How is it that we were attacked on 9/11? might be a better one. With an annual defense budget surpassing $300 billion (circa 2001 figures), how is it possible that the Pentagon itself was attacked?

As far as the Pentagon itself, try Cold War dividend as well as changes in the technology of major countries' militaries. In 2001, the air defenses of the US were a hard crunchy coating around a soft chewy center: they were completely organized against threats coming from the coasts and transpolar routes, as well as some capability in the southwest.
Hypothetically, it is possible the US might have done better in the 1960s, when there were fighter units operational in the continental US, and where key targets, including some cities had point defenses of antiaircraft guns or missiles. As I say, that's hypothetical, as even if a more capable modern fighter intercepted a widebody jet, a single air-to-air missile, which might fireball another fighter, might well damage an 767 without knocking it down. A much heavier air-to-ground missile like the Maverick would shred things much more than an AMRAAM or Sidewinder, but it would be precognition to think of putting those on fighters on coastal defense.
Even if it were shot down with several rounds, tons of metal and fuel are going to come down fairly intact, and, once in the New York or Washington metro areas, are going to cause ground casualties. I lived close enough to the Pentagon that my windows shook, but I was in a mixed-use area with a lot of single-family houses. Had the aircraft gone down in the high-rise area in Crystal City, along the Potomac, or Pentagon City closer to the Pentagon building, the casualties might have been much worse.
Once the attacks were underway, it would have been damned difficult to stop them, for several reasons. Especially in Washington and New York, the interceptors would have to find specific aircraft among many others, make a positive identification, and have weapons release (authorization to fire).
The time to stop the attacks was before they started. I often wonder if the assassination of the Afghan leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, on 9/9 was linked to the 9/11 operation or coincidental. Even if the US were on alert, however, it didn't have the capability to have a Cold War style battle against aircraft that had gotten past the coasts.
Law enforcement and intelligence, detecting the terrorists before they could operate, would have been the best chance. While there had been arguments for armored doors to the flight deck well before -- El Al had them for years -- it's an unknown if the pilots would have opened them if they heard people being killed outside, and if the terrorists claimed they would stop if allowed into the cockpit. Remember, no one had ever taken of an aircraft and used it as a weapons, except, ironically, in Tom Clancy's bestseller Executive Orders.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Mistaken entry.

One big reason we haven't been attacked in the last five years is that American targets don't appear to have been al-Qaeda's number-one focus since 9-11.

Considering the heavy rumors that much of the top ranks of al-Qaeda thought 9-11 was a strategically disasterous move, and also taking note of the July 2003 al-Qaeda web manifesto pushing for attacks against our allies in the Iraq War, it would seem that al-Qaeda has recognized the new geopolitical realities caused by our "war on terror" and have been adjusting by employing indirect strategies to weaken our position in the Middle East.

Three years ago al-Qaeda signaled their followers to attack our allies, and those followers took heed. They have had some notable successes in Madrid and London, the former triggering a series of events leading to Spain's withdrawal from the Coalition.

And over the past few weeks, we've seen some pretty haunting signals coming from al-Qaeda indicating that American targets are officially back on the radar. In particular, al-Qaeda's recent emphasis on Adam Gadahn and his English-language propagandizing would indicate that they're now seriously looking for American recruits.

Gadahn's well-broadcast warning that we should all convert to Islam sent chills down my spine. Bin Laden dealt with a lot of criticism in radical Sunni fundamentalist circles for not offering us the chance to convert to Islam before 9-11, as the Prophet prescribes before attacking the infidel.

The signs aren't very conclusive, but nonetheless they point toward a renewed emphasis on attacking American civilian targets. I hope we're ready to prevent it, when it comes.

Why haven't we been attacked (on our own soil) since September 11 2001?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me. Simply put, there are about 500 million more eyeballs on the lookout for suspicious activity now than there were before that day.

If that sounds a little farfetched, consider the cases where the Terrorists were actually foiled; all occurred because private citizens took action:

-The terrorists who hijacked Flight 93 were literally stopped dead by well-informed fellow passengers whose most potent weapons were cell phones.
-The infamous "shoe bomber" was turned in by fellow air passengers.
-Even the recent British bust, (admittedly not on our soil) which was touted by the Bush Administration as justification for their domestic spying program, was initiated by a muslim British citizen making a complaint to his local police.

None of these defensive actions were aided in any way by government secrecy, torture or the removal of constitutional protections.

-Dave Adams-

Juliette said: "But it may also be that America’s Arab and Muslim communities have experienced this nation’s opportunities..."

Whatever it is needs bottling.

Joblessness is huge among the angry populations. Development is very difficult and methods remain resolutely primitive. I quit a permanent contract with the UN development arm (UNDP in NY) directly because of this.

Leaderships in most of the angry countries tell me they would give a great deal to know how to create more dynamism (I've worked in all but one Arab country) but they aint getting a lot of help that matters. There has been a net outflow of investment for many years (check who is the largest investor in Daimler Benz), net value migration out, and the lowest growth in the world (behind Africa; around zero) in some recent years.

I've been in England and France a lot lately lately and cruised moslem neighborhoods. Here where I live in NJ across from Manhattan it s amelting pot and there are plenty of arabs and other nationalities and they all look me in the eye and exude confidence and clearly feel plugged into... something. In England and France in contrast, there is a bipolar situation (natives, and everyone else) and similar groups seem cowed and bashful and apologetic and very much on the outside.

The UN development arms (20-plus agencies) that COULD and SHOULD do system enhnacement and value building have near-zero budgets. The World Bank and IMF, just banks for gawds sakes, have muscled into this vacuum with appalling lack of method. So it goes.

I imagine the hijacked pilots had trouble accepting how screwed they were before it was too late. If some noise in the cabin becomes a guy coming through the door and immediately slicing your throat there's no time.

As to air defenses HCB is right, with this added point--there were multiple defense exercises occurring, which slowed the realization and response time. I wonder if a lesson has been learned about how vulnerable a country is during an exercise.

One possible reason for no follow-on attacks is there's no point. If the point of attack was to make a spectacle, there is no way to top 9/11---it makes sense to let the memory serve continuing duty (with the help of politicians, news channels, and Hollywood). If the point was to provoke reaction, in classic terror style, what more could be wanted than the ongoing madness here and in Iraq?

No sweat, if the Authoritarians have their way with immigration, we will import the French immigration policy and soon have a 2nd class population, denied the opportunity to participate in our society other than by working for less money. "They will become cowed and bashful and bashful and apologetic and very much on the outside."

Why haven't you been attacked? I've discussed this before. You've done everything Osama could possibly want you to do. Simple as that.

To answer that question, certainly the way the Bush Administation wants us to answer it, one would have to believe that the Bush Administration has actually done things the right way, to make us safe.

But we all know, they've done everything wrong. They are completely incompetent. Failures, every last one one of them, from Bush to Cheney to Rumsfeld to Chertoff. 

So there may be a reason why we haven't seen another attack up to this point, but it's a pretty easy case to make, politically, that the Bush Administration has nothing to do with that fact. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

al-Qaeda, whatever form it may be, doesn't appear to be principally focused on the "Great Satan" as was, for example, Khomeini. They have a worldwide focus, admittedly most emphasized in the lands covered by the largest Caliphate.

An organization that demonstrates it can launch multiple near-simultaneous, and different each time, attacks in any country in the world terrorizes more than one country. While I'm not being specific to al-Qaeda, and indeed know it may not be a Pentagon in Wazaristan, think of some of the nations that have pulled back from the Iraq coalition due to attacks at home.

It may or may not be that US attacks have been stopped, as much as the energy constantly looks for the easiest dramatic target. One of the things that saves us much more destruction is that they really haven't been very technologically sophisticated in their targeting and methods.

For the record, I don't think the US will ever be terror-free. Treating it as a public health problem, if the deaths it causes are a tenth or hundreth less than those caused by cigarette smoking or driving in traffic, may be the more realistic goal.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Ask in Britain or in Spain if they think IRA's and ETA's terrorism acts were very hard to do.

The events of 9-11 worked out in favor of both Al Qaeda and the US power elite: For UBL and Al Qaeda, once the attack was done, they have been able to sit back and watch as this country goes through contortions that have paradoxically had the effect of lessening the freedom of US citizens, while doing little to combat the actual root causes of 9-11.

Which brings us to the US power elite. The terms conservative, Republican or neocon are too restrictive--this is truly a mirror image of the 'consolidation' of terraist groups that Dubya is always warning us about: Many different viewpoints all tied to the common ground of seeking money, power and control worldwide. I don't believe the 'grand conspiracy' that this group caused 9-11 to happen, but surely they have perverted the response in order to maximize their own gains, at the expense of the US population. (and given the Bush govt and 9-11 commission's lack of investigation and transparency into key aspects of 9-11, I do believe that there was some official knowledge of the situation, and the coverup is to hide the incompetency and malfeasance of various govt officials)

Which brings us to today's 'War on Terror,' which benefits both sides, at the expense of the world's population. It's a meaningless phrase and a political cudgel. And politics, as we know it today, favors empty spin over positive (but unglamorous and difficult) steps, such as increasing the number of container scanners in our ports.

For the record, I don't think the US will ever be terror-free. Treating it as a public health problem, if the deaths it causes are a tenth or hundreth less than those caused by cigarette smoking or driving in traffic, may be the more realistic goal.

Howard, it's always a pleasure to read your analysis of these situations. Unfortunately, your eminently rational assessments prove that a man like you has no place in the current Administration, which is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in our country.

*sigh* It's sometimes a failing of mine that I try to operate logically, and assume others will as well. That assumption, unfortunately, is less helpful when one is dealing with humans rather than Vulcans, or at least humans of Stoic philosophy.

It's not at all clear what skills some of the opposing groups have, or what tactics and techniques are comfortable for them. Bombs, suicide or not, still seem to be the main tactic, with the assumption (the Twin Towers being an exception) that the casualties will be caused by the bomb itself.

We aren't safeguarding, for example, water purification (or industrial) chlorine in transit. To put that in perspective, when the first large-scale chemical attack was launched by the Germans at Ypres, they used about 160 tons of chlorine against an 8000 yard front. The standard tank cars for carrying chlorine carry either 90 or 55 tons. Why, then, try to smuggle in chemical weapons? Chlorine is not as poisonous as nerve agents, and would tend to produce more casualties than deaths. What is the effect on the population of seeing large numbers of people with permanent respiratory problems, rather than a group suddenly dead?

Historically, Arabs fought close-in with knives, and had great difficulty coping with someone counterattacking with unarmed combat skills. They also tend to spray-and-pray with high volumes of unaimed fire, as opposed to Afghans who have a tradition of fine marksmanship. The suicide bomb has been popular, but how much of an effect would it have for small teams, trained to cover one another, to open fire with automatic weapons in a shopping mall or other large area -- and quite possibly get away?

A lone gunman, be it Charles Whitman or Baruch Goldstein, will eventually be overpowered by unarmed citizens. A 3-5 man team, always having some firing while others reload, is a much more difficult proposition. With the US population, are suicide bombers, or gunmen who get away some of the time, more of a psychological risk?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

According to a Zogby poll, 42 % of Americans (plus 10 % not sure) believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. So, in my opinion, the right question is: Why aren’t Americans in overwhelming numbers demanding an impartial investigation by a panel of the best available experts, ones who have no political agenda?

The United States must change its paradigm away from prevention (which amounts, in the end, to coersion) to one of self-improvement.

As I argued in the Discussion Boards, the U.S. ought to reduce its military and economic footprint in the Middle East. Doing so would essentially cut off the fuel supply which drives anti-American sentiment.

The hardest part of this, of course, is not that Tehran will acquire nuclear weapons or become the premiere regional superpower (much to the displeasure of Israel). Those two scenarios are probable anyhow.

The most difficult aspect from an American perspective will be admitting that we were wrong. It will require a ideological reforms and the swallowing of much nationalistic pride in the process.

Yet by reducing our footprint in the Middle East we can focus on our own country. Everything from education to healthcare to border security can be given the attention it deserves.

At the same time, Middle Eastern nations will either embrace their new freedoms or abuse them. If the former develops, then the world will enjoy a sustained peace. If the latter pans out, then the U.S. and its allies will at least once again have the "moral highground" to take action.

For my money, the Iranian government in Tehran would implode under the weight of its newfound freedoms because responsibility is a heavy burden.

Just as the Bush administration can use the national security mantra to justify its every action, Tehran can essentially do the same when facing Western pressure.

If that Western pressure is eradicated, however, Tehran's constricting government will be left with the choice of either reforming its policies or facing the wrath of a disgruntled populace.

I'm not saying anything like this will happen with Bush in office. But it's something to think about for 2008.

I have no answer for why we have not been attacked again. Basically, for the average person, this is an unanswerable question since the players operate in secrecy.

My one comment on this, is that a point defense is ineffectual and ludicrous. We will spend ourselves into oblivion and we will lose many personal freedoms for a false sense of security. In short, I forsee an Orwellian 1984 scenario.

A point defense will never work because there are simply too many points (airports, harbors, water treatement plants, bridges, buildings, etc.) to defend. So it comes down to trying to get them first.

I might as well take this "opporunity" to remind everyone of an earlier Islamic expansion attempt that has yet to be corrected. Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974 and seized a portion of the island. It is now thirty years later and the Turk's are still there.

For those interested in more history, research the Battle of Vienna (September 1683) where the West barely held on in the face of Islamic imperialism.

Anybody else think "psy-ops" whenever one of these horrendous Bin Laden/al Qeada videos appear at convenient times for Bush such as right before the 2004 election and now? Or does Osama want to keep the moronic Bush and his supporters in power because his stupid policies help Osama's goals?

Tom

Google "Mubtakkar Zawahiri" and you'll read that the reason we haven't been attacked by Al Queda is because they made a tactical decision not to attack us. They believe there are more effective ways of achieving their goals than attacking the US.

To give credit where credit is due, it was Ayman Zawahiri who called off the attack, and made it clear that there should be no attacks in the near future.

Thanks to Bush, Al Qaida achieved its objectives. It reduced a once-powerful nation into a mass of quivering jelly, ready and eager to sell off any amount of freedom in order to "feel safe again". It provided the pretext for an insider assault on American liberty beyond Osama's wildest dreams. It turned worldwide admiration of America into worldwide disgust. It rid itself of Saddam, its last strong obstacle in the Middle East.

Remember how the reaganites bragged that their hero destroyed the communist soviet union by forcing it to ruin its economy by arms spending? The terrorists set the same process in motion here, along with an oil shock that has hardly even begun to do its economic damage.

Further small attacks now would accomplish nothing that Bush is not accomplishing already -- if your enemy is hacking away at his own body with a machete only a fool would do more than watch the spectacle until it's time for the coup de gras. For the terrorists, with enemies like Bush you don't need friends.

No way to top 9/11? I wish that was true.

But I agree that from al-Qaeda's perspective, there's no reason to do anything. 9/11 is still paying the dividends for them. The impact of 9/11 was probably far more dramatic than its instigators expected.

What you're saying is that America has not been attacked because the Bush Administration has so far done just about everything the terrorists woud have liked it to. That means the Bush admin has everything to do with it, only not in the way the admin would want to take credit for.

Comrades,

We have less then 30 minutes before this film “The Path to 9/11” permeates our air-waves with the stench of despicable capitalist propaganda.

We need too stop this film at any cost!

I’m pleading with all loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to please write or call Senator Harry Reid.

You may use the following in your e-mail or voicemail to Senator Harry Reid:

Your Eminence,

We the people, of the United Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, whom are and shall always be you’re loyal comrades in arms, ask that you please have the FCC revoke the license of the traitors to our cause against the ABC Corporation. This propagandized film cannot be broadcasted.

The future of our Liberal Socialist Democratic Party will most certainly be irreversibly damaged from this despicable film and could most likely undo all the years of hard work by our party professors and scholars within our Liberal controlled academia.

This film could be so damaging that it will prevent us from taking over the House of Congress this November.

Please help us Obi-Reid, you’re our only hope!

Reid, Harry- (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

One answer -- which I never see alluded to -- is that the 19 hijackers were good. Mohammed Atta, for all his evil qualities, was a good organizer. He treated the hijacking project not like a regular guerilla leader, but like an engineer -- keeping his team organized, allowing them some recreation, making sure that people were accomplishing goals. I would guess that this kind of management is not common to Al Qaeda recruits -- look at the bombings in Madrid and London. London in particular was sloppy -- Madrid was better organized, but from all reports, it could have been much better organized.

After the 9/11 hijackings, there was a lot of controversy over whether the hijackers were courageous or not. That was froth. The question of whether they were a good team or not isn't. It looks like they were a strikingly good team. And as far as I can tell, the credit for that does go to the vile, but well organized Atta.

Al Qaeda cannot afford to be too effective in another attack. If the group is able carry out an attack producing tens of thousands of civilian casualties in America, one that even the Bush is the devil crowd cannot blame on someone inside the beltway, Al Qaeda will have entered a new paradigm. The failures of Iraq seem to come from the dual role of nation building and fighting a low level counter insurgency. If the people of America are outrageously attacked and harmed, the nation building may well stop. If public sentiment demands a high intensity counter insurgency, every mosque harboring or maybe harboring insurgents will become a Monte Casino and towns and cities sourcing out aggression on American troops and interests will become Aachens and Dresdens. Al Qaeda can afford episodic killings of Americans to breed fear. Al Qaeda cannot afford every person in America wanting death for anything remotely related to the organization.

the reason we haven't been attacked by Al Queda is because they made a tactical decision not to attack us. They believe there are more effective ways of achieving their goals than attacking the US

Precisely. The reason for the attack was to draw the USA into an unwinnable war in the ME, and drain the US treasury and will of the military. OBL said this. He said that after they successful drained the 'superpower' Russia by bogging them down in a war with Afghanistan for 10 years, they believed they could do the same to the USA and beat another of the 'superpowers'.

So the purpose of 9/11 has been achieved, they even have drove off our allies in the ME, by threatening themwith terror. The only country OBL wants fighting in the ME is the USA.  And GWBush was a sucker for the tactic.  We are engaged in an endless, senseless war that is draining the US treasury of billions of dollars and results in the quality of American life being diminished and has forced 'fearful' citizens to relinquish their civil liberties in the foolish hope of gaining security.

Why should OBL attack again, Americans are now fighting within their own country and destroying their own republic while going bankrupt and having their sons and daughters die in the desert for a 300+ year old religious conflict.

Americans have been handed their ass and OBL is laughing all the way to the bank as Hezbollah and AL-Q sit back and strategically fight the war on THEIR turf!

Are you suggesting Monte Cassino as something desirable? It was a terrible tactical intelligence failures, as the Germans, perhaps not as demonized as we made them, were not actually in the monastery.

The leaflet drop warning the monks to get out -- and they did -- gave the Germans useful warning to dig deeper outside. Once the monastery was bombed, the Germans used its rubble as even better cover than the intact building had been.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Perhaps it's fortunate that Al Qaeda has preferred the spectacle to the workmanlike. What I think is unstoppable is the intentional serial killer. When guys like the Washington, DC snipers simply choose random, accessible targets, there is no pattern beyond good fields of fire.

They were caught by being asleep on the job, in other words their operational security failed.

If teams were operating in major cities everyone would be afraid all the time. And it's rather easier here to get arms compared to Europe.

I second Tom Wright on his insight that there's "no way to top 9/11". At least, no way within Al Qaeda's somewhat degraded current operational capability. One can think of various ways, but can they carry them out? The Tokyo Metro poison gas attack by the unconnected Aum Shinri Kyo sect in 1995 did not achieve the intended mass murder, with more highly educated agents. The plot apparently dismantled by British police a month ago aimed at thousands of casualties, but with hindsight it looks too complicated to have had much chance of coming off before being blown.
The feasible attacks today - suicide car or truck bombs as in Nairobi, synchronised satchel bombs in trains as in London, Madrid and Mumbai - have caused 40-200 deaths each. Bad, but in the USA the effect of an attack like these would, after shock, be anticlimax; the irrational fears that are so useful to both OBL and George Bush would subside.

There is so much BS propagated by the Bush Administration about Al Qaeda. No one seems to have assessed what they are doing, how many people there are, where they are located. This is simple stuff, raw intelligence stuff. Hm, I wonder why. Isn't it smarter to make them so mysterious that we can't assess them, so that people can be AFRAID, really AFRAID of them all the time? After all, they're connected to ... um, Saddam and Iraq ... Iran ... maybe Pakistan ... the Taliban in Afghanistan ... and under your bed. One assessment shows them as a very small fragmented minority, which got lucky, remember, only because the cabin doors of the airliners weren't secured and pilots couldn't carry guns. I repeat this, One assessment shows them as a very small fragmented minority, which got lucky, remember, only because the cabin doors of the airliners weren't secured and pilots couldn't carry guns. Now, whether or not that's true, I'd like to have some facts. Otherwise, as I'm fond of saying, there is no such thing as a "global war on terrorism"; it's like a "war on laziness", so vague it distorts the picture and is designed only to make you afraid. So if you want more FEAR, vote again for the Republicans who give Bush strength; if you want a group that politically will question the FEAR, vote for Democrats this time around. Get your friends to vote for them. Act to help them. (Sure the Democrats aren't perfect but they represent the only way to counter Bush at this time. All the rest is "talk.")