Oooh, I know! I know!

Because we elected DEMOCRATS in 2006!

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have single-handedly kept us safe -- just the hope that they would end up running Congress stayed the terrorists' hands.

J.

OK, Jay Tea beat me to my comment!!!!

It's an excellent question... and I know that because there is no acceptable answer.

We'd all like to believe (well all of us except the rabid lefties) that our peeps are doing such a great job with their anti-terrorism measures that they have foiled all their plans.

Let's not forget "we" have foiled many. JFK, Fort Dix (was it Dix?) etc.

But in reality, we have so many soft targets if the terrorists really wanted us they have plenty of opportunity.

If one had to speculate the only feasible reason is that they are scared as heck after what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq that we'd just start leveling Arab countries if they tried again.

The "flypaper" argument is fun and all but ultimately flawed. We still have plenty of soft targets here.

So if I had to pick one, I'd pick abject fear of reprisal but even that is flawed to a degree. MAD worked against the Soviets because they wanted to live. The Islamic terrorists are nuts and not care if they meet Allah. That's one of the things that makes this challenge so hard.

In rereading my answer, I'll pick

D: All of the above.

Their funding and training have both been interdicted. What they are left with is a bunch of loons and wannabes like the ones in the UK. Every terrorist is dangerous, of course, but it would appear that the new bunch are a lot less competent and capable.

I think you have to keep in mind that there was no follow-on to the WTC/Pentagon attacks. The question is why? They could have created so much more havoc if there had been at least a couple of follow-ups the next few days (say mall shootings - etc). The reason is they accomplished what they wanted (beyond their expectations) with the single set of strikes. It was a recruiting tool for them and a highly effective one at that.

Possibility:

9/11 was planned and executed by sleeper terrorists who had been in the US for years. It took years to plan and to finance. It took years for the terrorist "pilots" to receive flight training.

After we dropped the hammer on Afghanistan and aggressively killed/captured every major known al-Qaeda associate that we could find, we effectively destroyed their ability to plan and finance terror, and their ability to communicate with one another. We are continuing that work in Iraq.

We have also been aggressively pursing terror suspects here, and we have successfully foiled a number of would-be terror plots. So have the British (e. g. the large-scale plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic). We shouldn't forget the British successes.

Perhaps the difference is that Britain has many more homegrown terrorists, and their government is much more protective of terrorist enclaves (ahem, excuse me, mosques) in London and elsewhere. It is much more difficult to monitor and arrest citizens, because they have much more protection under the law.

There also seems to be a divergence in terror tactics between the Middle East and the West. The Middle East sees terror every day, "lone gunman" terrorists who blow themselves up or shoot up something, usually getting killed in the process. But in the West, terrorists usually tend to opt for the spectacular; that is, large scale attacks designed to cause major infrastructure damage, financial unrest, and kill dozens or hundreds, perhaps thousands.

Which brings me back to my original point -- since we have destroyed the large scale planning and finance apparatus of al-Qaeda, perhaps they can no longer pull off elaborate bomb plots here in the US. I only hope this doesn't mean that our future doesn't promise hundreds of single-person suicide attacks.

Despite the arguments of the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd (we have accomplished nothing overseas, domestic arrests were staged, etc.) we have done much to stop al-Qaeda. For this we should be thankful.

* I only hope this doesn't mean that our future promises hundreds of single-person suicide attacks.*

Next time I'll proofread.

Paul Hamilton as a liberal of course wants it both ways. The reason the terrorists were stopped in the UK is because they are incompetent. Now had they been successful, Hamilton would have crowed how our being in Iraq has caused this.

In my opinion, GW Bush is the reason nothing has happened. The terrorists expected to where him down and ease the pressure Bush has put on them. GW has remained steadfast, and the terrorists do not want to incite us again. Heaven help us in 2009. That is when I think it will happen. ww

Bush.

I think they probably learned, too late for them, the wisdom of that old saying "let sleeping dogs lie." Or in this case, "Don't poke a pit bull with a stick."

They bombed embassies, we did nothing. They bombed the Trade Center, we did nothing. They bombed the USS Cole, we did nothing.

Then they learned that not every American, and every American President would do nothing. We fought back. That probably wasn't part of their plan.

At this point they're getting more mileage out of killing our military in Iraq. They don't have to go far. They get on the news almost every night. It appears that they're wearing down a great deal of the American public. If they can "drive us out" of Iraq, then they'll have a PR landslide. Why come to the land of "The Great Satan" when they can blow up Americans in their back yard?

So true, Timmer.
=========

Whatever else the terrorists are they are not stupid. They realize that nothing they could do would demoralize the American people more than what the liberals have already accomplished. If fact, it could prompt millions to pull their heads out of the sand, and they certainly don't want to risk that at this point.

All they need to do is keep undercover and hope some democrat gets elected as President. If so they have a good chance of getting America's unconditional surrender.

Why do anything when they see us already divided and possibly faltering?

My question: would a terrorist attack bring us together, or further divide us?

One point, most of the terrorists we know about are no more intelligent than any others.
We caught the ones involved in the first WTC attack because they tried to get their deposit on the rental truck back.
The 9/11 hijackers were crying out to be caught. Moussaoui only wanted to be able to fly, not take off or land. Atta was trying to get money from the gov't for a crop-spraying deal and spouted jihadi crap at the woman who denied him. Some of them (illegal aliens at the time) were pulled over for some silly traffic reason. We had plenty of opportunities to catch them, like when we didn't look into Moussaoui's computer, but they got lucky.

They're always stupid when they get caught, but they're pretty darn stupid even when they succeed or mostly succeed (like the first WTC bombing).

Saying that, the answer, IMO, is a combination of fear, luck and US intelligence assets.
Fear, because Iran, NoKo and Syria don't want to be obviously involved in terrorism on US soil. People like the video clerk who helped us catch the crew in NJ were lucky and we've also really cracked down on the jihadis we know about.

But they only have to get lucky once.

Willie, 9-11 succeeded because many folks ignored the obvious signs. At that time, we didn't take terrorism seriously, and that goes all the way to Bush, who brushed off the warnings he did receive.

But after 9-11, for a while at least, we got very serious about them with the main effect that their funding was pretty much stopped completely. The result of this is that now al Qaeda is what one reporter called a "franchise" organization which is more likely to conduct this sort of small-scale operation than another complex, massive and expensive attack such as the ones on NYC and the Pentagon.

And I consider that a success. Not a victory, since terrorist tactics are going to be around forever and the war will never be completely won, but we've come a very long way toward gaining control over terrorists with global reach in the last 6 years.

"But they only have to get lucky once." - Veeshir

You know, I don't agree with that claim. It should be said that they 'got lucky' on 9/11, tactically it was a brilliant success for evil, but what did they get for that? Their network blown to hell, along with most of their leadership. IF Osama bin Looney is still breathing, he's doing it cowering in caves and on the run for more than half a decade now. Two regimes which overtly sponsored terrorism have been overthrown, and several others have 'modified' their policies with regard to supplying/funding such groups.

What broke the nerve of those terrorists?

Probably the same thing that scared the bejesus out of Admiral Yamamoto.

That said, the American resolve we so enjoyed during World War 2 has definitively decayed. Previous commenters are correct - why attack America when we are so effectively destroying ourselves?

Let's see, GW was elected. It was challenged in 2000. His transition team could not execute until well into December. He takes office. The Chinese took our spy plane and crew. A daily intelligience brief said they are picking up chatter from Al Queda that has something to do with planes, and GW should have said," Aha, they are going to fly planes into the WTC." Yeah Paul. Hang on to your dream. Clinton dropped the ball on Osama big time. We all know it. Also, I noticed how "we"got serious after 9/11. GW and his administration did. The left was too busy leaking to the press classified programs. You remember that? GW Bush is what has kept us safe. ww

The answer to this is that while a lot of ignorant or intentionally misleading sneering has been done at the Bush administration from Democrats, the reality is that the Bush administration has done a lot of good work.

Key efforts were to get the Pakistan gov't to crack down on extremists although there is much left to be done there - great progress on the India/Pakistan conflict was key to this;

historic progress on international money laundering undercut the main advantage for terrorists that Al Queda brought to the table - that of more sophisticated money systems;

enlisting a lot of peripheral nations in the fight against terrorism to eliminate potential terrorist havens in places like the 'stans, Yemen, Horn of Africa and scores of other nations that the public ignores;

Afghanistan, while not completely successful, has actually been successful beyond the imagination of most removing a major terrorist infrastructure and absorbing a lot of Al Queda casualties;

and lastly, Iraq really did a good job of flypaper to attract a lot of Al Queda talent. Now that we have seen the bulk of the Sunni insurgents shift away from attacking US forces and toward fighting the Al Queda inspired elements there we can hope for more progress.

Additionally, while BDS sufferers engage in paranoid conspiracy theories about the Bush administration, Europe has engaged in an unprecedented surveillance of islamic extremists in their own borders that go far beyond the civil liberties concerns expressed here. This has pushed a lot of terrorists out of Europe and forced the terrorists to use the less competent ones as we've seen. Europe has also been a barrier to terrorist movement toward the US. Sometimes those less competent ones still manage to put together a successful operation, like the subway attacks in London and the train attacks in Madrid, but since they have little depth we see incompetent attacks like the carbombings in London and Glasgow recently.

My question: would a terrorist attack bring us together, or further divide us?

Another incident directly on the heels of 9/11 would have solidified a united front. Another incident now, sad to say, would further divide us. The liberal spin generator has been very effective at spreading the notion that our presence in Iraq is only making matters worse. One could make the argument that that would actually have a uniting effect, but in the other direction. I agree with others that pulling out of Iraq without a clear victory will invite further destruction on American soil. Those on the left will say that we haven't done enough to understand their culture. I believe that we on the right understand their culture all too well.

The question is: Why haven't they SUCCESSFULLY attacked us again after 9/11?

Right? Because they have TRIED to attack us.

I believe this answer is multi-faceted:

(a) our response after 9/11 was NOT what they expected. They had gotten used to cruise missiles and bombing campaigns, and thus were unprepared for all-out war against Afghanistan.
Once we attacked Afghanistan they read too many MSM articles about the futility of even TRYING to conquer that country. (3 weeks after our attack the NY Times proclaimed it to be a "QUAGMIRE". 3 weeks!!) This further delayed their defense. Result was that we DID destroy their command & control structure...and set them back years.

(b) The Patriot Act (and other tools). We finally started using tools we had ALWAYS had, and were already USING against drug-dealers! The NY Times keeps trying expose these tools...but thus far we have stayed one-step ahead of them.

(c) This is NOT Europe. Yet. We don't have as many closed Islamic communities where they can breed hatred. But we have some...and more all the time. Increasingly we hear Muslim leaders calling for "separation"...in schools, restrooms, etc. Minnesota comes to mind.

(d) Iraq. It IS acting as "flypaper"...and we are killing the flies that land! alQueda bet they could take it over...and almost succeeded. Now the tables are turned...and they are losing ground all over that country.

There are others, but I frankly think our OFFENSE minded strategy is our best DEFENSE!

And I consider that a success. Not a victory, since terrorist tactics are going to be around forever and the war will never be completely won, but we've come a very long way toward gaining control over terrorists with global reach in the last 6 years.

Who are you and what have you done with Paul?

I wasn't trying to imply that terrorists getting lucky once would end anything, I obviously wrote poorly.

I would agree with your implied thought, they wish they hadn't gotten so lucky that day, that's why I wrote Fear, because Iran, NoKo and Syria don't want to be obviously involved in terrorism on US soil.

And I stand by my point, the ones who've carried out the attacks haven't been all that bright. The people who send them out are probably fairly intelligent, but they have to work with and through brain-washed dullards and those dullards only have to get lucky once to succeed.

The jihadis in London were very unlucky and stupid. They illegally parked one of their vehicles so even if the bomb worked, it wouldn't have killed their intended targets. They were unlucky in that someone saw something odd about the car that wasn't towed.

"What broke the nerve of those terrorists?"

We shoot back...

It's very simple, really.

Instead of lobbing a couple of cruise missiles, or stopping outside of the enemy's capitol (are ya listenin' Bush 41?). this time we went in to both Iraq and Afghanistan ready to kick butt and take names, and that's precisely what we did.

We got rid of a bunch of murderous thugs and sent the remainder scurrying to their caves to live in misery. How long ya think it's been since Osama saw indoor plumbing?

They didn't expect that, after Bush 41 and Clinton, so they weren't ready for it. And they paid the price, a lot of them with their lives.

And if Bush 41 had done this years ago, the Twin Towers might still be standing.

Perhaps they would be afraid of post-attack(9/11) effects. I hope they learned a lesson after 9/11 attack,but they don't want to accept their defeat,that's why we've seen bombings here and there in smaller level.

Well, they haven't attacked lately because they don't want to.

I mean, it's easy to kill. When people were amazed at the 9/11 attacks, talking about brilliant planning and coordination, I remained unimpressed. It's a terrible, terrible thing they did, but not impressive in it's execution. I mean, crashing an airliner? When these guys BUILD an airliner, then I'll be impressed. Destroying things is easy.

Any idiot can get into the country, get a weapon and shoot a bunch of people. Obviously, it's not something they care about doing right now.

How long ya think it's been since Osama saw indoor plumbing?

Actually, this concerns me. While we're wasting time and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and getting ready to attack Iran, bin Laden's pals are just about ready to take over nuclear Pakistan.

I haven't seen politicians of any stripe doing much about that...

Someone wanna edit Sakthi's comment to remove the glaringly obvious spam, please?

And Publicus, I agree that we need to do something about that possibility.

However, I'd not be surprised if there are meetings going on behind closed doors, particularly at the Pentagon, about what they can do about it.

It's bad strategy to tell the enemy what you're going to do before you do it, so the silence of the politicians doesn't unduly concern me.

C-C-G, B41 did exactly what he was supposed to do. He kicked Iraq out of Kuwait and his bombing campaign completely destroyed Saddam's WMD programs and his ability to wage offensive war. He did so with a global coalition of nations who did more than must provide lip service and we got in and got out with minimum casualties for the effectiveness of the operation.

Compare that to today where B43 handed off our campaign in Afghanistan to untrustworthy proxy forces who let Osama get away and an invasion of a nation who had bupkis to do with 9-11 that's ended up in a quagmire.

I didn't like Bush Sr's war at the time it happened, but I've really come to appreciate the good it did with the passage of time and in comparison to his son's debacle.

BTW, I posted and excerpt from today's WSJ commentary about how terrorists should still be the number one campaign issue next year, and my response over on Blue.

See it here: http://wizbangblue.com/2007/07/05/its-the-terrorists-stupid.php

"I didn't like Bush Sr's war at the time it happened, but I've really come to appreciate the good it did with the passage of time..."

And one day, assuming the west wins this war, they will say the same about Bush jr.

Ben

Publicus, I am sure our special services are on top of the Pakistan issue. We don't know because we shouldn't know. But rest assured, if a liberal got any information, they will report it in a major newspaper or news show. The left will call the leaker a hero. The liberal media will tell us how it is our right to know, etc.

Paul Hamilton, I do not travel over to Blue. I stay in the light. ww

> why those attacks never came about.


What broke the nerve of those terrorists?

But we have been attacked.

The DC Snipers.
The guy who shot up the jewish center in Seattle
The guy who shot up the El Al ticket Counter at LAX
The guy who drove his SUV and hit a bunch of college kids on campus in North or South Carolina
We still don't know who did the Anthrax.

And there have been a number of plots that were broken up before they got close to the action stage. The NJ jihadists who wanted to shoot up an army base is just one example.

Justrand had a good comment. His point "c" is probably the most relevant.

(c) This is NOT Europe. Yet. We don't have as many closed Islamic communities where they can breed hatred.

Most of our muslims are integrated or assimilated enough so that they're willing to "drop a dime" and call the FBI when they meet a whacko. Those foiled plots were foiled mostly because of tips.