New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 7, 2004

Brian Doherty considers why there hasn't been another 9/11 yet.

Comments

|12.7.04 @ 12:01PM|#

I'll throw something out now:
Islamic terrorists today are less dangerous than anarchist terrorists (not peaceful ones like Ruthless) at the turn of the century. Discuss.

|12.7.04 @ 12:07PM|#

BTW, that was a great article. I doubt there was a reason outside ineffectiveness for the gap between the two WTC attacks. We foiled a plot here and there, but overall it seems like they don't have enough manpower to project overseas. They have a recruitment drive in Iraq and since it's easy to get guys over there they can cause harm, but as the distance increases, they lose influence.

Domestic terrorism is a much bigger threat globally than international terrorism. Look at Spain and Columbia.

|12.7.04 @ 12:07PM|#

Two points:
Why should Islamists go to the trouble of coming to the US when the US is going to the trouble of sending Americans on a silver platter their way?
Then, anarchy is the best defense. We've all seen 9-11 and how it came about. We-individuals, businesses, etc.--have already made effective "adjustments" much much more effective than the Dept of Homeland Security.

|12.7.04 @ 12:25PM|#

I like the article. Although terrorism is a real threat, I firmly believe that we have over-reacted to 9/11 on so many levels. Air travel is now even more annoying than it was before (I remember the summer of 1995, when the Unabomber threatened LAX. I flew through LAX shortly thereafter, when the infamous "Has a stranger given you a bomb?" questions became standard. I'd love to know if a single person in the entire US ever answered "yes" to any of those questions.).

We have a Department of Homeland Security, whose main function seems to be to find things to worry about and maintain a National Mood Ring, while coming up with ways to hassle people.

John Kerry wants to inspect every shipping container.

The practice of sending protestors to "free speech zones", begun under Clinton (yes, that's right, I said it, no need to remind me of it or accuse me of mindlessly bashing the Dear Leader) has only accelerated. Will there ever be another major event where you can quietly hold a sign while walking down the street without being escorted to a "free speech zone"?

The hawks now believe that we must go around the world smacking around as many Muslims as possible.

Our legislators passed the Patriot Act without reading it, apparently on the belief that the Constitution is Osama's #1 weapon. Our Dear Leader has asserted the power to hold US citizens without trial or charges.

Self-described libertarians, including a few on this forum, argue that there's nothing unconstitutional about the Dear Leader holding US citizens without trial or charges. They claim that it isn't torture when the Dear Leader's soldiers ram objects up a prisoner's rectum.

And the Dear Leader tells us that this War on Terror may never end. Does this mean that for the rest of my life there will be an Orwellian bureaucracy finding new ways to hassle people in the name of "Fatherland Security"...um, I mean "Homeland Security"? Does this mean that for the rest of my life the Dear Leader will have the power to hold US citizens without trial or charges?

|12.7.04 @ 12:55PM|#

Heck, thoreau, you hit the whisky early! It's only nine in the morning, it will start raining any moment, and I hadn't even coffee, and now I have to face your squirts of drunken logorrohea, thank you very much! Nuance, man! Nuance!

|12.7.04 @ 12:59PM|#

Brian wrote:

"Absolute security is impossible, of course, at any price. But cost-benefit analyses have been noticeably absent from the public and political discussion about how to handle domestic defense against terrorism. "

How can you talk about money when lives are at stake? The life of ONE child who MAY be prevented from being killed by some POTENTIAL terrorist attack at some uncertain time in the future is worth ANY cost! Won't someone please think of the children??????????????

But seriously folks...the costs of airport security are higher than what Brian cites. If you just factor in all those people who simply don't fly anymore when they can avoid it, the time cost goes way up.

And it looks like the intelligence bill, which includes the de-sunset-reviewing of heinous financial regulations, is sailing right through Congress...

|12.7.04 @ 12:59PM|#

Lew Rocwell had an article last week in the same vein (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer91.html).

THe Dept. of Homeland Security should bust the Defense Department and anyone else responsible for the irresponsible meddling in foreign affairs. THen they can dismantle the Justice Department, because the more freedom people have, the more secure they will be. Once the DHS is done with that, they can disband themselves for lack of anything to do.

|12.7.04 @ 1:03PM|#

Anyone that will attack a 700' destroyer with a rubber dingy will always suprise you.
Buy more guns and ammo , be ready.

Highway|12.7.04 @ 1:04PM|#

"...And then Trogdor smote the Kerik, and all was laid to Burnination!!!!"

Oh No! Maybe that's a terror threat! Better go to Threat Level Mauve!

|12.7.04 @ 1:19PM|#

ARROWED!!!!

|12.7.04 @ 1:42PM|#

"Once the DHS is done with that, they can disband themselves for lack of anything to do."

Thoreau would know better than I, but I believe the chances of this are approximately 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so. And that's a liberal estimate.

Kevin Carson|12.7.04 @ 1:48PM|#

FWIW, I recently saw a Scheuer quote (author of Imperial Hubris) arguing that Bin Laden had been pressured by leading Saudi clerics not to initiate another attack on the scale of 9-11, because the American people had already been sent a warning and needed a chance to repent. Supposedly, Scheuer said, the Islamic clergy that Bin Laden holds in high esteem took the election as a sign that Americans are incorrigible, and took his leash off.

David|12.7.04 @ 1:54PM|#

Ruthless,

"Why should Islamists go to the trouble of coming to the US when the US is going to the trouble of sending Americans on a silver platter their way?"

You are aware that this supports the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" theory? I didn't expect to see that argument from you :).

However, I don't consider the U.S. military exactly a "silver platter," given that if you attack it, it tends to kill you in large numbers.

thoreau,

I actually agree with most of your points, and the ramifications of the war for our rights here at home are disturbing, or should be, to anyone that thinks about them. Virtually anything can be justified on the basis of "homeland security." And once rights are taken away it will be very difficult to get them back.

"The hawks now believe that we must go around the world smacking around as many Muslims as possible."

Well, speaking as a hawk, I don't believe that. All Muslims are not the problem. And we have enemies that are non-Muslim. North Korea springs to mind. My main criteria for POSSIBLE preemptive military action are as follows: 1. State is demonstrably hostile to the U.S. by word, deed or both 2. State sponsors terrorism against U.S. targets, or harbors terrorists who have or are suspected of planning attacks on the U.S.

Either one of those criteria is enough for me, depending on the other circumstances. If the state is ruled by Islamist fanatics, that just makes the case for preemption stronger, since fanatics can't be reliably deterred. But as far as I'm concerned, Muslims in whatever country are free to scream death to America all they want, as long as they don't do anything about it, or gain control of the government. And even if they did carry out terrorist acts, I wouldn't support preemptive military action, unless the state approved their terrorism or blatantly refused to surpress them.

|12.7.04 @ 2:02PM|#

What David said.

|12.7.04 @ 2:02PM|#

AND THA TROGDOR COMES IN THA NIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

|12.7.04 @ 2:44PM|#

andy, you fuckhead, you screwed up the margins. Were all those zeroes really necessary?

|12.7.04 @ 3:12PM|#

Supposedly, Scheuer said, the Islamic clergy that Bin Laden holds in high esteem took the election as a sign that Americans are incorrigible, and took his leash off.

Not that I want terrorists to attack anywhere in the US, but on the off chance that Bin Laden is reading this, please keep in mind that most of the people in Santa Barbara (where my wife and I live), Milwaukee (where most of my family lives), LA (where some of my wife's family lives) and DC (where my wife and I both have relatives) voted for Kerry.

And although I think San Diego (where more of my in-laws live) voted for Bush (correct me if I'm wrong), Navy SEALs train down there, so it's probably not a good place to try any terrorism. You'll want to stay far away from those SEAL teams.

|12.7.04 @ 3:15PM|#

You know, some of the same people who are saying that "after all, it's been a long time since we've had a terrorist attack here, maybe they just aren't capable of doing it again" were saying a couple of months ago "it's been a long time since we've had an unquestionably authentic message from bin Laden, so maybe he's dead or disabled..."

|12.7.04 @ 3:40PM|#

Why should Islamists go to the trouble of coming to the US when the US is going to the trouble of sending Americans on a silver platter their way?

I doubt that our Islamist pals in Iraq, at least the surviving ones, really regard the Marine Expeditionary Force as "Americans on a silver platter." More like "Americans in body armor with night vision calling in precision air strikes", which is a little different.

|12.7.04 @ 3:57PM|#

"You are aware that this supports the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" theory? I didn't expect to see that argument from you :)."

David,
I saw that coming and almost made it a part of my earlier post.
Here's the answer: If we weren't fighting them 'over there,' we wouldn't be fighting them over here.

|12.7.04 @ 4:41PM|#

If we weren't fighting them 'over there,' we wouldn't be fighting them over here.

They want a war based on the fact that we are allied with Israel at all, i.e., we don't "see the light" and nuke them. This isn't about policy, it's about OBL wanting to be S.A.'s favorite son. The only way to accomplish his dream is to fight the U.S., there and/or here until no Jew breathes air in Jerusalem. While I don't subscribe to that shortened expression ("fighting them there means we don't fight them here"), keeping them occupied on that front gives them a more pressing jihad to fatwa over. There are only so many mujahideen; kill enough before they reproduce and eventually you will silence the movement.

|12.7.04 @ 4:54PM|#

uh.. thoreau...

You are channeling Michael Moore, in the famous statement that was pulled from his own website - namely that, on 9/11, Osama attacked two cities (D.C. and New York) which were very much on Gore's side in 2000. If bin Laden did not take the red/blue state division in account last time, why would he now?

|12.7.04 @ 5:26PM|#

Wait, wait, wait. What happened to, "the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism at home?" Now it's, "there is no real terrorist threat in the US?" Does that mean that the war in Iraq DID NOT increase the threat, or that it reduced it? Also, where would the money and bodies alqaeda's been throwing at Iraq (yes of course, not including the Iraq terrorists in the mix) have been going the past few years, without the build up and subsequent war? When we attacked Afghanistan did we actually reduce the likelihood of an attack here when we destroyed the camps where they had trained 60,000-100,000 fighters from 96-01, while simultaneously killing off thousands of their more highly trained memebers? Or were we merely spinning our wheels, having no effect on terror attacks here whatsoever?

After reading the article and some of the responses here, I'm starting to feel like maybe Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush both OVERreacted to terrorism. Hell, there ain't never been nothin' to worry 'bout. Let's just go back to discussing the pot issue and those Muslims will just keep on killing themselves over there. And should some of the nuttier ones grab hold of the oil supply, not to worry, the free market will dictate exactly how they'll deal with us. And should they keep trying any of these traffic death level nuisance attacks, we'll just perfectly seal up the borders and send our perfect PatriotGame super secret special forces to arrest them all. And didn't you see the article in the latest issue of Randiations that proved that 9/11 actually jump started our economy out of the Clinton recession that Bush had no chance of bringing us out of himself? In fact maybe he was just outsourcing the job to his old college buddy OBL. Michael Moore said they watched the attacks together on the 99" hidef plasma screen TV that your tax dollars paid for in the Saudi Embassy.

Shit, I got a tea party I gotta get to.

|12.7.04 @ 5:44PM|#

I tell you all, the answer is Personal Nukes(TM)! Once each and every person on the planet has a Personal Nuke(TM), all will be perfectly deterred! Get your Personal Nuke(TM) now!

|12.7.04 @ 5:45PM|#

In my tradition of being the last to get to a post. As great as a world free of mujahideen sounds, truth isn't the backbone of religion. There would be plenty of terrorists claiming relationship and currently enough idiots to follow them. I don't know if the net effect would be that significant, in either way, fenaticism is just such a slippery bastard.

|12.7.04 @ 5:52PM|#

Why you silly people there hasn't been another 9/11 because of my terrorist repelling silver dollar. I carry it in my pocket everywhere I go.

|12.7.04 @ 6:31PM|#

You got one too!?

|12.7.04 @ 8:13PM|#

rst,
Is the War on Drugs winnable?
The War on Terror is the same.
You may be right that they want a war based on the fact "we" are allied with Israel.
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, be careful how you define "we."
I'm not allied with Israel although I'm proud of my daughter having served on a Kibbutz and gone to an Ulpan in Israel. We're atheistic Irish.
Jimmy Carter deserves much of the blame for alligning "us" with Israel.
This alligning business is totally out of line.

|12.7.04 @ 9:22PM|#

War on drugs?

Trying to keep willing supplier and willing consumer apart.

War on terror?

Trying to keep willing killers from now willing victims.

Have you gotten tripped up by the words? Drugs is a noun, terror is a noun, they must be the same thing? No, no. Give them different names, x and y. Then compare. Who are the participants? What are the goals of each? Would each participant continue trying to achieve their goals if the other stopped playing? What is the cost of the that? Not tomorrow, not next week, long term expand your horizon. Are they the same? Which, if either is unwinnable?

|12.7.04 @ 9:55PM|#

Jan 30,
Are you Bob Dylan?

|12.7.04 @ 10:01PM|#

Close, you've got at least three letters correct. And the wrong religion.

|12.7.04 @ 11:13PM|#

"andy, you fuckhead, you screwed up the margins. Were all those zeroes really necessary?"

Sorry for the complete and utter inconvenience i DIDN'T cause you, "fuckhead".

|12.8.04 @ 1:24AM|#

Lurker,

How appropriate for Moore would put that on his website, since (a) he loves to lie, and (b) the Pentagon isn't in DC, but in deep red northern Virginia.

|12.8.04 @ 3:44AM|#

crimethink: Virginia as a whole is red but *not* the DC suburbs (where the Pentagon is located)--they went for Kerry. Of course, carrying Arlington and Alexandria is old hat for Democrats; but Kerry even caried Fairfax County (which Bush won in 2000). http://sbe.vipnet.org/nov2004/059.htm

(Now Loudon County, *that's* part of red Virginia.)

|12.8.04 @ 8:07AM|#

"So, demonstrably incompetent at his last big job, inexperienced with running federal-level bureaucracies"

Didn't this guy quit 2 months after 9/11? Granted, it had to be the shittiest job in the world, but..

I know from firsthand experience what a bureaucratic fuckfest DHS is. I predict Kerik will resign within a year.