1
   

Where Have All the Terrorists Gone?

 
 
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 11:45 am
The Calm Before the Storm?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: April 13, 2005

So here's a question that I've been wrestling with lately: With all these reports about the bungling of U.S. intelligence, and the C.I.A.'s relying on bogus informants with names like "Curveball" or "Knucklehead" or whatever, why have there been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11? I've got my own pet theory about what's produced this period of calm - and, more important, why it may be coming to an end.

Let's start with the facts. Despite all the code reds and code oranges we've been subjected to by the Department of Homeland Security, and despite the mountain of newspaper articles about how underprotected our ports and borders are, the fact is that not only has there not been another 9/11, but there has not even been a serious failed attempt that we know of.

I'm not complaining - I'm just wondering why. It still seems to me ridiculously easy to blow up a car in the heart of Chicago. And anyone who has flown on a private jet since 9/11 can tell you that security at these private terminals is still so lax that if you showed up in a Saudi headdress with a West Virginia driver's license under the name of "Billy Bob bin Laden" and asked for flight directions for your chartered Learjet to Lower Manhattan, there's a good chance no one would stop you.

So, how then do we explain the calm? To begin with, I'd give a tip o' the hat to the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security. I have no doubt that their increased vigilance - and coordination with European and Arab intelligence services - has made it much harder for terrorists to organize. Moreover, thanks to Gen. John Abizaid's Centcom forces in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda no longer has a whole country from which to plan, train and coordinate terrorist attacks with impunity. The fact that Al Qaeda effectively controlled a country is what made it unique. Also, new U.S. visa policies have made it much harder for bad guys to get into America.

If your name is Muhammad and you are a 21-year-old single Arab man and you have not visited Disney World yet, well, you may want to consider Euro Disney, because your chances of getting a U.S. tourist visa are very low. Frankly, I wish this were not the case because we're keeping a lot of good, talented Arab men and women from getting educated in America, which is the best way of building friends. This is one of the sad byproducts of 9/11 - but it has undoubtedly made it more difficult for the few bad apples to get in as well.

Despite all of that, I fear that we may now be entering the most dangerous period since 9/11. Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a coordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat American forces in the heart of their world. Because if they can defeat America in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, it will have so much more resonance than setting off a car bomb in Las Vegas - especially now that 9/11 has set the terrorism bar so high in terms of effect.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, and force us from Iraq, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime. The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Iraq is the big one. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.

The reason things may be getting more dangerous now is that the formation of a freely elected government in Iraq may signal that the Baathist-Jihadist insurgency is being gradually defeated. The U.S. may even be able to withdraw some troops. And there is nothing worse for the Baathists and Jihadists than to be defeated in the heart of their world - and, even more so, to be defeated in the heart of their world by other Arabs and Muslims who are repudiating the Jihadists' vision and tactics.

I fear that when and if the Jihadists conclude that they have been defeated in the heart of their world, they will be sorely tempted to throw a Hail Mary pass. That is, they may want to launch a spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America that tries to mask, and compensate for, just how defeated they have become at home.

In short, the more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the more likely they are to use their rump forces to try something really crazy in America to make up for it. So let's stay the course in Iraq, but stay extra-vigilant at home.

It's the Times
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,082 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 11:47 am
I wouldn't call it pleasure...

I think he has a point, sort of, but who knows.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 11:48 am
Oh, you changed the title. (It was "For your reading pleasure...")
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 11:50 am
they're over here. Honestly, hordes of them. They all wear little terrist t shrts
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 11:59 am
Please note that Friedman, the known liberal columnist gives Bush's efforts an A++++++.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:01 pm
He has?

He's saying that the enemy has welcomed the fight Bush brought them. That it was exactly what they wanted.

The most he is saying is that the jihadists might be gradually being defeated in Iraq. That's hardly an A++++++.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:06 pm
sozobe wrote:
He has?

He's saying that the enemy has welcomed the fight Bush brought them. That it was exactly what they wanted.

Especially the part where they get annihilated, I'm sure. No, trust me, it's an A+++++.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:07 pm
the terrorists have made it possible for the passing of laws and bills that erode out individual liberties and give the government unprecedented control. they can stay tucked away until the next election.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:09 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
the terrorists have made it possible for the passing of laws and bills that erode out individual liberties and give the government unprecedented control. they can stay tucked away until the next election.

Yes, they are actually actors whom Bush hired. Rumor is that he even coached them personally in some cases.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:12 pm
First of all, to call Friedman a liberal is an overstatement. His views are not so easily pigeonholed. Perhaps you're thinking of Krugman, another Times columnnist.

Secondly, the A++++ is the grade you're giving Bush, Brandon, not what Friedman wrote. At least I never saw it in this article.

And finally, Friedman may be right re future terrorism--and he may be wrong. He knows as much about what may happen as any of us.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:12 pm
Brandon, you can say that Bush's efforts are an A++++++. That could (and has been) argued at length. The lack of an exit strategy is just one of the "uh, not so much" factors, but again, that has been argued at length, no reason to rehash.

But no, you're saying what FRIEDMAN said. What Friedman said is right there. He's saying all kinds of things about how the Bush administration has given the Jihadists what they want.

Quote:
t is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a coordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat American forces in the heart of their world. Because if they can defeat America in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, it will have so much more resonance than setting off a car bomb in Las Vegas - especially now that 9/11 has set the terrorism bar so high in terms of effect.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, and force us from Iraq, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime. The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Iraq is the big one. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.


YOU may be saying they didn't welcome the fight, but that's not what Friedman is saying. And you can say whatever you want, but your claims as to what Friedman is saying aren't supported by his own text.

<shrug>
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:12 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
the terrorists have made it possible for the passing of laws and bills that erode out individual liberties and give the government unprecedented control. they can stay tucked away until the next election.


And if a Democrat is elected and guts the various security bills,what then?
If terrorists use that time,after the HSD has been gutted to attack,will you blame the Dem president?
Will you also admit that you were wrong?
Somehow,I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:14 pm
sozobe wrote:
..But no, you're saying what FRIEDMAN said. What Friedman said is right there...

So maybe now even many liberals are seeing the light and becoming Bush supporters - the brighter ones, anyway. This is gratifying.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:18 pm
mysteryman wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
the terrorists have made it possible for the passing of laws and bills that erode out individual liberties and give the government unprecedented control. they can stay tucked away until the next election.


And if a Democrat is elected and guts the various security bills,what then?
If terrorists use that time,after the HSD has been gutted to attack,will you blame the Dem president?
Will you also admit that you were wrong?
Somehow,I doubt it.


you are entitled to your doubts, as am I. What does a democrat have to do with it? Bush and his policies are not **** because he's a republican, they'd be **** either way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:23 pm
Where have the terrorists gone?

Where have the people SEARCHING for the terrorists gone, is a better question!

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/04/question-of-priorities.html

Quote:
Saturday, April 09, 2005
A Question Of Priorities....
As a quick follow-up to myrecent post about Bush's failure to make the capture of the largest mass-murderer in U.S. history a priority, take a look at this page on the FBI's website. Notice anything missing?

How about this page?

It has been almost four years since 9/11, and capturing those responsible is such a priority that not one of the 30,000 people who work at the FBI---and whose salaries we pay---has gotten around to updating the "Most Wanted" profiles of Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri to include any mention of 9/11. And both profiles say the two are "currently thought to be in Afghanistan." Maybe that's why we haven't found them; we're looking in the wrong country.

Or maybe we're wasting time looking for people we've already killed. On this page of current "Most Wanted Terrorists" at the FBI's website, Muhammad Atef is listed with a large reward offered. Atef was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Committees spend years talking about how to improve our intelligence agencies, we spend tens of billions trying to do so, and we even establish massive new bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security---but we can't have one person take five minutes to update a website. That says it all, doesn't it?

Combined with outrages like this one courtesy of a recently-departed senior CIA official, what we're learning about the source named "Curveball" and so many other mistakes, miscalculations and screw-ups in the intelligence community, is anyone really surprised?
posted by The Cunning Realist at Saturday, April 09, 2005


The truth is that we aren't really doing much to combat domestic terrorism these days. Friedman looks at the fact that we haven't had another 9/11 and attributes this to Bush's actions, but he really doesn't show any proof that this IS so; he just says what he BELIEVES is happening.

There are other theories that equally well explain the lack of AQ attacking here in America, without resorting to the foolishness of promoting Bush's aggressive and short-sighted policies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:24 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
the terrorists have made it possible for the passing of laws and bills that erode out individual liberties and give the government unprecedented control. they can stay tucked away until the next election.


And if a Democrat is elected and guts the various security bills,what then?
If terrorists use that time,after the HSD has been gutted to attack,will you blame the Dem president?
Will you also admit that you were wrong?
Somehow,I doubt it.


you are entitled to your doubts, as am I. What does a democrat have to do with it? Bush and his policies are not **** because he's a republican, they'd be **** either way.


You missed my point.
If the next President does away with Bush's policies,what then?
You might not want to admit it,but there have been NO attacks on us since 9/11.
Why is that?
Could it be because of the policies of the current admin?

Now,if the next Pres removes the policies in place now,and the US gets hit again,what then? I would say that was pretty conclusive evidence that the current policies worked the way they were supposed to.
If that happens,who are you going to blame then?
And,will you admit you were wrong about the current policies?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:33 pm
MM said

You missed my point.
If the next President does away with Bush's policies,what then?
You might not want to admit it,but there have been NO attacks on us since 9/11.
Why is that?
Could it be because of the policies of the current admin?

and I repeat, because the attacks allowed Bush and his partners to consolidate and continue to consolidate their power base and have served their purpose for now.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:39 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
MM said

You missed my point.
If the next President does away with Bush's policies,what then?
You might not want to admit it,but there have been NO attacks on us since 9/11.
Why is that?
Could it be because of the policies of the current admin?

and I repeat, because the attacks allowed Bush and his partners to consolidate and continue to consolidate their power base and have served their purpose for now.


Thats just plain silly.
Even if you are right,Bush is only in office for 8 years total.Or,are you suggesting that he will declare that there will be no new elections,EVER?
I seem to remember some democrats saying that before the 04 elections,and they were wrong.
So,since he is in office for a total of 8 years,how can he consolidate his power base?
After 08 he will have no power,no matter what he does now.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:40 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
...and I repeat, because the attacks allowed Bush and his partners to consolidate and continue to consolidate their power base and have served their purpose for now.

"Hello, Osama? This is George. Oh, I'm fine, thanks. How've you been? Yes, well the reason I was calling is that we have some very important Congressional elections coming up, and I was wondering if you could work your usual magic on one of our cities? Yes, the usual rate. You can? Wonderful. I can always count on you."
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 12:40 pm
Brandon, Friedman has been a qualified supporter of the war from the beginning, just as he is now.

No particular change.

And qualified -- not A++++++. More like a potential for B-, lots of periods of D- to F, now edging up towards C.

That's all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Where Have All the Terrorists Gone?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 9.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:09:53