In a few days it will be the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and it's worth asking the question: why hasn't there been another major terrorist strike? Why haven't the Islamic radicals at least made a second serious attempt to cause the kind of damage, or worse, than the attacks of September 11, 2001 inflicted on America?
One answer--which we can expect from Bush diehards--is that the Bush administration has installed a foolproof system of terrorist detection. This theory does not convince.
This leads to a second explanation: the radical Muslims are so weak and disorganized that they can no longer pull off an effective action. This theory has adherents both on the right and the left. On the right, we hear the theory that "we've obviously taken the battle over there, and so they are unable to do harm over here." Even if there is some truth to this, it doesn't explain why every Muslim radical must head for Iraq: surely Al Qaeda could spare a few to bring the war to the headquarters of the Great Satan. Some on the left are drawn to the theory of an impotent Al Qaeda because they are looking for any excuse to get out of Iraq and, truth be told, they would like to forget about the whole War on Terror and go back to the way things were on September 10, 2001.
I'd like to suggest a different theory for why we haven't had more attempted 9/11s. Imagine if there had been more attacks. In that case Americans would have little doubt why we were fighting in Iraq. There would be no question over why this country had dispatched more than 100,000 troops to the Middle East. As in World War II, the only sentiment for ending the war would be on the part of those calling on Bush to level the countries sponsoring Islamic radicalism so that the place could be rebuilt from the ground up, as with Germany and Japan. In sum, more 9/11s would have the effect of rousing the present-oriented, slow-to-anger American dragon.
Instead, we are six years away from that catastrophic event, and already Americans are growing forgetful and impatient. Somehow, for many people 9/11 has become a freakish, surreal, one-time disaster that was surely tragic but whose recurrence doesn't seem to be a clear and present danger. So are the Islamic radicals holding back and waiting for American restlessness to produce a withdrawal from Iraq? Are the bad guys biding their time in the hopes that American lassitude will create new opportunities for them to strike even more savagely and with greater impunity in the future? How else to account for the uneasy calm that has hovered over this country for the past six years?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 17)
1. This is one of the most rational remarks about our situation in Iraq that I have read...good writing
Pat Maz at 11:55AM on Sep 7th 2007
2. The definition of Terrorisom: "To impliment fear in the masses to affect a social or political change."
They have succeeded in doing that. The ever impending fear or threat of a new or another 9/11 type attack is enough to maintain their agenda and continue the Islamic effort in the west.
krautknabe at 1:30AM on Sep 6th 2007
3. I don't think there is one single reason why there has not been another attack. It's a combination of the muslims defending thier home turf, thier organization weakened by our attacks, and the hope that we will weaken our resolve and give them a better bite next time around.
Their goal is conquest of the west and they have a softening up strategy that is big on patience. By their calcualtions the total conquest will take almost 40 more years so they're really just getting started.
Darkmanwp at 2:05AM on Sep 6th 2007
4. There are many reasons why we haven't had any more attacks. One reason I believe is our NSA's ability to wiretap. Another is the fact that we have blocked financial channels & frozen assets of terrorists.
But the most prominent reason is the fierceness & unity of our military.
If we back down now then the next round of attacks will be more destructive, the next war bloodier & longer.
lowender at 4:18AM on Sep 6th 2007
5. Our ppresdent gEOrgee e buSHy is a reel genus and he nos we got have a reel good war going on ofer their so them terists dont come ofer hear and drop no boms like that boy sUDdum p HEwsane did ofer their in NEW YOrK
AlanLantzer at 7:23AM on Sep 6th 2007
6. I have often wondered about the lack of attacks. I am curious if they are simply waiting to regroup, or if indeed we have truly disrupted their tactics.
I saw the towers fall down from my window, and its a site that I will not easily forget. I had my camera but I refused to take a photo. I thought that would memorialize and event that was (to me) catastrophic.
What really sticks in my mind are the days following the attacks. That uneasy, queasy, almost sea-sick feeling.
I never want to live through that again, it was terrible.
I SUPPORT OUR MILITARY!!!!!!!
willowreed at 7:33AM on Sep 6th 2007
7. No repeat 9/11 because there has not been another "coup" from which the attention of the American public had to diverted from!!!
Doc Lagos at 1:46AM on Sep 8th 2007
8. The reason for no recent attacks is that unlike Clinton who allowed attack after attack and appeased everyone, Pres. Bush feels and justifiably so that an attack merits vengeance with inpunity and that those who wish to play hardball better be ready for a righteous beaning in the head.Terrorist know that this Pres. is not a coward or a pushover or a pinko-commie.
Manny at 8:04AM on Sep 6th 2007
9. You make some great points...but, let us not forget that large scale operations--especially on a continuous basis--require logistical support ($$$) and that Nation's with banks willing to facilitate such support will be fewer and far between now that there are obviously consequences for doing so. Before 9/11, there were virtually no such consequences. After 9/11, we invaded two Nations. Anybody else wish to sponsor terrorism?
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:13AM on Sep 6th 2007
10. AMERICAN GOVERNMENT HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB NOT ONLY IN THE FRONTIER BUT ALSO INTERNALLY. REMEMBER THAT BOMBS REQUIRES MATERIALS TOBE BUILT WITH AND THAT IS ALSO TOTALLY CONTROLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE MEANTIME AM LOOKING WHERE TO GO IF DEMOCRATS WIN THE NEXT ELECTION, THEY ALL HAVE SHOWN AN ANTIPATRIOTIC, PRO-MUSLIM,GIVEN THE COUNTRY AWAY, ATTITUDE. AND TO ME THAT'S SCARY, OUR FUTURE WON'T BE THAT SAFE ANYMORE,& AM NOT REPUBLICAN ONLY A THINKER.
pascual at 8:17AM on Sep 6th 2007
11. Why did we attack Iraq? They were not a threat to us, had no weapons of mass destruction, and had nothing to do with 911. This was an illegal, immoral act of aggression and all the drivel you right wingers try to dilte the truth with, is washed away by the simple truth. We are there for O I L and war profiteering....nothing else. Grow up and smell the death!
Rick at 8:20AM on Sep 6th 2007
12. It certainly makes one wonder who was really behind 9/11 and why our intelligence agencies intentionally ignored the threat. The one thing that I do know, which the younger citizens haven't realized yet is that our govert controls the national media to the point where we will never know the truth without being called a conspiracy nut.
gshort3011 at 8:25AM on Sep 6th 2007
13. I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity of some. If this war is for oil why are we paying so much for it.We found no WMD's because the pinko-commie dems wanted to go through the U.N yet had no problem when their God Clinton made war on Yugoslavia who never threaten us or tried to assasinate one of our Pres. who is smelling what? Saddam got rid of them that's why they just found some in the U.N of all places.
Manny at 8:35AM on Sep 6th 2007
14. Why no more attacks?
Simple, really. After Dumby's pulling our Law enforcement and intelligence people off the job prior to 911, stupidly ignoring the warnings of the previous administration...
They put them back to work after the bad guys murdered over 3,000 American civilians, gave them better tools, and more resources.
Doesn't mean the bad guys won't succeed in the future. Only our best diligince is proof against that.
And nothing the Dumby crew is doing in Iraq has anything to do with it...
Except manufacturing more terrorists.
BT at 9:05AM on Sep 6th 2007
15. What? A post by Dinesh that isn't screechily attacking atheists, felching from Bush & Co, or espousing blatant hypocrisy? Amazing! This is the first time that's ever happened.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:12AM on Sep 6th 2007