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 3 of 17)
31. Why no further attacks, the neocons don't need one. I am convinenced this administration planed 9/11 and carried it out. There are too many unanswered questions, coincedences and strange events that went on before and after 9/11. The neocons needed a reason to attack Iraq, they set up Saddam to be the fall guy. In the 80's and 90's he was our friend, we supplied him with weapons to fight Iran.
The truth will be told one day, exposing all that had a part in it. There will be a few surprises when the names come out but, by that time the ones directly responsible will be gone.
David Rosenberg at 3:32PM on Sep 6th 2007
32. I know you are fond of comparing WW2 to Iraq, Dinesh, but keep in mind with that war we sent a MILLION troops into Europe and other places. 100,000 troops for the entire Middle East? If conservatives really believe we are in such a death struggle here with terrorism, why did we send such a paltry amount of troops to Iraq?
What other way can we 'win' this struggle with the Middle East without more troops? Why aren't conservatives supporting a draft? My guess is because consevative parents no more want to pull there kids out of college and jobs to send them off to war than liberals.
David S. at 11:25AM on Sep 6th 2007
33. No one will ever know the truth without being told they are insane! The balance is truly off kilter lately. I believe more people need to get involved with volunteer work around the globe.
kelly at 11:59AM on Sep 6th 2007
34. Though he may yet, I don't think D'souza is justifying Iraq with this post. He's just pointing out that al-Qaeda and the like are likely waiting to attack "at a time and place of their choosing" to paraphrase S**T For Brains.
I am Dem, but I see real progress in parts of Iraq at this moment and, like it or not, it's because of the troop surge. I seriously doubt that it's permanent progress, though I can't be sure.
Fact is Bush has gotten it wrong at every turn. Bush waited 18 months too long to commit the extra troops and he allowed Rumsfield to override the General staff's recommendation about how many troops it would require in Iraq in the first place. McCain was out there publicly telling him this.
Irq is not static and who knows what is coming. Certainly not the current administration. Within a month we'll see what impact of the British pull outin the south. It will be very telling.
Even though it's monumentally difficult, Petraeus has a limited task, to wit, Iraq. The General staff, however, want us out of there because they aren't narrowly focused on Iraq. They see N. Korea, Russia and China. It's a big world with lots of big problems. As I told one of my conservative Republican friends in 2001 - Soon enough, we'll miss the Cold War.
Still, the only valid argument for a pullout right now is that we have lost no matter what we do. In a culture (distinct from its religion- Islam) that so highly values revenge, we have already cast our lot. No matter whether we succeed in implanting a friendly regime (it own't be democratic- I'll put up a $1000 on that. Deliverable on January 1, 2010) or not, the blood lust to seek revenge on the US is firmly entenched among various groups that have the ways and means to terrorize.
The only certain outcome of Bush' foreign lack of policy is that for at least the next 20 years we'll have two failed states bordering Iran. If you think that's a good thing, then I would like to play Risk with you for $$$$.
farmboy15 at 11:37AM on Sep 6th 2007
35. Thanks to the no coward, no pushover, war mongering president Bush we have lost just about everything.
Less safe, loss of rights, economy going down the tubes, whole world hates us.
fran at 11:52AM on Sep 6th 2007
36. Keily,
If I had the time and money to take care of my family I would love to do volunteer work, but I don't. I can only be the best citizen possible and contribute when I can. It is difficult on the middle-class these days to make ends meet. The idea is good but not practical.
David McCool at 12:15PM on Sep 6th 2007
37. my post s/b Croats not crots. that's what u get from posting from an iphone, you need the fingers of a 3 yr old
rhodalee at 12:23PM on Sep 6th 2007
38. Germany only lost two world wars because both times they ran out of gas. To pull our troops back from the middle east now would enable another extremist regime to take power which would then have the unlimited resources to wage jihad against the West.
Democracy and a free market economy is the best chance these people have at mitigating this threat as it would replace the might-equals-right mentality and the patriarchal system of wealth distribution. In the long run, our current strategy will save a lot of lives on both sides.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 12:47PM on Sep 6th 2007
39. Why no attacks? We showed that we would raise holy hell...we stood up and said this will not stand. Who wants to take the risk that they will end up like the Hussein boys?
twann9852 at 12:54PM on Sep 6th 2007
40. One of the main reasons Islamic Fanatics want to use terroist type tactics on the West is because we do all we can do to presume we have the right to tell them when, where and how to run their governments.
Saudi Arabia is responsible for most of the persons involved in the 9/11 attacks, Usama bin Laden, although not considered a Saudi any longer is of Saudi birth, yet our government is still in bed with them.
rhodalee at 1:01PM on Sep 6th 2007
41. There is another reason that few mention because few Americans know any history. When Hitler wanted to restrict the civil rights of his people, he created a crisis. He burned down the German Congressional building, the "Reichstag," and blamed the Jews. Thus, he had a scapegoat and could attain unlimited power and bring Germany to war with unified support. Anyone who questioned him was a traitor and was accused of "not supporting the troops."
The complete takeover of the American government and the elimination of the American Democratic Republic has been the goal of the neo-cons for years. Look at their blogs and websites over the years. They believe they have the RIGHT to rule and are the only ones who CAN rule. They are also ruthless. If you look at the disregard for the law, American tradition, and the total contempt that the Bush administration has for the American people, you may begin to understand that this group is fully capable of a 9/11. Another 9/11 will happen if they truly come close to losing power. Expect them to engineer another one shortly before the next election. I hope I'm dead wrong, but don't be surprised.
Dinesh overestimates (as to most neo-cons) either deliberately or though his incredible depth of ignorance, the unity of the "terrorists." Surely, if there really were tons of terrorists out to attack America, they would have done so by now, regardless of orders from any authority. It would only take one, and hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexicans get through our border each year....one lone terrorist should be able to. This is a government op, trust me.
John at 1:23PM on Sep 6th 2007
42. As in Viet Nam, the enemy is waiting for America to defeat itself from within. The seeds of defeat planted by the left are germinating vigorously, why would a savage and cunning enemy dare disturb them, unless it wants to shoot itself in the foot?
Al Qaeda decided on the course of events even before the invasion of Iraq. Knowing full well America could not be beaten in the battlefield, Bin Laden proclaimed that a sure route for his small, rag tag army of smelly fanatics to rout us would be to wait until the body bags from his sporadic attacks started coming home, then the American left would get to work and finish the job, without the loss of capital or reeking flesh on his part.
The enormous chip on the shoulder of muslim cultures - given their demonstrated millenary cultural backwardness and military incapacity - has always been an illusion of 'intellectual and moral superiority over the West." They'll bide their time, sip tea and suck on the hookah while the democrazies, - lackeys of the left and apostles of surrender - hand them over our unconditional capitulation
Maria T Martin at 1:35PM on Sep 6th 2007
43. given the depth and breadth of this nation's dirt ( and yes, every country has blood on its hands)-one might be thankful that it hasnt happened more often.... if every nation ( from the sioux to panama and beyond) we f---d over decided to come back on "us"-well, need i say more?
reuben at 1:41PM on Sep 6th 2007
44. John, #38
I know this and so do many other people. Citizens in our own country got fat and happy and this group of free masons just slipped right under our noses. I think many (why they are called conservatives) are just happy with what they have and don't care about others. It will be difficult to revolt aganinst this slow and sneaky growth of the new world order. They are bringing a new form of tyranny to this world.
I try to remain logical and sensible but I have a sick feeling about what is going on. I believe they plan to use Iraq and the surrounding areas for their new kingdom. Haliburton already moved their headquarters there, Cheney will soon follow. The soldiers being trained by our own soldiers will be their warriors. I am waiting to see what else unfolds. to be continued...
David McCool at 1:44PM on Sep 6th 2007
45. What will the neo-fascists say if the United States is attacked again tomorrow?
They will say, "It's Clinton's fault!"
Captain Negative at 1:46PM on Sep 6th 2007