Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses

    Courtesy of the NEFA Foundation:
    "Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses for Homeland Attack Frequency", June 2008.
    The Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Science International Applications Corporation released a report titled, "Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses for Homeland Attack Frequency." As the authors explain, "The hypotheses analyzed in this report can be divided roughly into two broad categories. The first category – Capabilities – suggests that terrorists have been unable to succeed in conducting another large-scale attack on the homeland due to the effectiveness of U.S. defenses or because of the terrorists’ limited capabilities. The second category – Motivations – assumes that a number of terrorist groups possess the ability to attack the United States but have chosen not to do so for a variety of reasons." There are more than two dozen competing explanations and "this study suggests that identifying a complete and consistent explanation for the non-occurrence of a subsequent attack on the U.S. homeland may not be possible."
    208 page PDF

    Anybody have a favored hypotheses or combination of?

    I have a combination that may seem contradictory:
    Hypothesis F) Terrorist threat has been massively exaggerated
    Hypothesis H) Al-Qaeda is waiting to acquire a CBRN capability
    Hypothesis L) Al-Qaeda’s next attack must surpass 9/11
    Hypothesis Z) Al-Qaeda’s goal is to “bleed” the United States dry economically

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    Of course, another question is; Are there Angels?

    Yet another is; How many tried to dance there but couldn't get past the bouncer on the door?

  3. #3
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    Anybody have a favored hypotheses or combination of?
    Hmm, AQ and others being declared to be "terrorists" killed more U.S.Americans since 9/11 than during 9/11 and did multiple times as much economic damage.
    I'd rate that as "attacked". OK, counter-"attacked".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Of course, another question is; Are there Angels?

    Yet another is; How many tried to dance there but couldn't get past the bouncer on the door?
    1. Probably.
    2. Likely not many.


    Seriously; as far as I understood it, AQ has changed itself and its methods a lot since 9/11.
    It's now much more interested in changing the Arab/Muslim world than in attacking Westerners(?).
    Even the complete annihilation of Manhattan would not really serve a purpose for AQ.


    They have been remarkably uninterested in attacking Westerners who did not meddle in Arab countries anyway.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default You may not believe it but

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    They have been remarkably uninterested in attacking Westerners who did not meddle in Arab countries anyway.
    we have always been remarkably uninterested in attacking anyone who hasn't annoyed us unnecessarily. We're not really warlike at all -- but we sure do react to provocation...

    As for this:
    Hmm, AQ and others being declared to be "terrorists" killed more U.S.Americans since 9/11 than during 9/11 and did multiple times as much economic damage. I'd rate that as "attacked". OK, counter-"attacked".
    We have killed far more of them than they us -- but that's an extremely silly and meaningless metric (other than to those dead and wounded and their families). Seriously.

    It was and is a matter of principle. The issue was not subject to a cost benefit study, it was to deter attacks on the US and US interests and to decrease the ability and interest of anyone to pursue such attacks. There was, is and will be a cost to do that. We're paying it. So are they. We can pay more than they can. So they're dumb -- being dumb doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Not being warlike doesn't mean we aren't dangerous; more dangerous at that...

    As for the economic damage, again disagree -- it's not damage, it's simply a cost. Again we're paying it.

    The neat thing is that since we and a few others are paying those costs, you don't have to. Before you say had we and those others not gone blundering into the ME no one would have to pay anything, I suggest you give that aspect some very serious -- and long range -- thought. Most of our immigrants assimilate pretty well...

  5. #5
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,346

    Default A few thoughts

    The title "Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses for Homeland Attack Frequency" is rather odd IMO.

    I assume the paper refers to successful attacks on the USA homeland, so where is the assessment of thwarted plots? Plots that have resulted in successful crininal prosecutions, not media hyped stories after official leaks.

    I am not immersed in 9/11, but could it be seen as a carefully planned attack, that had a perceived - by AQ - as having a high risk of pre-attack disruption / failure? We now know that the plotters preparations were "dots not joined up" by intelligence and law enforcement (I do not fully share that "dots" explanation).

    Post-9/11 AQ attacks display a mixture of independent action ranging to centrally directed action. That suggests that an attack on the USA could originate from a variety of directions, possibly without a full risk assessment.

    davidbfpo

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Fruitless arguments

    There are multiple terrorist groups affliliated with AQ, and while they share some common beliefs they still have their individual interests (motivations) and capabilities. It is fruitless to attempt to explain why another attack has not succeeded since 9/11 against the homeland, since there are countless variables involved, but I agree with David's post that various groups have attempted attacks since 9/11 that have been have been successfully pre-empted. Unfortunately good news apparently isn't news. Furthermore, if I recall my recent history correctly the purpose of the 9/11 attack was to draw us into a conflict in Afghanistan where AQ thought they could teach us a lesson. Osama was reportedly quoted as stating that he was surprised at the extent of the U.S.'s response and when he thought he was going to get killed apologized to his men. Who knows, it was media reporting, so take it for what is worth, but if the purpose of 9/11 was to drag us into the Middle East and South Asia they suceeded, but I don't think it is turning out the way that they anticipated. Another major attack on the homeland would not only provoke a firmer reponse (regardless of who gets elected), but further alienate the moderate Muslim world, which they were attempting to mobilize to support their bankrupt radical cause. AQ and the other extremists are clearly losing, it will take time, there will be set backs, but it is impossible (in my opinion) for them to win. We have seen the radicals surface in the past and they always end up defeating themselves.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •