More F's Than A's

Members of the former 9/11 Commission are going to release a report on Monday in which they will assess how the commission's anti-terror recommendations have been implemented so far. Their initial evaluation is not good.

Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But it has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting
money so it goes to states based on risk level.

[...]

[Chairman Thomas] Kean and [vice chairman Lee] Hamilton urged Congress to pass spending bills that would allow police and fire to communicate across radio spectrums and to reallocate money so that Washington and New York, which have more people and symbolic landmarks, could receive more for terrorism defense. Both bills have stalled in Congress, in part over the level of spending and turf fights over which states should get the most dollars.

That seems like legislative business as usual. Aside from the structural and procedural recommendations by the 9/11 Commission, there are still well-documented concerns about security at ports, power plants and chemical plants. In other words, there are plenty of vulnerable targets should terrorists wish to strike again, and plenty of opportunity. So the obvious question is: why hasn't that happened yet?

I have a couple of theories. We know that Al Qaeda's M.O. is to orchestrate these elaborate, multi-front operations, and they always try to pull off something original. They seem to take more pride in their ability to execute a difficult plan than in its consequences. So in their hubris, they might feel that the next attack on America will have to be something even greater and more improbable than 9/11. The more complex a plan, the more likely it will be thwarted by loose lips or good intelligence (9/11 notwithstanding), so some new Al Qaeda schemes might have been quashed before they could get off the ground.

But I have a conflicting theory on why the U.S. has not been attacked again. A couple of weeks back I wrote about one of the men responsible for the Madrid bombings having detailed information about the Montreal Metro on his laptop, and my speculation as to why Montreal might be a terrorist target. I hypothesized that contrary to conventional opinion, the point of terrorist attacks are to get countries to join the war, not to stay out of it. ("Maybe it's the terrorists who are playing the 'flypaper' game.") Since the U.S. is full throttle in Iraq, there was no need to waste resources there. However, as chatter starts to increase about troop pullouts and disengagement, that is when America is more liable to be attacked. Then they will be more eager to redouble their efforts in the war, and allow the cycle to continue.

I don't know what the answer is, but nobody should make assumptions about their safety from terrorism. There is a war on terror to be fought out there, and it can be fought sensibly. But the sensible fight has been delayed by the Iraq diversion, and it's hard to tell how many years it will take to get back on track. In the meantime, watch your back.