Another goal would be to instill a sense of helplessness in the populace by demonstrating that the government cannot protect the people (the fallacy of this belief notwithstanding - but that's a second amendment issue). From all reports, there is certainly such a feeling growing in the hearts and minds of many DC area residents, if not the nation.
Good points. The reason I said I thought it would be stupid is because of what I think of as the "gain factor" (for want of a better term). By this I mean the amount of "good effect" (from AQ's point of view) in comparison to the amount of "bad effect." What I mean is that for each increment of disruption of our economy or of our sense of security/helplessness, these sniper incidents cause a huge increase in the amount of anger and and committment on the part of the population. For example, it seems to me clear that AQ is in a de facto alliance with the Democrats. The Democrats are in many practical ways carrying AQ's water; I'm not arguing here that the Dems are actually in an alliance with AQ, mearly that the goals of of the Democrats are in many practical ways (being against tighter immigration controls, being against military action in the ME, being against "racial profiling" and other law enforcement actions that would tend to focus resources directly on the threat) aligned with those of the AQ.
These sniper attacks have the effect of strongly helping the GOP get its message out, and they cause a net supression of the Democrats message. They are going to undercut Democrat's core support from their base, and this is not helpful to the goals of the AQ.
If the AQ and the brains behind the AQ understood history, they would have learned from the British example during the Nazi air attacks against London that this sort of psychological attacks -- trying to "demoralize" a population by inflicting painful tragedy on some subset of the population -- only serves to stiffen the resolve of the population by unifying it and focussing its attention and will. The AQ apparantly have no real appreciation of the enormous size of the United States, and the degree to which its population and wealth are dispersed over a huge area. I don't care how many cells they have in our country, they cannot kill or even instill daily fear in more than a tiny minority (say 10%) of the population, and long before the percentage reached that level their would be a huge reaction, resulting in the expulsion or internment of many many ME immigrants, the roll-up of their financial networks, etc. etc.
There are other examples of the "gain factor" problem I could cite, but I've already rambled on too long.
Anyway, this is only one of the reasons I think it would be stupid. Another is that it is, in effect, walking up to a heavily armed professional killer and peeing on his shoes, or spitting in his face, whatever. You are only giving him an excuse to do what he already really wants to do, which is stomp the crap out of you.
(steely)
Attacking the one Western country on the Security Council that is on your side doesn't seem too bright either, but their is a big, inward bent, hole in a French tanker that says that they did it anyway. I think they are a bit like Larry Niven's ratcats, or the Star Trek Klingons. Always screaming and leaping before they are fully prepared, and not much caring about the longer term effects of their actions as long as they kill the "enemy" that is front of them at the moment.
Another is that it is, in effect, walking up to a heavily armed professional killer and peeing on his shoes, or spitting in his face, whatever. ...
Your points are also well made, Steely.
Two things, though: (1) AQ's view of history is islamocentric. Their understanding of history is not what many historians would consider even remotely accurate. (2) I don't think AQ sees the US as a heavily armed killer - they have been indoctrinated with a vision of America as a weak and corrupt society. Not since WWII has the US really turned out for a long, protracted fight, whereas the islamofascists think in terms of years, decades, and centuries. They are wrong, of course, but that's another story.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.