JOURNAL: Why al Qaeda hasn't attacked the US since 9/11

One good explanation is from a brief I wrote back in 2004 on (see the brief "Terrorist Death-March") how terrorism suffers from diminishing returns against stable enemies. Simply, the more it is used, the less valuable it is (which is a good thing). The reason for this is psychological. Target Western populations (and the press) become inured to terrorism in much the same way they do with petty crime. Each subsequent attack has less of a psychological impact than the first. In order to compensate for this, a terrorism planner must make each subsequent attack even more damaging or symbolically devastating than earlier attacks. The result is a death march until entire terrorism campaign runs out of steam.

This approach in part explains why the US hasn't suffered another attack since 9/11 -- the other factors being improved security (debatable) and the break-up of camps in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has not opted to attack the US is because it hasn't been able to muster an attack that could exceed 9/11 in damage. Instead, and this is explained in the brief I linked to above, it has moved to new targets that access new geographies and political dimensions (Madrid, London, etc.).

A good example of this framework in action is found in the recent revelations unearthed by Ron Suskind in his new book called "The One Percent Doctrine." An excerpt made available through TIME magazine has this valuable tidbit:

Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003, to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars (NOTE: small, portable, chemical weapon delivery systems) were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations. This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off."

Comments

[arash sotoodeh]

A very interesting post, maybe it is also they have concentrate on Iraq, to undermine any possibility for a new goverment in Iraq. Like 200 soldiers fall in conquering Iraq, but much more were killed by attacks. I just think that Madrid and London were not taken serious enough. People just want to believe too that Al Qaeda is dead, I hope too so, but the facts of London and Madrid, two devastating bombing speak against that. thanks Arash

[Cavolonero]

If I was al-Qaeda now, I might attack China. Some kind of intolerable povocation that draws them into the Middle East. Why attack the US again ? They've already smacked the machine and gotten what they wanted there. Get those mukkabarrs over to the Bejing Olympics maybe.

[Claymore]

"If I was al-Qaeda now, I might attack China. Some kind of intolerable povocation that draws them into the Middle East. Why attack the US again ? They've already smacked the machine and gotten what they wanted there. Get those mukkabarrs over to the Bejing Olympics maybe."

I honestly believe this has been in our plans all along.....Agitate the arch of crisis and pass pass it off on China. Lets support the Uighurs? Brilliant! HAHAHAHA

[Gerard]

Well if we're going to speculate on AQ's next target, why not Russia? Al Qaeda grew out of the mujahideen which drove the USSR out of Afghanistan and now the Russian part of the old Soviet Union is using brutal tactics to suppress a rebellion by Muslims in Chechnya. John do we know if Al Qaeda and the Chechen resistance have an effective working relationship? The Chechen attacks on Russia have been pretty elaborate, if you're planning on terrorizing a population you can't go much further than targetting children.

One side effect of 9/11 has been the neutering of Western criticisms of Russian tactics in Chechnya. By striking at the US Bin Laden has allowed Russia to keep the gloves off against fellow Muslims in the Chechen war.

[patrick]

Dear John,

really enjoying your blog, its thought-provoking stuff and one of my favourites!

cheers,

Patrick (from Oxblog)

[Nis]

It is an interesting thought. However I think that the conclusion is a bit hasty: the law of diminishing returns calls for an element of repetition. AQ has certainly repeated attacks in other locations - but not in the US - and thus they haven't worn out their novelty in the mainland US (as far as I see it from across the pond).

It is very plausible that repeated attacks of a similar or smaller magnitude would wear on the usefulnes of terrorist symbolism. But isn't it also plausible that one single attack, despite its implications, would work as a "trigger", a reactivation of 9/11 fears? Wouldn't a small bomb, takng some lives in the US and being claimed by the AQ, act as a synecdoche - showing a "part of terrorism" signifies the "whole" of AQ might and thus have a very strong symbolic value despite its limited scope?

[JohnP]

I think Al Queda is a media beat up. I am not saying they are not dangerous, but their threat is well overstated for political reasons. You have a much bigger chance of being run over by a car than being killed by AQ. AQ just seem more terrifying.

[John Robb]

Of course, that would have changed if the spring attack on SA's abqaiq facility and made it through the interior security ring.

[KCA]

Looking at why AQ went after Madrid and then London, rather than the US, I would have guessed that it had more to do with isolating us from our allies. Something as vicious as a poison gas attack on a subway system would, if successful, almost guarantee that the American people would see a strengthening of resolve, and would also engender a certain amount of international sympathy. Additionally it might scare the Euros into into something resembling a united front should an event that serious go down against "the most powerful nation on earth," etc,. etc. Attacking Madrid then London, with the intent of getting them to withdraw personnel and material support accomplishes quite a bit, none of it positive for the US in regards to media coverage, public reaction/resolve/certainty, the "political capital" the leadership of the nation have to leverage, as well as the credibility the leadership has abroad. The more people abandon the effort, the worse it gets.

As far as drawing China into the picture, I think it would be almost a given that if AQ does enough damage, Chinese ambition would preclude the need for AQ to actively draw China into making our lives more difficult. They'd do it for free, so to speak. We wouldn't have the military capability to confront them, and the american economy couldn't tolerate it.

Iran, or a post-coup Pakistan, would be a safe pick if you were guessing who AQ were looking to court favor with in regards to Iraq or Afghanistan, respectively.

Just a thought or two.

[Barry]

"This approach in part explains why the US hasn't suffered another attack since 9/11..."

Anthrax.

[Jack]

I've just been reading a lot of material on the collapse of the WTC towers and been convinced that it was in fact a controlled demolition. Unfortunately there are a lot of very goofy conspiracy theorist web pages, which make it easy to dismiss anything that differs from the official truth as hogwash. But just looking at the videos of the towers coming down and using your common sense should make it clear that they were demolished. You can actually see explosions going off well below the point of collapse as the towers come down. Tall steel buildings have suffered much worse fires for much longer that those in WTC 1 and 2, without collapsing. When the WTC towers did come down, they neatly imploded in-place, which requires the entire steel structure across the building to fail in an instant. If an impact by a passenger jet and a fire had caused damage to the steel in the core of the building, it would certainly have been very asymmetric and random, and the collapse would have been much slower, only partial, and the top of the building would have fallen over in some direction as one large structure, like a falling tree. Instead, the towers turned into powder in just seconds.

Then there is the third tower, WTC 7, which was never hit by a plane and collapsed 7 hours after WTC 1 and WTC 2. There were only minor fires in WTC 7. No official has offered an explanation why WTC 7 collapsed, and collapsed extremely neatly in-place, on its own footprint. 47-storey skyscrapers made of steel do not suddenly just turn to powder and collapse when there is a fire in a few rooms. WTC 7 looked like a demonstration of best demolition practises.

9/11 was no standard Al Qaeda operation, which is why that sort of thing has not happened again. The US has certainly been super-sensitive to terrorism ever since, and any kind of attack would certainly have a big impact. Al Qaeda has not pulled off anything on the scale of 9/11 because they cannot (at least not alone), and never could.

[Wolfie]

Somehow I don't see that bringing in China would advance AQ's causes and unless the strike was very impressive the Chinese government would just shrug it off as collateral damage, they don't share our regard for the citizenry - its state first, people secondary.

[Cavolonero]

AQ might like to see the super power US and the not so super power China in conflict. An attack ( blow up thier nice new dam say ) might make them even more paranoid and reactionary than the little guys already are. That's good for AQ and bad for everyone else.

[Duncan Kinder]

Al Qaeda Strategic Vision: Engage the U.S. Overseas, Not at Home
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/al_qaeda_strate.html

"Al Qaeda's strategic vision involves challenging the United States and its allies overseas using small- to medium-scale attacks, according to an online book available on extremist websites that has become the seminal jihadi textbook. The first English translation of the text is being circulated this week among DOD and government policy circles."
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp

....

"Abu Bakr Naji, an al Qaeda insider and author of the book, "The Management of Savagery," believes that the 9/11 attacks accomplished what they needed to by forcing the U.S. to commit their military overseas. He says 9/11 forced the U.S. to fall into the "trap" of overextending their military and that "it began to become clear to the American administration that it was being drained.""

"He says that al Qaeda shouldn't be focused on any more of those kinds of attacks for now."

""The focus is on mid- to small-range targets in the region and not go after big symbolic targets like the Twin Towers," says Will McCants, a fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who translated the 268-page document."

[John Robb]

Like this?

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/al_qaedas_grand.html

[Claymore]

Good site!

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

[Duncan Kinder]

I am in the process of reading "The Management of Savagery," which is 289 pages long.

At p. 88 it states:

"The aim which motivates the enemies is a material aim. Thus, the doctrine of conflict
which the people of unbelief and apostasy possess is a material, worldly doctrine in most of
its structure. If they have worldly motives, they conceal them with religious or false, socalled
cultural motives. The dogmatic [i.e. religious], traditional factor in (the motives) is not
a single factor; it is considered one of the factors motivating them to battle. Perhaps in the
eyes of their ignorant followers, it is considered a strong motive. However, what fuels their
action are material interests and the desire to survive. Thus, they strive to survive, but it is
not just any survival; rather, it is a survival which guarantees for them an unruffled life of
comfort and luxury. As for their allies and those who support them, they continue and
remain steadfast in their coalition with them as long as (their) interest is served by that
alliance. Therefore, we must understand this very well.
Thus, the most important of their political principles is the principle of (self) interest. Their
principle absolutely does not submit to any moral value; rather, all the other principles are
subordinate to it—friendship or enmity, peace or war—and are all determined according to
(self) interest."

In response to this, I make three (debatable) assumptions and draw a conclusion.

First, this document reflects not only the individual author's viewpoint but Al Qaeda's generally.

Second, when people make judgements about other people, they actually are projecting their own personalities on those others.

Third, people often have repressed these aspects of their own personalities; they tend to be in denial about their possessing these character traits which they are projecting.

Conclusion: regardless of whether the quoted language accurately describes the United States and the West, it accurately describes Al Qaeda's repressed motives. This suggests that - appearances to the contrary - Al Qaeda actually can be bribed. Given Al Qaeda's repressing of its materialistic impulses, efforts to bribe it must be done with extreme subtlety and skill.

[Love]

They are very patient and lull the US into a false sense of security.

[Ben]

If you read the materials of Al-Qaeda, you'll find that the current situation is what they've for so long planned for. They lured us out, away from the safety of home.

But in the bigger picture, they stand for worldwide jihad, and by attacking various countries, they awaken more and more people to the cause.

Why attack the US again? It's already fully engaged in combating the jihad. Al-Qaeda benefits more from hitting areas directly that are oppressed by censored media, as they would describe it.

According to what I've read about their long-term strategy, this is still the recruiting stage of their plan.

[John Robb]

That's true too:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/al_qaedas_grand.html

[enigma_foundry]

"This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off."

This should be very disturbing news. The likelihood I had felt that Al-Qaeda would attack with biological weapons, in an attempt to exceed the 9/11 toll can no longer be ignored.

In particular, immediate efforts to put into operation the four ingredients of a successful bioweapons defense need to be put into place:

1. An active, working syndromic surveillance system (Observe)

2. Regional, decentralized centers at which viruses and bacteria found in circulation would be sequenced, and any suspicious or unusual organisms be evaluated (Orient)

3. Policy implementation and scenarios developed so that information harvested from 1 and 2 can be used to quickly implement public health strategies. (Decide)

4. Training of first responders and massive public education program correlated to each strategy. (Act)

Without all four elements, the loss from a well engineered organism (say one that has initial symptoms that are mild but later --maybe two years later--has fatal effects) could well be in the tens of millions.

[fiskhus jim]

It also seems possible that there hasn't been another attack because George W Bush cut and ran, gave in utterly to OBL's demands, and removed US troops from Saudi.