Replies

Someone told me his specualtion tonight... 'WHY' have we not had even the hint of a small attack, truck bomb etc. The law of average dictates 'something' would have happened, that we cannot stop 'every' attack, so then why have we not been attacked for them to let us know they are around.

Of course there are many reasons and some are very sound, some ethereal, but in the conclusion of things there is not one explanation that would tell us commen sense dictates, 'something' should have occured by now...objectively speaking, anyone?

Quayle's reasoning is that they are saving all their attacks for a single, huge, synchronized event. Pecking at the U.S. with piecemeal suicide/homocide bombers is not the major league killing event they wish to achieve. We know they can be strategic and patient in their planning and execution. The stadium constructed with embedded explosives is a testament to that patience and planning.

The kind of attack I would expect would include:

Dirty radiological bombs at every west coast port to shut down our ability to import goods. This also nails sales to Europe that travel across the U.S. by truck and rail to be shipped from east coast ports to Europe. Remember the consequences of the longshoremen's strike?
Destruction of domestic gasoline refineries and pipelines. That makes gasoline scarce and expensive. In time, nobody can get to work or purchase goods. It will take years to replace or repair the refineries. The ship caught in the lower Mississippi last year caused a delay of just a few days in delivering foreign refined gasoline. Supplies dwindled, prices rose. We run on a very thin margin. Diesel fuel and Jet A would likely be affected as well.
Knock out key railroad bridges that supply coal to power plants. The effect would be delayed by the time required to consume the coal on the ground. After that, the power generation goes offline. There isn't sufficient capacity in the grid to compensate.

The Iranian's just published a list of 42 key vulnerabilities of the U.S. to an anti-U.S. Islamic conference. You can bet they didn't miss the above items.

We have probably stopped some big attacks since 9/11. We have probably disrupted more than we have stopped. Small attacks are not "cost-effective" for AQ. (Maybe for lone-wolves or rogue cells, but not for something requiring significant organizational resources). Someone who has spent years burying themselves over here is not going to blow it all on a pipe-bomb (unless he is desparate). It needs to be a significant target or significant casualties. That is why no bus bombs a la Israel. The "break-even point" for an operation over there to be cost effective is much lower. The terrorists live down the road or across the street, their support infrastructure is local and extensive, and there is an endless supply of them.

I don't think the 2-3 year spacing of major AQ hits that some analysts talk about is relevant. A pre-9/11 template is not appropriate to post-9/11 assessments. Pre-9/11 was a "gentleman's war". It (as all wars do)had rules. Gloves came off on both sides after 9/11.

It takes years of methodical planning for a major operation. So that is the only reason I would give the 2-3 year cycle any credence, but again, it is not relevant to post-9/11. The post-9/11 hits were in planning stages as 9/11 was transpiring. As we killed and captured AQ post-9/11, we likely disrupted the follow-on attacks. But what was initiated after 9/11 was probably sealed off and compartmentalized for a post-9/11 environment and the coming hit(s) is/are threrefore all the more difficult to uncover.

Iraq also brought new recruits and players into the mix (you have to take the bad with the good). We probably don't have a handle on most of them.

"Disrupting" attacks saves lives over the long run. If I am walking down a busy street, and someone is trying to pick my pocket, I may turn around every once in a while just to throw him off. I have no idea who in the crowd behind me is the target, but it throws him off. (Like changing a defensive scheme in the middle of a football play). True, in the end he might get my wallet because I cannot keep turning around like that, and he might get lucky and grab it when I am looking the wrong way, but I also might be able to get where I want to go before he achieves his objective. I also may know exactly which one of the dozens of people behind me is the one who is the pickpocket, but what he doesn't know is that I am letting him follow me to the donut shop where I am going to meet my buddy the cop.

It may sound depressing, but even if you cannot prevent all the major attacks headed our way, you can save countless lives by stopping or delaying some of them. If by keeping them on the run, and keeping them guessing, and most important, taking away the nations who are their sugar daddies, safe havens, and silent partners either by co-opting or neutralizing them - - and over 40 years they achieve (on average) say 50,000 casualties every 4 years instead of 100,000 casualties evey two years, then you incur a quarter of the casualties you otherwise would have sustained. (500,000 vs 2,000,000 over 40 years) It is an extreme example, and it sounds cold to talk that way, but that's war. No different than when the Nazis bombed London, just that we will get all our casualties at once instead of having them inflicted daily over an extended period.

"'something' should have occured by now...objectively speaking, anyone?"(JustPiper)

The AQ are following a plan and are sticking to it?