flights bound for the United States from Britain.
Or more generally:
The shift in the terrorist threat is largely attributable to U.S. and international efforts after 9/11 to crack down on al-Qaida. With tighter border security, document control and financial tracking, al-Qaida recognized that it would be more effective if it used local groups to conduct its attacks. While the al-Qaida core is somewhat resurgent, it is still a far more decentralized model than the al-Qaida of 9/11.
Quinn Hillyer fleshes out the details:
HE DID IT by fashioning, with the help of Colin Powell (before Powell went off the reservation), an incredibly impressive coalition that went into Afghanistan — even then, liberal pundits predicted, yes, a “quagmire” in Afghanistan, too — and in incredibly short order kicked out the rogue regime, killed numerous members of Al-Qaeda, and chased the remaining ones high into the hills where they presumably live in caves perfectly suited to their troglodyte mentality.
Bush did it by directing his government to use all the tools at its disposal to identify and freeze Al-Qaeda assets, improve intelligence-gathering (and intelligence-sharing, back and forth, with anti-terrorist nations), disrupt Al-Qaeda communications, and track down and kill Al-Qaeda leaders. He did it by getting tough on other terrorists, too, even ones not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And he did it by encouraging democratic movements throughout the Middle East and central Asia, while providing material support where necessary.
And yes, Bush warded off terrorists by toppling Saddam Hussein’s dangerous outlaw regime in Iraq. It was a regime that had repeatedly shot at American aircraft. It was a regime that demonstrably owned weapons of mass murder and then refused to account for their removal or their destruction. It was a regime that had invaded its neighbors, and that had gassed and slaughtered its own people. And it was most certainly a regime that harbored terrorists, trained terrorists, and that maintained friendly communications and at least some operational ties with Al-Qaeda.
Or as Hillyer puts it simply:
This wasn’t a dog that didn’t bark merely because it felt like being mute; this was a dog that didn’t bark because it was forcefully muzzled. And Bush was the one who applied the muzzle.
Something’s managed to keep America safe despite the creation of the bureaucratic monstrosity known as DHS and despite adding another layer in intelligence bureaucracy. So maybe just maybe President Bush did other things correctly that made terrorism prevention successful.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
It occurred to me yesterday morning that I had absolutely no fear of an attack or an attempt on Sept. 11th this year. (Though, in any case I’ve always thought we should be more nervous about an attack on the Islamic calendar anniversary.)
Correlation does not imply causation!
I stopped wearing sneakers to work after 9/11. And we have not been attacked since. Therefore, my dress shoes are responsible for keeping our nation safe.
Bottles of shampoo are confiscated at airports. And we have not been attacked since. Therefore, DHS seizing my shampoo is responsible for keeping our nation safe.
It’s amazing that this notion persists that somehow the Republicans are better at National Security issues. The Bush Administration launched an insanely stupid war against a country that had NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush frittered away resources that could have been used to target Bin Laden and the people truly responsible for that terrible day, in Afghanistan. Bush first said that he’ll get Bin Laden, “dead or alive”. Then he said Bin Laden “wasn’t really that important”. Now McCain says he’ll follow Bin Laden “to the gates of Hell”. So which is it?
And the Republicans are constantly talking about how well the “surge” is going. I picture it like this: after arguing over directions with the passenger, the driver of the car is convinced that “we’re going this way”, steps on the gas, and immediately plunges off the cliff and starts sinking in the lake. Now there are a few options inside the car: kick out the front window, or try and open the doors. The driver starts kicking at the front window, and is pleased to see the window start to crack. He’s elated: see, my plan is working, much better than that door idea! Yet no one is asking, why did the schmuck drive off the cliff in the first place?
The administration has used FEAR as a political tool: remember those stupid color-coded “threat levels”? Seemingly at will (and usually correlating with political events, like elections or scandals), the administration would crank up the threat board to Code ORANGE or YELLOW or something and say “we have information that the terrorists are coming”. Can’t tell you what it is, but BE AFRAID. When you’re afraid, you don’t mind if you’re being wiretapped, or added to a database, and you don’t mind if habeas corpus gets scrapped – that only affects the bad guys, right? FEAR helps Republicans win elections – every issue is fear-based: “our culture is under attack”, “gays are undermining family values”, “illegal immigrants are coming for you and your jobs”, “the government wants to take your money”… and of course, “here’s more guns, because THEY are coming to get you.”
You purchased a firearm. And you haven’t been robbed or assaulted since. Therefore, the firearm has kept you safe.
Joshik,
In Iraq Bush went after the root causes of terrorism. Lots of people talk about doing that, but are too stupid to understand what they really are. The root causes lie in the dysfunctional political culture of the Arab and Persian states. If, over the long term, jihadist terrorism is to be suppresed, that must be addressed.
In Iraq Bush also got rid of Saddam, who was well prepared to resume his nuke programs just as soon as the crumbling sanctions were off, and they were on the verge of dying. Saddam was so greedy for wealth and power that he started two wars even without having nukes. What do you suppose he, or his psychopathic spawn, would have done once they got nukes? That is one problem we shall never have to worry about again.
Furthermore the Iraq Campaign let us fight Al Qaeda on grounds of our own choosing. Geographically we could fight them in the Middle East rather than in New York. Tactically we could fight them with skilled American soldiers and Marines, rather than depending on unarmed airline passengers and stewardesses. Strategically it seized the initiative in the war from Al Qaeda, an essential task in winning a war. It forced the jihadists to respond to our moves rather than we to theirs.
Finally, it allows us to pit our big idea against that of the jihadists. The latter have the big idea of a new caliphate, worldwide, in which Muslims will swagger around lording it over the wretched dhimmis. That is an attractive picture for many Muslims. It flatters their egos. We must pit another big idea against it, to attract people to our side. Our big idea is liberty and prosperity in the modern world. This also proves attractive to many Muslims. Which will win? I don’t know, but if we don’t try to push our big idea the jihadist terrorists’ caliphate wins by default.
There was a further benefit in strategic terms to the Iraq Campaign, one that was not expected when we started it. If AQ had not opposed us there, but had just skeedaddled to Iran as they did at first, we could have set up a new government mostly without opposition, for the organization of the Sunnis came from AQ and Ba’athist die hards, who would not have stuck around alone. When the AQ decided to fight us in Iraq it turned out that their strategy of indiscriminate murder revolted many Muslims and their harsh rule in places like Fallujah and Ramadi alienated most of the Sunnis. This has led to a massive turn of Muslim opinion away from AQ, bin Laden, and terrorism (for the most part, although they’re mmostly still copacetic with killing Jews).
No, I’m afraid the insane stupidity is on the part of the opponents of the Iraq Campaign, not Bush. They do not understand the causes of the war or how to fight it.
You’re right. It’s absolutely sheer coincidence that al Qaeda hasn’t hit the U.S. again.
Has nothing to do with shutting down their financing, breaking up and arresting their cells in Europe, killing their leadership, their going into Iraq and getting killed in the war there. Nope. Nothing at all. It’s SHEER COINCIDENCE that we haven’t been attacked in seven years, in spite of Osama bin Laden’s threats to the contrary.
Huh. Go figure.
If you are going to talk about shutting down cells in Europe and other non-US based operations then you have to include the attacks in England and Spain as well as the resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Quaeda on the Afghan-Pakistan border. So, the administration has failed.
Really? Failed? The terrorists haven’t hit the U.S. again in seven years, and that’s a failure?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Come to think of it, al Qaeda hasn’t struck in Europe in a few years, either. I guess that “failure” means, ah, success?
You want to keep moving the goalposts, though, go right ahead. That’s all the left has been doing for years.
I don’t think there’s much of a mystery behind the absence of Al-Qaeda attacks, particularly within the US.
(1) Bergen’s book “Holy War Inc.” portrays AQ a bit differently than the Pipes article — Bergen describes a smaller, less organized group. Bergen seesm to have been closer to the mark than Pipes. For instance, if I’m not mistaken the Herndon “cell” was not what we normally think of as a terrorist cell but was just some Saudi businessmen who laundered money to Arab terrorist groups, posiibly including al-Qaeda.
With that in mind, it seems likely that within the USA al-Qaeda only had one bolt to shoot on 9/11, which unfortunately they shot to devastating effect.
(2) With the overthrow of the Taliban, AQ no longer has a safe harbor provided by a friendly government. So it’s vastly harder for them to organize attacks and to recruit really effective terrorists. It’s now much tougher for AQ to find someone truly capable like Mohammad Atta.
As for Iraq, when the smoke finally clears it will probably be a small net plus for American safety, though not for the reasons normally given. AQ’s two biggest greivances against America were the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia and the sanctions on Iraq. Once American soldiers finally leave Iraq, these two issues will obviously have been resolved.
Lefty, whatever happens Al Qaeda will think up new reasons for murder, once America troops leave Iraq.
After all, their big complaint was that we were in Saudi Arabia, wasn’t it? Well we left years ago after overthrowing Saddam, whose threat was the reason we were there at the time, but the Al Qaedists are still gunning for us. Would Al Qaeda have preferred that Saddam take the place over, secular fascist dictator that he was? Oh but he’s a (nominal) Muslim dontcherknow. The Saudis are Muslims, but Osama wants to overthrow them. Some people are never satisfied. In Osama’s case it comes down to his wounded vanity; he never got over the Saudi’s decision to rely on the USA against Saddam’s threat instead of him and his flea-bitten Afghan Arabs.
Osama complained about the loss of Andalusia five hundred years ago in his caveman special video after 9/11. Al Qaeda will say they must attack us until they get Andalusia back. Just as Hezbollah with Sheba Farms, they will always gin up some excuse for continuing the murder spree. Do you really expect such pshychopaths to give up their war just because some fool demand is fulfilled?
They really do intend a new caliphate you know. A guy sitting in a cave dreaming of world rule may seem risible to you, but then Nazis sitting in a beer hall in 1926 dreaming about world rule also seemed pretty risible. Let the psychos get their hands on a few states, no matter how ruined, and some nukes and you’ll see just how risible they can be.
Whose moving goal posts. No attacks, would imply no attacks. You said seven years, I showed it was three on European soil and actually Danish soil was attacked in 2008 (their embassy in Pakistan this year) and US embassy in Turkey which is US soil this year as well.
No, I said no attacks in seven years in America.
You changed the goalposts when I mentioned that European cells were being broken up.
America has not been attacked again in seven years. Not American embassies somewhere else. America. The nation in which I live. When you change the location from America to Europe to American embassies, that’s moving the goalposts.
There’s one other wrinkle to consider that goes right along with Al Qaeda’s ability to do things being seriously diminished: “theater” (one way in which they view all this).
After doing something as “big” as 9/11, they can’t do something “small”, it would be embarrassing in a damaging way. They need another “big” thing, even if it’s “big” in another direction, i.e. why we were so concerned about the anthrax mailings, why we’re concerned about dirty (radiological) bombs, etc.