Centerfield

I don't think so. While AQ has suffered setbacks, they are more powerful along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border than two years ago. They have at least 10,000 fighting in Iraq. They are in Southern Lebanon and are probably indirectly receiving some of the 100,000,000,000 dollars the Saudis are spending this year to arm Sunnis. They operate in Syria and Iran despite their sectarian animosity. Africa represents a global expansion as well as the Far East. "Lone Wolf" actions inspired by AQ’s increasing expansion of internet and media effort add to the increased globalization of AQ.

It is true that Iran, Syria, their proxies and other groups such as the Brotherhood represent greater threats due to the technology they can bring to bare. At this point, while AQ is no longer the most dangerous strategic threat, the Salifists in Africa along with AQ are more than just bungling crooks. They are building the seeds of future operational locations and remain willing delivery systems for tomorrow's WMC.

dozen people killed by Islamic gunmen in each of a dozen US cities at the exactly same time on a Tuesday morning rush hour, or in the malls on a Saturday afternoon, would bring the United States to a screeching halt.

I have very little doubt that such attacks would evoke an immediate, enduring, and noticeably outsized panic response. I believe that it's precisely these sorts of concerted assaults upon randomly-chosen targets in everyday life that would have the biggest multiplier effect on individual Americans' sense of safety. Because they'd suggest that no public place ought to be regarded as safe.

Compared to things such as hijacking planes and truck-bombing buildings, which take longer-term planning, know-how, and serious stealth and guile, such attacks would be far less difficult to undertake. That qualifies them in my mind as comparatively no-brainer choices, All the terrorists would need is some guns, some wristwatches, a few easy target locations, and a few dozen able and committed undercover terrorists.

And yet, nothing like this has happened in the intervening 5+ years since 9/11/01. What this means is our own mileage. What it suggests to me is that currently there is likely a paucity of able and committed undercover terrorists on US soil and indeed in much of the western world.

It's one thing to give orders. It's another for them to carry them out

This point I could not agree with more. We of course need to remain vigilant and take any uncovered plots with the utmost seriousness. But it helps me to stay grounded to be aware that there's a huge gap between planning and execution. Anyone who ever went to college knows that talk is cheap and that it's easy to have a grand vision and sit around gabbing and drinking and dreaming about undertaking huge change for whatever reason. Fortunately in some cases and unfortunately in others, passionate conviction at 2 am and plans doodled drunkenly on cocktail napkins seldom amount to much.

Just some interesting finds related to the topic of terrorism. Have fun.

Middle East dynamics

Max gets it right

Iran's next move

Israel's upcoming decision

Some comments from Eygpt With friends like these, who need enemies?

This may very well be what is shooting down choppers in Iraq. Some say new weapons are advanced Russian shoulder-launched via Iran. Since some attacks have been carried out by AQ, one can only assume these weapons will spread out from Iraq.

Henry Clay was the first "real" Hawk and his Bio is noteworthy. He was against slavery, he warned of moves that would lead to civil war (see Texas), he tried to find compromise while pushing to modernize and support a national standard. He favored tariffs for infrastructure and in this day and age his words, when asked why he stood by unpopular sentiment, still ring true; "I'd rather be right than be President!"

If only our candidates today felt that way.

Iran test fires new missiles. I wonder if anyone read the conclusion of this report. Please note that Western experts think it is only a matter of years before North Korea (and presumably Iran, Syria and others with money) can deliver medium range ICBM against the US that can fire remotely from silent-running subs, freighters, private ships, and cargo containers from trains and trucks. Several leading experts also think the Low Yield nuke NK tests were the result of their scientists trying to lead-frog large bombs and go directly to miniaturization. Given the fingerprint less manner by which Iran and North Korea build their weapons, it is unlikely that third-party attackers will leave credible traces to their source. The asymmetric game plan is deniability. The window, as we see now in Iraq, is just years away. These developments cannot defeat us, but they can bleed our deployments and cost us billions. That is what China and Russia hope. In this sense, AQ is very much alive and in position globally to carry out the designs of all who are against the West.

If the Russians and Chinese think proliferating advanced weapons to extremists will force us into a pull back of missile defense, support for allies and a weakening of Western security, they are wrong. Squeezed hard enough, even old lemons have some juice left and Europe will not simply cave. AQ knows this. That is one reason so far, Europe has been spared.

On another note, letting Iraq drag on allows proliferation. How long does our military expert think we can prevent more advanced weapons pouring in? This should have been a big reason for a plan from the start that clamped down on Iraq until a political game plan was underway.

Beyond the Neocons An interesting appeal from the Right.

Jon,

I don't know where you live, but I live in Maryland and I can tell you that the sniper had people paralyzed with fear. They were afraid to fill up in gasoline stations, let their kids play outside, etc. No offense, but you are being pretty naive about the effect of terror. In England, people probably do adjust better because they are more used to it because of the IRA. But if it becomes random enough and constant enough, it will effect people's lives. I think the TV show "24" is pretty much right on about what the reaction would be here to a terror campaign (as opposed to a one-time thing like 9/11). And the argument that we have dozens of people killed each hour so we wouldn't get upset about it is sort of akin to what Norman Mailer said after 9/11 to the effect of what's the big deal,more people than that die in auto accidents. There is a big difference between individual, random shootings (generally not so random) and systematic attacks where dozens of people die. I think you underestimate the effect it would have on everyday life.

Now, I agree that it's obviously much harder to plan and carry out significant terror attacks that people think. Otherwise, there would have been others here.

AQ on the run in Iraq?

And then there is this. AQ on the run with missiles. LOL. As Marc points out, planned terror attacks are quite different than the normal news. AQ using advanced shoulder launched missiles could cost us billions here in the US. It wouldn't even require many attacks. The danger is to let AQ and others get to the point that such operations could work. Given the state of homeland security, countries supplying advanced weapons (see interception of Hizb'Allah weapons in Lebanon) and the rise of AQ "lone Wolves", the trend is not encouraging. I think we all would like to see stronger actions to deter these nuts instead of Jon telling us months from now, "Ah.....I was a bit wrong on THAT thread". He is of course, quite right that other threats have topped AQ. Perhaps that was the point. Without support, AQ would be limited to knives and bottles filled with gasoline.