Timothy Noah over at Slate.com has been posting a series of essays called “Why No More 9/11s?” in which he explores various theories as to why the United States has not suffered another terrorist attack since the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001. Among the competing possibilities: the terrorists got lucky; they’re currently too obsessed with the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan to think about the American mainland; or they’re biding their time so they can top the horror of September 11th.
Frankly, I’ve always thought our 9/11 response was way overblown. With the exception of regime change in Afghanistan, nearly everything else we’ve done has either been ill-advised, overkill (both literally and figuratively), botched, or backfired. Some telling statistics from Noah’s articles: we only know of ONE terrorist organization (al-Qaeda) with explicit aspirations to attack America, and membership in al-Qaeda may be as low as 200 (yes, 200–this is just one estimate, of course, and we can get tripped up semantically on what constitutes “al-Qaeda”). But if this estimate is even in the ballpark, this means that most of the fighting is with folks who didn’t have a beef with us to start with, and who are fighting precisely because we are over there. And the jury’s still out (oops, bad metaphor, we don’t use juries any more in the “War on Terror”) as to how many bin Ladens we’ve created with our bloated, adolescent over-reaction.
I’m not arguing for American disengagement with the world. I am suggesting that the Terrorist Boogie Man we’ve all been so afraid of for the last eight years is primarily a result of government paranoia and our mass media’s willingness to overhype ever crisis with fiery graphics and dramatic music. Where’s the story if it turns out al-Qaeda is just a relative handful of Islamic rednecks who got lucky and pulled off the worst terrorist attack in history? (And please, no comments about how 9/11 was an inside job and that religious fanatics had nothing to do with it.)
Very interesting points. Our government, particularly under Bush’s regime, would love for us to believe that they’ve thwarted numerous attempts and disrupted many plots…but who can say. If al-Quaeda is in fact that tiny, then yes, Bin Laden got lucky.
I’m not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but it continues to baffle me that Bin Laden STILL hasn’t been captured. I continue to wonder if W. didn’t want him caught, because to do so would have made public support for his bullshit Iraq invasion harder to gather. Clearly he wanted to instill in the public the mindset that it was a retaliation for 9/11.
Dennis,
Thanks for your comments. I tend to think bin Laden hasn’t been caught simply because a) he’s in a very remote part of the world and b) the local populace is friendlier toward his views than ours. Remember it took FIVE YEARS to apprehend domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph, and he was just hiding out in the woods in North Carolina! With the near-chaos along the North West Frontier, it’s possible we may never catch him, that he might die of natural causes and we’ll never know.
John
John,
If bin Laden did die of natural causes I doubt it would be broadcast to the world. If he continues to elude capture he could become a preternatural figure. The avenging spirit of islam waging a supernatural war against the “great satan”. Think of the PR possibilities.
Your points on why he hasn’t been easy to nab are factual John, though I still stand by my own. It seems to me that Bush quickly shifted attention elsewhere using the emotional impact of 9/11 as justification for invading a country that had no connection to the attack.
Bringing Bin Laden to justice clearly fell quite rapidly from the priority list.