More Musings on London Posted by Suzanne Nossel

just a couple of questions that strike me:

Why has al Qaeda pulled off nothing close to 9/11 ever since.  As terrible as the Madrid and London attacks have been, they don't approach the scope of the attacks on the WTC, Pentagon, etc.  A few possibilities come to mind: 

- They Aren't Capable of Inflicting Worse - The GWOT has severely undercut al Qaeda's ability to operate, such that they could not pull off another 9/11.  This is a tempting thought, although the most difficult part of the 9/11 attack was the undetected advance planning (flight training, etc.) and coordination on the day of the assault.  The simultaneity of the London attack would also have taken careful coordination.  Perhaps al Qaeda has yet to develop a new method of wreaking mass casualties without significant firepower (as was done by using passenger jets as missiles).   In other words, perhaps al Qaeda had just one devastatingly clever terror scheme up its sleeve, and has yet to invent a second.

- Their Major Efforts Are Trained on Iraq - This is a variant of Bush's notion that we're fighting in Iraq to avoid fighting on the streets of New York.  It would hold that al Qaeda now attacks periodically in the West only to prove that they are still capable of hitting us at home.  Perhaps they've concluded that this limited objective can be accomplished without inflicting mass casualties.  In other words, perhaps they've concluded that we're significantly bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan with insurgent attacks, and that the main front of the war is being waged there.  Lest we believe that fighting in the Middle East and Central Asia will forestall attacks in the West, however, they periodically launch an assault.  According to this logic, with sustained casualties being inflicted in Iraq, large scale attacks in the West are in a sense superfluous.

- In the Wake of 9/11, Similar Effects Can Be Achieved With Fewer Casualties - A corollary of the point immediately above, this is the notion that because all subsequent attacks echo 9/11, their impact is more terrorizing than would otherwise be true.  September 11 magnifies all future efforts, allowing al Qaeda to get away with less effort and firepower.   Britain's stoic reaction to last week's attacks calls into question this notion, although the 9/11 hangover understandably remains highly potent here in the U.S.  It may be that Americans were as much or more terrorized by the London attacks than Londoners.

- They Differentiate Between the U.S. and Other Enemies, Saving the Worst for Us - This theory would suggest that another devastating attack along the lines of 9/11 may await us.  Because the Spanish and British are only following the U.S.'s lead (for example in Iraq), the scale of the attacks on them is lesser.  al Qaeda does not want the U.S.'s singular status as the supposed source of Western evil lost on any observers.

Curious what the Qaeda-watchers will say.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

I'm no expert, but I would vote for option #1 as the most likely explanation. It could also be that several major attacks have been thwarted, and that we just don't hear about them. It is possible that with four years of working on the problem, US, Russian, Chinese and European intelligence has improved, infiltration techniques are working, information is shared more efficiently and many would-be attackers have been killed, or abducted and imprisoned, before they could carry out their plans. Surely some very nasty people must be among those held in those clandestine prisons and interrogation centers we hear about from time to time.

I think it is a mistake to pose the question is such a way as to suggest there is some organized Al-Qaeda strategy at work, reflecting a high degree of central planning. My impression is that we are dealing these days with scattered "clubs" of radicalized free-lancers, reading some of the same motivational web pages, and each attempting to do what they can do with the limited means and capabilities available to them. Of course, all it takes is one enterprising jihadist who can get his hands on some black market dirty bomb material, or biological or chemical weaponry, to inflict enormous damage.

When you say "the simultaneity of the London attack would also have taken careful coordination," I suppose you are right - but it doesn't seem to be the kind of careful coordination that requires a high degree of expertise. Getting the bombs or bomb-making material seems to be the real trick. I don't think it takes a trained organizational wizard to figure out how to get four bombs to go off at roughly the same time. Either they used bombs with timers, or they detonated the bombs in some other way, and used wristwatches to set them off at the same time. Learning how sophisticated the bombs were will tell us much more about the bombers than the modest amount of common-sense coordination involved.

I would disagree that planning the flight training and coordinating the actions on the day of the attack were the most difficult parts of 9/11. I'm sure you and I could draw up plans and a schedule for such an attack with little mental exertion. The most difficult part was the successful execution of commando-style assaults in three of the four cases that successfully incapacited the crew, held the passengers at bay and seized control of the plane. To my mind, that's the part of 9/11 that shows these guys had some serious training. Nothing like that is apparent in the London bombings.

[Cal]

One of the things that's been forgotten is that it appears that the 9/11 bombers had at least some state support. The Pakistani intelligence agency was heavily involved with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The FBI thought that the California hijackers' contact man was working for Saudi intelligence. Just getting these countries to stop supporting terrorists would go a long way towards crippling Al-Qaeda.

In any case, we shouldn't rush to judge success or failure here. These are people who have a lot of patience. It took them 8 years to come back and attack us after the 1st World Trade Center bombing. During that time, all our intel people were saying how successful we were. We just don't have enough information at this point.

[AJ]

I would vote for option #3.

When I heard about bombings I kept thinking about a movie called "Dirty War" which is about a radiological bomb attack in London.

http://www.hbo.com/films/dirtywar/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427157/

[Vida]

If any Democrates agrees with #1-#3, then they should agree that Bush administation has done a good job in the fight againt terror. So let's give credit where cridit is due, but I don't see such a comment form our dear Democrats.

[Vida]

If any Democrates agrees with #1-#3, then they should agree that Bush administation has done a good job in the fight againt terror. So let's give credit where cridit is due, but I don't see such a comment comming from our dear Democrats. Why not?

[David Billington]

There may have been a decline in certain skills associated with the attrition of the original al-Qaida network's upper echelon. But I don't think there is a zero-sum situation on either side. The numbers of U.S. personnel necessary to combat al-Qaida identified groups outside Iraq are a fraction of the numbers engaged in Iraq itself, and anti-American terrorism does not appear to have inelasticities that are a function of the number of places in which it is active.

The danger is anyway larger now. There may be nothing the United States can or will do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Dr. Sokolski's article in the current Policy Review (www.policyreview.org) tries to propose a series of measures that might raise the cost to Iran of going nuclear, but it is difficult for me to see these costs as high enough to offset the advantages to Tehran of taking the final step. With a nuclear deterrent, Iran could be much more assertive in the region, and it is not clear whether our current strategy can continue under these conditions.

A nuclear Iran also makes it almost certain that Saudi Arabia will go nuclear with the help of Pakistan. A Saudi government with nuclear warheads will then be dependent on the loyalty and discipline of its own people to assure that these weapons do not fall into the hands of al-Qaida sympathizers in the kingdom. Pakistan has so far been able to maintain control of its own nuclear arsenal so there is no reason to assume that Saudi Arabia cannot do so too, but as the number of states with such weapons increases the danger of loose nukes will probably grow.

[mikebdot]

I tend to agree with #1 at this point, but feel that in the future this will not be true. I think they could potentially pull off a 9/11 again, even with security at airports and government agents, etc. Many people can be more threatening with their bare hands than they would be with a leatherman tool, so much of airport security is for looks. It's just a matter of when the terrorists feel like doing something again. It's almost as though we are at their whim.

I think the question shouldn't be "how can we kill them first?" it should be, "how can we make them not want to kill us?" and no one is addressing this issue directly without being called a traitor and that is the crime of the Bush administration (at least, in my little mind).

If someone wants to shoot me in the face, they're going to be able to, even if I'm extremely vigilant. I just need to refrain from actions that make people want to do so. If they're doing it because I'm white or have money or pay taxes, then, oh well, I've lead a full life.

[Greg Priddy]

Dan Banjamin's (former Clinton NSC aide who is an expert on al-Qaeda) take on this in Time Magazine gets it right, in my opinion. The article is reproduced at TPMCafe:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/11/102328/819

[Greg Priddy]

Meant Dan Benjamin, of course.

[Dan-NYCIPA]

Prescient...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8524679/

[rosignol]

I would disagree that planning the flight training and coordinating the actions on the day of the attack were the most difficult parts of 9/11. I'm sure you and I could draw up plans and a schedule for such an attack with little mental exertion.

I concur with this...

The most difficult part was the successful execution of commando-style assaults in three of the four cases that successfully incapacited the crew, held the passengers at bay and seized control of the plane. To my mind, that's the part of 9/11 that shows these guys had some serious training. Nothing like that is apparent in the London bombings.

...and disagree with this. IMO, the most challenging part was finding ~20 people willing to commit a suicide attack, who could get through the visa process* and enter the US, and stay there without setting off alarms**. At least 4 of them have to be sufficently fluent in english to learn the basics of flying a multi-engine jetliner*** as well as smart enough to learn how to do it. Preferrably 8, as the designated 'pilot' may be incapacitated in the process of siezing control of the airplane.

As far as the assault itself is concerned, I doubt it was particularly challenging. Prior to 9/11, the playbook was to cooperate and let the professional negotiators and the FBI's HRT deal with it. Not any more- and that's probably why there hasn't been a repeat. 5 guys with box cutters are not going to be able to subdue all of the passengers of a widebody jetliner that can hold up to ~250 people when those people believe that cooperating with the hijackers means they die.

*that's why so many of them were Saudi- it's much easier for a Saudi to get a visa than a Iraqi, Iranian, Palestinian, etc

**and this means absolutely no prior recorded association with any terrorist group, as well as a certain level of comfort in western society, and the ability to pretend tolerance until it was time to act.

***this disqualifies quite a lot of the jihadis out there- english is the language of aviation. Pretty much every commercial pilot will be able to speak english.

[Ben P]

Rossignol - "That's why so many of them were Saudi - its much easier for a Saudi to get a visa than an Iraqi, Iranian, Palestinaian . . ."

Don't want to come off too harshly, but the reason that there were no Iraqis and Iranians involved is that AQ and its fellow travellers and metastises (?) are militant Wahhabi/Salafi Sunni Muslims who hate Shi'ites. Iran is almost entirely Shi'ite and Iraq is about 50% Shi'ite. There have been no major international terrorist attacks carried out by Shi'ite in the 21st century (Admittedly, this doens't explain the lack of Palestinians. But I think our assumptions about what causes terrorism and who is likely to be terrorists is seriously wrong at the moment. I think we need to understand the internal workings and differences in Islamic society much better), and really these attacks are being carried out by a particular sect of Sunni fundamentalists that in my opinion has little relationship to any real goals any more. It has become a kind of "romantic" cause, cult-like almost, not unlike the Bolshevism/anarchist international movement of the early 20th century.

[rosignol]

There have been no major international terrorist attacks carried out by Shi'ite in the 21st century

Hmph.

First, Hizbullah is Shia, sponsored by Iran, and very much a terrorist organization. Second, it's 2005. Please excuse me for not being at all impressed by the '21st century' bit- we're not even 5 whole years into the 21st century yet.

(Admittedly, this doens't explain the lack of Palestinians.

Most palestinians are sunni. Shia don't seem to go for the suicide-martyrdom thing. I seem to recall hearing some fairly prominent Shia figure had ruled that suicide attacks are 'haram', but I don't recall the details.

But I think our assumptions about what causes terrorism and who is likely to be terrorists is seriously wrong at the moment.

I agree completely.

It's pretty clear to me that poverty isn't it. There are lots and lots of poor people in the world, but terrorists seem to be largely drawn from the middle class and elites- the children of merchants and the like. To pick one notorious example, Osama bin Laden was the son of the founder of the Bin Laden Group, the largest construction firm in Saudi Arabia. He's the son of a billionaire.

It's also fairly apparent to those who study history that the US's foreign policy isn't it, either. If obnoxious foreign policy caused terrorism, the US would have been up to it's armpits in Central and South American terrorists for the entirety of the 20th century- what the US has done in the middle east is benign in comparison to the crap we've inflicted people south of the Rio Grande, and we've been doing it for over a century.

So what's left?

I think we need to understand the internal workings and differences in Islamic society much better),

Again, I agree. Unfortunately, much of our analysis of this is being made more difficult by residual political correctness, the desire of various groups to manufacture evidence that can be used to support their agenda, and the tactic of calling people who point out unpleasant facts about various cultures a racist.

Getting it right is going to require offending people. We need someone with impeccable academic credentials and a thicker skin than the people who make 'South Park'.

[rosignol]

Drat. Forgot to close the italic tag. My apologies.

ps: is there any chance of implementing a 'preview' button?

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...