The Dog That Has Not Barked-1,576 days since last attack

[hist2004]

The Dog That Has Not Barked

link to article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010406D)

By James K. Glassman

05 Jan 2006


As I write, 1,576 days have passed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and still there has been no subsequent terrorist assault on American soil.

Every day, 130 domestic and 118 foreign airlines serve the United States. Air traffic controllers handle 20 million flights a year -- without a terrorist incident. In fact, the past three years have been the safest in aviation history.

The United States remains the most open nation in the world. Since 9/11, scores of millions of sealed trailer-size containers have entered U.S. ports, and 6 million legal international immigrants have joined the American population. But no terrorist attacks.

Is this just good luck, or is it the result of good policy?

In other words, has George W. Bush succeeded -- at least, so far -- at the number-one task that Americans have assigned him, which is to keep them safe? Or should we make him change his strategy and tactics?

These questions are especially relevant today. Congress has passed a bill that restricts the ways terrorists can be interrogated; there’s outrage in the press at revelations that the National Security Agency has intercepted, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that originate or end in the U.S.; and, a popular new movie by America’s most esteemed director takes a skeptical view of aggressive retaliation against terrorists.

In early 2002, nine Americans out of ten approved of the way Bush was handling the war against terror; today, barely one in two. Recent polls show respondents believe that the parties can handle terrorism equally well.

Much of the recent criticism may be rooted in dissatisfaction, not with the protection we’ve been afforded against terrorists, but with the apparent lack of progress in Iraq. Many Americans are war-weary and frustrated, and their unhappiness with the war in Iraq is reflected in Bush’s poor approval ratings on the economy and terrorism -- even though, by any objective standard, these have been areas of great success.

The danger is that the farther 9/11 recedes in memory, the less we appreciate that it hasn’t happened again. When it comes to the war on terror, many Americans have become short-sighted, ungrateful and decadent.

Consider “Munich,” the new Steven Spielberg film. The movie, which last month was the subject of a cover story in Time magazine, follows the response to the brutal murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. According to Spielberg’s version of events, Israel commissioned a small team to travel throughout Europe to assassinate the terrorists behind the killings.

Rather than an inspiring story of justice and deterrence, Spielberg’s movie is a depressing tale of retaliation as counterproductive and morally corrupting. In an interview, the director said, “A response to a response doesn’t solve anything.” Instead, you need to sit down and talk things out “until you’re blue in the gills.”

There’s little doubt that Spielberg is referring, not just to Munich 1972 but to America post-9/11. The last shot in the film catches the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the background.

Several times in “Munich,” characters point out that, if the Israelis kill a terrorist, many more will rise to replace him, and these successors will be even worse. That may have been true with Nazis during World War II, but what is the alternative? To let the World Court handle the matter? To try to reason till you’re blue in the gills with Black September and al-Qaeda? Spielberg calls his movie a “prayer for peace,” but it is highly likely that calling a halt to the hunt for bin Laden and his henchmen will lead to more bloodshed, not less.

Remember “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time” from the Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze”?

But, says Colonel Ross, “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That,” said Holmes, “was the curious incident.”

Here in the United States since 9/11, the terrorists have done nothing -- that is, no violence on our homeland. That is the incident worth paying attention to. But is it curious? No.

The terrorists’ lack of success is the result of a response that has been aggressive and single-minded -- at home, in Iraq and in places we know little about. The policy is working. It has kept us safe. We tamper with it at our own extreme peril.

Hist2004

[Secret Squirrel]

What an idiotic article by another pug trying to save face for the up coming election. The last terrorist attack before 9/11 was in 1993, if you dont including McVeigh in 1995. Does that mean that the previous policy worked better than Bu$h's? Do we have to wait 8 years to see for certain if Bu$h's policies work?

[KB]

AQ is under pressure and damaged, but not destroyed. They've staged numerous attacks in Europe and Indonesia since 9/11. It was eight years between the first WTC attack was in '93 and the second strike. Homeland Security is still a LOONG way from being where it needs to be, as noted by the 9/11 Committee.

[hist2004]

What an idiotic article by another pug trying to save face for the up coming election. The last terrorist attack before 9/11 was in 1993, if you dont including McVeigh in 1995. Does that mean that the previous policy worked better than Bu$h's? Do we have to wait 8 years to see for certain if Bu$h's policies work?

The author of this article should have stated that 1,576 days have passed since a major
attack on America; including attacks that occurred overseas. To that end your comments
are sophomoric.

Hist2004

[catalyst]

What is AQ anyway? Who is the leader and what can he/she do? Democrats or republicans are equal in the ability to counter attacks....

[Secret Squirrel]

The author of this article should have stated that 1,576 days have passed since a major
attack on America; including attacks that occurred overseas. To that end your comments
are sophomoric.

Hist2004


The author should try to deal in reality and stop towing the pug line, the same advice you should take as well. There are terrorist attracks every day in Iraq. How many have to die before it's important enough to interupt this idiotic number of over 1,500 days? More smoke and mirrors from the makers of "chicken hawks are us". ;)

[catalyst]

Why terrorism in Iraq? Afghanistan I agree with on terrorism grounds....GWB should open the curtains to the truth and tell all why he did it......terrorism wasnt the reason or he would have taken a few other nations first....

[stonecutter]

Ridiculous logic. It's been pointed out here already that before 9/11, the last foreign terrorist attack in America was 1993. And besides, AQ's goal wasn't necessarily to conduct further attacks in America, but to draw America into an open conflict on Middle East soil, where jihad could ensue.

[Firetxmi]

Ridiculous logic. It's been pointed out here already that before 9/11, the last foreign terrorist attack in America was 1993. And besides, AQ's goal wasn't necessarily to conduct further attacks in America, but to draw America into an open conflict on Middle East soil, where jihad could ensue.

Then would you say we bought it hook, line, and sinker?

[cut]

The United States remains the most open nation in the world.

rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Evildave]

I Thought this was going to be a warm fuzzy story about a dog waiting for his master.......but noooooo.......

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The author should try to deal in reality and stop towing the pug line, the same advice you should take as well. There are terrorist attracks every day in Iraq. How many have to die before it's important enough to interupt this idiotic number of over 1,500 days? More smoke and mirrors from the makers of "chicken hawks are us". ;)

The last time I looked, the Presidential oath doesn't say anything about supporting and defending the people of Iraq.

At some point I would think that even you must realize that you are delusional. No terror attacks - can't be credited to Bush. Democracy spreading across the Middle East. Can't credit Bush. Economy recovering nicely. Can't be due to Bush. Market up. Not Bush. Surely you realize that for every foolish thing you try to pin on Bush, you must also be willing to do the reciprocal - to credit him for things that have gone well. The fact that you are not willing to do so illustrates that your opinions are not founded in reality, but in a lumpy, bitter gruel of reactionary personal contempt. You talk about Bush the way a mistreated ex-wife talks about her cheating ex-husband - if you want us to take your stories at the checkout of the Piggly-Wiggly that is mp.net seriously, you're gonna have to stop talking about him like he's the devil incarnate.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ridiculous logic. It's been pointed out here already that before 9/11, the last foreign terrorist attack in America was 1993. And besides, AQ's goal wasn't necessarily to conduct further attacks in America, but to draw America into an open conflict on Middle East soil, where jihad could ensue.

Come on. How far are we willing to go to deny progress? How much are we willing to support the enemy by pretending that whatever happens to be going on is what they planned all along? This is like saying Hitler planned to draw us into Berlin so that he could smite us with one mighty blow.

AQ's stated goal, which is well documented, is to rid the holy land of the infidel, and to establish strict Islamic rule across the Mideast. The exact opposite has happened. You do not do that by letting the infidel create a permanent military presence there, as has historically been done in Germany and Korea. You don't attack the Great Satan by allowing him to push the front line 7000 miles closer to you. You don't establish Islamic rule by allowing democracy to take hold not only in Iraq but in surrounding nations. Hell, even Iran is pretending to be a democracy - and they may yet have to actually become one as their huge population of young people is continuing to be influenced by the West.

One could argue that the Mideast has made more progress in the past 4 years than they have in the previous 20.

[catalyst]

2Sheds - here here.....

[Limeyfellow]

Really weird. Of the top of my head I seem to remember the big anthrax terrorist attacks, but I guess that doesn't count when the prime suspect worked for the CIA and other groups in the country.

[stonecutter]

Then would you say we bought it hook, line, and sinker?

Yes, we gave them what they wanted. Not saying it's to their advantage, but they got what they wanted.


AQ's stated goal, which is well documented, is to rid the holy land of the infidel, and to establish strict Islamic rule across the Mideast. The exact opposite has happened. You do not do that by letting the infidel create a permanent military presence there, as has historically been done in Germany and Korea. You don't attack the Great Satan by allowing him to push the front line 7000 miles closer to you. You don't establish Islamic rule by allowing democracy to take hold not only in Iraq but in surrounding nations.

I'll have to re-read some analyses of what's going on there politically and strategically, and refresh my memory.
But, first of all, am I wrong in stating that the "infidel" already has a permanent military presence there, in the holiest of holy Muslim land, Saudi Arabia? Or do the Saudis just have extensive military ties to the U.S?.
Either way, this is partly why Bin Laden is so cheesed against the U.S. Doesn't it make sense to you that by drawing the Great Satan right to their doorsteps, fanatical Muslims could recruit much greater numbers of fighters to their side? Seems to be working, what with all the foreign fighters in Iraq now. That's how Muhammed conquered the Middle East in the 600s, and that's how you rid the Holy land of the infidel -- you unify all the tribes (or nations) against your enemy. (Anyone here seen March or Die, with Gene Hackmann? Awesome French Foreign Legion flick set in the Riff wars in Morocco in the 1920s, which carries this theme).

So the way I see it is that Americans claim to have succeeded in the war on terror because they've concentrated all their enemies in one spot where they can be killed more easily, and AQ is happy because 1) America now has a heck of a lot more enemies to deal with, 2) they also have a chance to kill Americans, and 3) they get to die martyrs' deaths, and go straight to heaven.

And democracy is far from being established in Iraq.

[WARPIG]

Many, many potential attacks on US soil have been thwarted due to the changes made after 9/11, as well as the entities that were protecting us prior to 9/11. I think we still have a lot of gaps in the line though. "Good policy or good luck?" I think a bit of both.
I think the author's "talk vs action" analogy is a bit vague. Action is not always the best response, nor is lip service. The gray area that we spend most of our reality in is where we love to dispute. If someone threatens to kick my ass, I may laugh at it, worry about it, question why, or act on it depending what lead to the threat, and how threatened or agressive I feel. Usually conversation ends that line of action, even if it ends with mutual insults. If someone threatens to do the same to someone in my family, my reaction will lean much more toward action. I feel, much the way our CinC feels, that a threat against the nation I swore an oath to protect warrants action. I don't view is as a threat to me, but to my loved ones and the people that I swore to protect.
The justification for starting the war in Iraq is very much a subject of debate. But, while the tolerance for war seems to falter, the validity of our fight there is stronger. Our action there today is overwhelminly justified. The only question our public has now is whether we have the resolve to continue.

[ArmedPacifist]

The last time I looked, the Presidential oath doesn't say anything about supporting and defending the people of Iraq.

At some point I would think that even you must realize that you are delusional. No terror attacks - can't be credited to Bush. Democracy spreading across the Middle East. Can't credit Bush. Economy recovering nicely. Can't be due to Bush. Market up. Not Bush. Surely you realize that for every foolish thing you try to pin on Bush, you must also be willing to do the reciprocal - to credit him for things that have gone well. The fact that you are not willing to do so illustrates that your opinions are not founded in reality, but in a lumpy, bitter gruel of reactionary personal contempt. You talk about Bush the way a mistreated ex-wife talks about her cheating ex-husband - if you want us to take your stories at the checkout of the Piggly-Wiggly that is mp.net seriously, you're gonna have to stop talking about him like he's the devil incarnate.

Jackson, relax buddy. You are speaking of Squrriel in the same contempt, lets keep posting civil okay lads?


Anyway, I don't think the war in Iraq has anything to do with the stop of attacks on American soil, the people (or whatever you want to call them) that orchestrate these attacks take years to plan and years to execute them, there is absolutely no way to know whether foreign policy is working just by waiting down the clock. The terrorism sleeper cells that operate in both your and probably my country are not like the typical jihadi in Iraq willing to die at every given opportunity, they are much more disciplined and will only strike when the attack is ready.

Al-Qaida is a snake with multiple heads.

[sp2c]

we havent seen a terrorist attack in 28 years so we must be doing something right?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

That's how Muhammed conquered the Middle East in the 600s, and that's how you rid the Holy land of the infidel -- you unify all the tribes (or nations) against your enemy.

Yeah, well that's great on paper and all, but it's not working - and AQ understands that. The last AQ releases are talking about a lack of support, that they are perplexed about their strategy since terror attacks are actually turning the locals against them.



So the way I see it is that Americans claim to have succeeded in the war on terror because they've concentrated all their enemies in one spot where they can be killed more easily, and AQ is happy because 1) America now has a heck of a lot more enemies to deal with, 2) they also have a chance to kill Americans, and 3) they get to die martyrs' deaths, and go straight to heaven.

These are all minor anecdotal points that have emotional appeal but do nothing to get AQ what it is after. Again, it's like Hitler standing on a pile of rubble in Berlin, waving a flag and yelling "we've got 'em right where we want 'em! Now we can really begin to win!" Remember that AQ kills more Muslims than Americans. They are losing, rather than gaining support every day.

And it was Bush himself who envisioned Iraq as the battleground against AQ - better to confront them there. Remember that it is not his, or the military's job to keep Iraq (or anywhere else) safe - only America. If there is a conflict to be fought - which evidently there is....is it not better to fight it on foreign soil?



And democracy is far from being established in Iraq.

Oh I agree with that. But we are not at the end of history. The Mideast is a bunch of pretend countries arbitrarily drawn on a map. It's always been a mess, and will continue to be so. We just need to keep them exporting oil and not exporting terror, by whatever means are necessary.



Jackson, relax buddy. You are speaking of Squrriel in the same contempt, lets keep posting civil okay lads?

No, not at all. I have no contempt for the Squirrelmeister - but when he slathers on the anti-Bush stuff so thickly, I just think it calls for a bit of a reality check. Otherwise we spin off into tinfoil hat country, with blood for oil, Bush's oil buddies, Cheney being kept alive by a vortex of infinite evil instead of a heart etc. I expect SS to come back swinging. We have a long & storied history of calling each other complete bastards, pricks, etc. - it's all good.

[stonecutter]

Yeah, well that's great on paper and all, but it's not working - and AQ understands that. The last AQ releases are talking about a lack of support, that they are perplexed about their strategy since terror attacks are actually turning the locals against them.

Which terror attacks, and which locals? There's much more than AQ at work in Iraq, there's the Shiites against the Su'unis. Su'uni locals may be against Shiite terror attacks and vice versa, but that's because of a millennia-long hatred between these groups and not AQ. I've read that Muslim fundamentalism is actually growing stronger in Iraq, because of the war.



These are all minor anecdotal points that have emotional appeal but do nothing to get AQ what it is after. Again, it's like Hitler standing on a pile of rubble in Berlin, waving a flag and yelling "we've got 'em right where we want 'em! Now we can really begin to win!" Remember that AQ kills more Muslims than Americans. They are losing, rather than gaining support every day.

Hm. I don't think your analogy is valid. Hitler was very much aware that the Reds in Berlin were a bad thing. And again, is it AQ killing Muslims, or is it fratricide among the two factions I mentioned above? It's more a Suuni/Shi'ite thing.


And it was Bush himself who envisioned Iraq as the battleground against AQ - better to confront them there. Remember that it is not his, or the military's job to keep Iraq (or anywhere else) safe - only America. If there is a conflict to be fought - which evidently there is....is it not better to fight it on foreign soil?

I agree 100%. That's why France and Germany sent troops to Afghanistan.



Oh I agree with that. But we are not at the end of history. The Mideast is a bunch of pretend countries arbitrarily drawn on a map. It's always been a mess, and will continue to be so. We just need to keep them exporting oil and not exporting terror, by whatever means are necessary.

Agreed. I'm surprised you would say this, because in a way it implies that oil had something to do with the war. And like I mentioned in previous threads, it's not so much the physical oil that's important, it's how it's sold on the international markets (in Euros or in American dollars).

What we really need is to lose our reliance on oil. That would be good for humanity, and good for the environment as well. The technology is there, it exists -- the problem is there's too much money involved in oil.

[kinghk]

we havent seen a terrorist attack in 28 years so we must be doing something right?

I'm must be aging faster than I thought, I thought that the Van Gogh incident happened a couple of years ago, not 28.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Which terror attacks, and which locals? ...I've read that Muslim fundamentalism is actually growing stronger in Iraq, because of the war.

I'd have to look up that statement - I think it was from al-Zarqawi last month maybe, stating that he was disappointed that more of his Muslim brothers in the region had not taken up the cause. And I wouldn't be surprised if fundamentalism is on the rise in Iraq. But that doesn't automatically mean they're supporting terror. Any time a group perceives that they're under attack (even if it's only a perception) - they will revert to a fundamentalist state. Hell, there's a rise in Christian fundamentalism going on in the US for the same reason.



Hm. I don't think your analogy is valid. Hitler was very much aware that the Reds in Berlin were a bad thing. And again, is it AQ killing Muslims, or is it fratricide among the two factions I mentioned above? It's more a Suuni/Shi'ite thing.

I don't think anybody can reliably tell us who is blowing up what. Even AQ itself will lie if they find that is to their advantage, depending upon the reaction to the bombing. Militant Islamists regard a reformed Muslim who helps the US to be just as much as an infidel. But they run the risk of alienating their base if they target them.



Agreed. I'm surprised you would say this, because in a way it implies that oil had something to do with the war. And like I mentioned in previous threads, it's not so much the physical oil that's important, it's how it's sold on the international markets (in Euros or in American dollars).

Well I don't put much stock in the Euro vs. dollar thing - I think that treads very closely to black helicopter/tinfoil hat territory. But there is no doubt that oil has something to do with it. And it should. Anybody who says otherwise had better be ready to deal with an unprecedented economic collapse, and walking to work. :)



What we really need is to lose our reliance on oil. That would be good for humanity, and good for the environment as well. The technology is there, it exists -- the problem is there's too much money involved in oil.

I agree with that 100%. As to how to go about doing that - I have no idea. Maybe we could all live in a dome, and eat energy cubes, and go to some sort of shop where we are euthanized at age 30.

[stonecutter]

And I wouldn't be surprised if fundamentalism is on the rise in Iraq. But that doesn't automatically mean they're supporting terror.

I think that the terms "Muslim fundamentalist" and "Suicide bomber out to get all the infidels he possible can" go pretty much hand in hand....


Militant Islamists regard a reformed Muslim who helps the US to be just as much as an infidel. But they run the risk of alienating their base if they target them.

I know -- sick fvcker that I am, I watched a video of one of Zarqawi's minions saw off the head of some poor Iraqi collaborator with a knife. Christ.


I agree with that 100%. As to how to go about doing that - I have no idea. Maybe we could all live in a dome, and eat energy cubes, and go to some sort of shop where we are euthanized at age 30.

Well, France went nuclear in the 1970s, after the OPEC crisis. 75% of French energy now is nuclear. There's also geothermal, bio-diesel, wind, solar, hydrogen engines.... But what it comes down to is, when things have to change, they will. And for now, unfortunately, we can still afford to be oil-whores.

[Secret Squirrel]

Doesn't it make sense to you that by drawing the Great Satan right to their doorsteps, fanatical Muslims could recruit much greater numbers of fighters to their side?

Worked regarding the political scene in S.A as well as the religious right swept the elections. But hey, they're our allies until they turn on us so lets just see where they take it.

[AmericanImperialist]

Ridiculous logic. It's been pointed out here already that before 9/11, the last foreign terrorist attack in America was 1993. And besides, AQ's goal wasn't necessarily to conduct further attacks in America, but to draw America into an open conflict on Middle East soil, where jihad could ensue.

Uh no.

AQ's goals as stated are to remove America, American Influence, and Israel from the Middle East, not to draw America to the ME.