Kenya (catch all)

[Sargent]

Well, one could say that OEF was misdirected. Still, there has not been another attack, not just because one group of attackers was disrupted and scattered, and because huge investments were made in security, but also because those states capable of hosting and organizing a really serious group of attackers are now scared of the consequences. Deterrence may have been possible at much less cost, but that is a separate issue. Some deterrence was undoubtedly created by that response..and organized groups with serious and capable backers are still (at least somewhat) scared. Otherwise, they would have tried something by now. Or at least, taken very few steps to prevent an operation being carried out by crazier, smaller, less-sane groups.

There were 8 years between the two WTC attacks. In between there were smaller acts outside of CONUS. AQ has been very active around the globe in the past decade, and have successfully diversified the operational entities into multitudes of wholly owned subsidiary actors. As for sponsorship, I'm not sure I understand exactly who is afraid of whom, but I don't see AQ and the related entities suffering for a lack of safe havens. Finally, the investment in security will, as ever, be gotten around soon enough.

We have done a whole lot with force and not really changed or improved the situation - and given the time and financial resources expended, this is troubling. We have done blessed little in other areas comparatively, and we certainly haven't done much to understand why there is such permissive support for the animosity towards the West. And that, my friends, is why we are in no better place than 13 years ago. Shame.

Jill

[omarali50]

I think the point at which leverage can be applied most cost-effectively is at the level of state supporters of terrorism. They have the most to lose. If no organized state is supporting them, then their future remains dark. Where were the attackers organized, trained and rehearsed? They cannot achieve much out of truly ungoverned spaces like Somalia. If every organized state is afraid of hosting or training them, they will eventually lose.
That is a big IF.

[carl]

We have done a whole lot with force and not really changed or improved the situation - and given the time and financial resources expended, this is troubling. We have done blessed little in other areas comparatively, and we certainly haven't done much to understand why there is such permissive support for the animosity towards the West. And that, my friends, is why we are in no better place than 13 years ago. Shame.

Jill

Omar is right. Organized states are the critical node, one that we basically refuse to address. Flat out refuse. It is no wonder that the situation doesn't change, even perhaps worsens over time, when Osama is found where he was found and we don't change how we deal with Pakistan.

As far as AQ, their affiliates and all the other crazy Wahabi takfiri killers go, the Pak Army/ISI keeps them going. We know it, the takfiri killers know it, the world knows it. Yet we do nothing. You're right. We should be ashamed.

[Bill Moore]

Omar is right. Organized states are the critical node, one that we basically refuse to address. Flat out refuse. It is no wonder that the situation doesn't change, even perhaps worsens over time, when Osama is found where he was found and we don't change how we deal with Pakistan.

As far as AQ, their affiliates and all the other crazy Wahabi takfiri killers go, the Pak Army/ISI keeps them going. We know it, the takfiri killers know it, the world knows it. Yet we do nothing. You're right. We should be ashamed.

Important but overstated. Do the Mexican cartels need state support, or do they have the ability to co-opt individuals within the government? Is ISI the state? Or are we they an organization beyond control of the state? State support for terrorists can be a powerful enabler but it is not essential for terrorists to operate. It is more likely states will syndicate with terrorists when they have common interests.

[carl]

Important but overstated. Do the Mexican cartels need state support, or do they have the ability to co-opt individuals within the government? Is ISI the state? Or are we they an organization beyond control of the state? State support for terrorists can be a powerful enabler but it is not essential for terrorists to operate. It is more likely states will syndicate with terrorists when they have common interests.

Not overstated at all. The Mexican cartels are not trying to take over the government. They are only after the getting the gov off their backs so they can do business. If they really and truly tried to take the gov down, they would darn well need support from outside because they wouldn't last long otherwise. Mexican history shows those guys don't fool around when things get serious.

The Pak Army/ISI is the government. They aren't beyond the control of anybody. The ISI is part of the Pak Army (check out what assignments Kayani had) and the Pak Army runs the outfit along with the feudal elites. If whoever is the putative head of the government calls up the army and asks for the resignation of the army head, the ISI head and the corps commanders, he won't be the putative head of the government for long.

Of course state support for terrorists isn't essential for them to operate. That isn't what I referred to. The Tsarnaev brothers didn't have state support but they didn't last long either. Big league persistent outfits have it though, or they wouldn't be big league persistent outfits. Common interests? I don't know. It's not important. The Pak Army/ISI backs all sorts of takfiri killers. We know it and don't do a damn thing about it. That's important.