Snipped........
The strategic dilemmas of Bush and Bin Laden
by John Thompson
In the coming weeks, we will all know if the "Cave of Darkness" threat was made good in a massive incident in the U.S., and a series of accompanying small operations elsewhere. It may be that heightened security deterred the operation and it may be attempted later, or might even emerge that al Qaeda was simply bluffing.
Regardless, as the fourth year of the American War on Terrorism begins, and as al Qaeda enters its second decade of its ‘war’ on the Western world, 2004 will be a pivotal year for both President Bush and Osama Bin Laden.
While the threat posed by al Qaeda is real enough, this is an election year and George Bush’s administration faces the trial by electorate that all American politicians must face. Does he still have the confidence of the American people? We will know in November. Although the initial signs look positive, 10 months is time enough for disasters and triumphs alike to be conceived and brought to term.
A change in government can always lead to a major change in the priority, or the very policy, of the war on terrorism and--if the year goes by without a 9-11 sized incident (or worse)--then Bush will face the dreadful equation that all authorities do in countering terrorism: Success = complacency = vulnerability.
Lurking in his hideaway (wherever it actually is), Bin Laden has a similar problem. Every attempt to launch a major outrage inside the Western World since 9-11 has failed; usually because of the arrest of key personnel or because of heightened security in Western Europe and North America. They have launched some very significant attacks (notably in Bali and Kenya), his tens of millions of admirers and supporters in the Arab World are starting to ask "Where’s the grief? 911 was very fine, but what have you done to the Crusaders and Jews lately?"
If Al Qaeda is to keep its place, they need to score another enormous success. Otherwise, they might dwindle into a more ordinary terrorist network and see some of the 60 component groups in their alliance branch off on their own.
Bin Laden, no more than Bush, can't afford failure either. One of the reasons why al Qaeda’s attack profile is so muted is that a spectacular error (like the arrest of all its agents before an assault begins) would strip away too much of the aura of infallibility and mystery that their prestige rests on. A more aggressive attitude--attempting more actions in the West and giving more autonomy to their component cells--might succeed, but might also give more intelligence (and targets) for Western counteractions.
http://www.torontofreepress.com/terrorreport.htmHere's another interesting article re: The Cave of Darkness Scenario........snip
As for the attack itself, the references to weapons of mass destruction imply the use of biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological agents. Biological weaponry is very notoriously tricky to use — nobody even noticed the attacks attempted by the Japanese group Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 and 1996, and al Qaeda is unlikely to have been able to produce enough material or to have learned to disseminate an agent. Al Qaeda does have chemical weapons — footage of their tests on dogs, and classroom notes on how to make basic poison gases were recovered from training bases in Afghanistan. However, a successful mass attack requires tons and tons of material and al Qaeda would find it difficult to smuggle enough material into the U.S. to wipe out a village, let alone a major city. Perhaps a false-flagged ship or jetliner might be able to deliver an effective attack.
The threat of a nuclear bomb is real enough, making a bomb is no great trick if one has the kryton switches and weapons grade fissionable materials. Moreover, there may be a couple of warheads missing from old Soviet tactical stockpiles and some other inventories are not subject to much scrutiny.
What is most likely is a radiological bomb. This would consist of a large bomb made of conventional explosives lying at the core of a collection of non-fissionable radioactive materials. When the bomb goes off, all the radioactive material around it would be scattered — but not too far. This would be sufficient to lay down a dangerous concentration of material in the core of a city. The numbers of immediate casualties from such an attack might not be all that high, but there would be tens of thousands of people to evacuate (if not many more) and much panic both in the targeted city and throughout the Western World.
We may be fortunate and the higher level of vigilance may deter an attack in the coming weeks (not that this would stop al Qaeda from trying the same attack later). In the meantime we should do what all prudent military planners do: Plan for the worst and pray for the best.
http://www.torontofreepress.com/archives/2004/terror011204.htmThat article sounds like a taunting invitation to AQ to attack us.
I don't want the enemy taunted - I want it extirpated.
On we go!