After the United States was struck by terror 9/11/01, Americans feared that it was just a first attack and that we’d see more in subsequent years. In 7 years, no other successful large scale terror attack has succeeded on American soil. Why not?
In a prescient article “Terrorism on Trial” about the trials which convicted some of the plotters of the terror attacks on American embassies in east Africa, published on May 30, 2001, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson wrote:
Perhaps the most disconcerting revelations from the trial concern Al-Qaeda’s entrenchment in the West. For example, its procurement network for such materiel as night vision goggles, construction equipment, cell phones, and satellite telephones was based mostly in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Bosnia and Croatia. The chemicals purchased for use in the manufacture of chemical weapons came from the Czech Republic.
In the often long waits between terrorist attacks, Al-Qaeda’s member organizations maintained operational readiness by acting under the cover of front-company businesses and nonprofit, tax-deductible religious charities. These nongovernmental groups, many of them still operating, are based mainly in the U.S. and Britain, as well as in the Middle East. The Qatar Charitable Society, for example, has served as one of bin Laden’s de facto banks for raising and transferring funds.
Osama bin Laden also set up a tightly organized system of cells in an array of American cities, including Brooklyn, N.Y.; Orlando, Fla.; Dallas; Santa Clara, Calif.; Columbia, Mo., and Herndon, Va.
I don’t now if any of the cells listed had a hand in providing logistical support for 9/11, but it’s certainly possible. So why hasn’t Al Qaeda – which is a loose network of terror groups – succeeded in attacking the American homeland in the past seven years?
An article yesterday in the LA Times observes:
Al Qaeda remains determined to strike on American soil, anti-terrorism officials say. But it has run up against aggressive surveillance, tough border security and a lack of extremist communities in which to operate. Instead, officials say, it appears to have focused on using Europe to hit targets such as the flights bound for the United States from Britain.
Or more generally:
The shift in the terrorist threat is largely attributable to U.S. and international efforts after 9/11 to crack down on al-Qaida. With tighter border security, document control and financial tracking, al-Qaida recognized that it would be more effective if it used local groups to conduct its attacks. While the al-Qaida core is somewhat resurgent, it is still a far more decentralized model than the al-Qaida of 9/11.
Quinn Hillyer fleshes out the details:
HE DID IT by fashioning, with the help of Colin Powell (before Powell went off the reservation), an incredibly impressive coalition that went into Afghanistan — even then, liberal pundits predicted, yes, a “quagmire” in Afghanistan, too — and in incredibly short order kicked out the rogue regime, killed numerous members of Al-Qaeda, and chased the remaining ones high into the hills where they presumably live in caves perfectly suited to their troglodyte mentality.
Bush did it by directing his government to use all the tools at its disposal to identify and freeze Al-Qaeda assets, improve intelligence-gathering (and intelligence-sharing, back and forth, with anti-terrorist nations), disrupt Al-Qaeda communications, and track down and kill Al-Qaeda leaders. He did it by getting tough on other terrorists, too, even ones not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And he did it by encouraging democratic movements throughout the Middle East and central Asia, while providing material support where necessary.
And yes, Bush warded off terrorists by toppling Saddam Hussein’s dangerous outlaw regime in Iraq. It was a regime that had repeatedly shot at American aircraft. It was a regime that demonstrably owned weapons of mass murder and then refused to account for their removal or their destruction. It was a regime that had invaded its neighbors, and that had gassed and slaughtered its own people. And it was most certainly a regime that harbored terrorists, trained terrorists, and that maintained friendly communications and at least some operational ties with Al-Qaeda.
Or as Hillyer puts it simply:
This wasn’t a dog that didn’t bark merely because it felt like being mute; this was a dog that didn’t bark because it was forcefully muzzled. And Bush was the one who applied the muzzle.
Something’s managed to keep America safe despite the creation of the bureaucratic monstrosity known as DHS and despite adding another layer in intelligence bureaucracy. So maybe just maybe President Bush did other things correctly that made terrorism prevention successful.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.