Quote:
Originally posted by rrpjr
I would posit several reasons we haven't been attacked (though your "negative reinforcement" argument may also support the idea of a current, active conspiracy to attack us in the future. That is, why haven't they attacked us since 9/11? Because they are planning an attack. 9/11 took several years to plan, after all. But obviously I am a Strangelovian paranoic. I mean, 9/11 never really happened.
Of course to restate the obvious, your hypothesis glibly ignores September 11th, which provided all the proof reasonably observant people should ever need of al Qaeda's capacity to execute a difficult and deadly attack.
A kid in Roxbury getting a gun is not the same as a terrorist acquiring the components of a bomb. The comparison makes good copy, but the two processes aren't the same. Hardly a degree of separation.
Most terrorists are Muslims. It is that much more challenging today to organize a conspiracy of two dozen Muslims in America. You might be surprised by how many Americans – not simply law enforcement people -- are paying attention to such things.
I would not characterize al Qaeda as a “network of loosely organized yet highly connected cells.” Rather, I see them as an organizationally chaotic, loosely connected confederation of zealots maniacally united by fundamentalist hate. They have no use for the corporate structure of an IBM – they need only a large pool of willing trigger men anywhere in the world, a smaller braintrust of planners, and small deployments of strategic teams which can in themselves be highly focused toward a specific goal of death and mayhem.
I would also submit that al Qaeda has a long-term view. I don’t think they see themselves as pesky anarchists, Molotov cocktail tossers or even IRA car bombers. They have grand, messianic visions, of apocalypse and destruction and suzerainty. My guess -- of which, like you, I have no proof -- is that they do not wish to mess with fertilizer bombs or even bombs on airplanes anymore. These would only serve to stir up our country’s defenses and spirit as 9/11 did. I think they are looking at and planning something far more grave. They want a nuclear weapon. They want a contagious pathogen. I believe they want their next attack to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands and to cripple our psyche and/or our economy.
Al Qaeda and the like have no interest in making accommodations with the West. Their goal is far more than our removal from the Middle East. Our unilateral withdrawal tomorrow, our disavowal of Israel tomorrow, even our gift to them of several US states, would do nothing to placate them. They are implacable. They wish to annihilate us. They don’t want to live with us; they insist on living without us. They are a clear and present danger not merely to us, but to civilization. Anybody who misses this basic truth cannot, in my view, be taken seriously in this debate.
I have this argument a lot with friends and family in Berkeley. They hold the same dismissive view of al Qaeda – it is all boogeyman stuff concocted by the Right. A serious study of the reactions of Manhattan liberals to the September 11 attack either has not been made or not made public, but I believe one would be most interesting. It was my understanding that there was a major cognitive meltdown among the children of the liberal elite in New York after 9/11. These young people simply had no way to absorb the reality of such an attack. I wonder how they are doing now, what they are thinking, what their parents are telling them.
Of course, the next time we are attacked, and there will be a next time, I don’t expect nearly the same level of national unity and solemnity. I expect that within 24 hours of an attack it will be declared by the left to be Bush’s fault – whether he is still in office, or whether Hilllary Clinton is in yet. We shall see, I suppose, and in the process see what the West is truly made of.
|
A lot of text and well-written, refreshing, but the apologist language (strangelovian...) is a bit contrived and only weakens your stance. Let me show where you fall short.
"Of course to restate the obvious, your hypothesis glibly ignores September 11th, which provided all the proof reasonably observant people should ever need of al Qaeda's capacity to execute a difficult and deadly attack. "
First, this makes no sense in the context of a rebuttal to my post. None. In fact I acknowledge what 20 guys can do, or even 2, let alone an organized confederation.
Second, please re-read my text, perhaps a second reading will allow for better comprehension. And PLEASE don't read it the way you WANT to interpret the message occording to your own subjective preconceptions, but rather as an objective text. I purposed used short sentances to help in this regard. Now, on to the guns vs. bombs degree. Guns were an additive arguement, not a comparitive. And getting all the materials necessary to build a bomb similar to OK City is a 1 degree scenario. It's just as easy to get guns as it is to build a bomb. Heck, hijacking a gas/oil/HAZMAT truck is pretty easy and driving it anywhere. Nuff said here, but read on.
Your assertion that terrorists aren't planning an attack in the U.S. because of average citizens on the look-out is weak and hopes the casual reader doesn't remember 2 significant points in my original thesis. Our borders and ports are entirely OPEN. I'll say it again. Anyone can ship anything to this country and/or walk across our 2 borders. Head in the sand thinking won't cure this. Access to any and all bomb-making materials can easily be had in Mexico, just as easily if not more so than here in the U.S. Need I say more?
" These would only serve to stir up our country’s defenses and spirit as 9/11 did. " And you see how much and how fast our government responded. lots of rhetoric, but open borders, poor security at airports, etc. and why would it even matter? If AQ has a long term view (I agree, in fact longer than we do
) then a hit now and again could only strengthen that long-term view. It's sort of like the enemy you can't see, but keeps striking, sooner or later you give up or wear yourself out. Kind of like our military is over-extended now. The rest of your text in that paragraph is pure conjecture.
"They want a nuclear weapon" Hmmm, where will they get one? Hmmm, by overextending ourselves in Iraq and taking our eyes off of North Korea, they now have a ready source. I'm not going to disagree with you on this one, just state that your goofball president just made us a lot less safe through his self-serving and misguided policies. We won't even get into the Chinese being our bankers and building a significant military at the same time.
"Al Qaeda and the like have no interest in making accommodations with the West. Their goal is ..." I'll agree here. And we've done such a good job of breaking the back of AQ. Bin laden who? wanted: dead or alive.
"Of course, the next time we are attacked, and there will be a next time, I don’t expect nearly the same level of national unity and solemnity. I expect that within 24 hours of an attack it will be declared by the left to be Bush’s fault – whether he is still in office, or whether Hilllary Clinton is in yet. "
If Bush is still in office and terrorists were found to have crossed our borders or shipped in a nuclear weapon undetected by our port security, of course it's his fault.
On Hilary, or whoever the next present will be, it all depends on how long they've been in office. Case in point is Bush himself. If 9/11 had happened in 00, it wouldn't have been his fault, it would have been Clinton's. But Bush came into office, got all the memos and briefings, had significant time to understand the growing threat, but instead of focusing on terrorism, he was all about Star Wars and missile defense. The Right constantly says Clinton didn't do enough, blah, blah, blah. I agree, but then it should have been Bush's first and highest priority when he got into office. It wasn't.
Anyway, have a good day, read this a few times to let it soak in. I hope in haste to get down thoughts I haven't mistyped or omitted too manhy words, but it's pretty much all there.