Waiting for Al Qaeda - New York Times
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By fox/lkos_logo_NA_88x31_GIF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 9, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Waiting for Al Qaeda
By
JOHN TIERNEY

John Mueller has an awkward question for those of us in the terrorism
industry, which is his term for the journalists, politicians, bureaucrats
and assorted
"risk entrepreneurs" who have alarmed America about terrorism.

For five years, we've been telling Americans that Sept. 11 changed
everything. "It will always be a defining moment in our history," President
Bush says
in this year's Patriot Day proclamation. We declared it a harbinger of a new
clash of civilizations, a global ideological struggle - World War III, in
Newt Gingrich's words.

We reported intelligence estimates of thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists and
supporters in "sleeper cells" in America. In May 2004, Attorney General John
Ashcroft said that Al Qaeda's preparations for an attack were 90 percent
complete. We braced for acts of terrorism forecast to occur during the
political
conventions, the presidential campaign, on Election Day, after Election Day.
Through yellow and orange alerts, we kept in mind the Department of Homeland
Security's warning: "Today's terrorists can strike at any place, at any time
and with virtually any weapon."

So what's keeping them? That's the question raised by Mueller, a political
scientist at Ohio State University, in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.

"Why," he asks, "have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers,
collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines,
derailing
trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or
exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security
experts,
could so easily be exploited?"

The Bush administration likes to take credit for stopping domestic plots,
but it's hard to gauge whether these are much more than the fantasies of a
few
klutzes. Bush also claims that the war in Iraq has diverted terrorists'
attention there, but why wouldn't global jihadists want the added publicity
from
attacking America at home, too? Al Qaeda's leaders threatened in 2003 to
attack America - along with a half dozen other countries that haven't been
attacked
either.

Mueller's conclusion is that there just aren't that many terrorists out
there with the zeal and the competence to attack the United States. In his
forthcoming
book, "Overblown," he argues that the risk of terrorism didn't increase
after Sept. 11 - if anything, it declined because of a backlash against Al
Qaeda,
making it a smaller and less capable threat than before. But the terrorism
industry has been too busy hyping Sept. 11 and several other attacks to
notice.

It has found a new audience for old dangers. For more than half a century,
experts have warned that terrorists could destroy a city with a weapon of
mass
destruction. They still might, but their failure so far suggests it isn't
easy to do, and it didn't suddenly become easier on Sept. 11.

There are plenty of fighters willing to use terrorist tactics locally during
civil wars and insurrections, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya or Kashmir.
But it's harder to recruit competent warriors to fight abroad, and harder
for them to operate in orderly countries where the citizenry and the
authorities
both want to stop them.

"Outside of Afghanistan and Iraq," Mueller says, "the number of people
killed around the world since Sept. 11 by groups in sympathy with Al Qaeda
is not
that high. These are horrible and disgusting deaths, but they're not a sign
of a diabolically effective organization. The total is less than the number
of Americans who drowned in bathtubs during this period."

As it is, he figures, the odds of an American being killed by international
terrorism are about one in 80,000. And even if there were attacks on the
scale
of Sept. 11 every three months for the next five years, the odds for any
individual dying would be one in 5,000.

Compared with past threats - like Communist sociopaths with nuclear
arsenals - Al Qaeda's terrorists are a minor problem. They certainly don't
justify the
hyperbolic warnings that America's "existence" or "way of life" is in
jeopardy, or that America must transform the Middle East in order to
survive.

There undoubtedly will be more terrorist attacks, either from Al Qaeda or
others, just as there were before 2001. Terrorists might strike Monday.
There
will always be homicidal zealots like Mohamed Atta or Timothy McVeigh, and
some of them will succeed, terribly. But this is not a new era. The
terrorist
threat is still small. It's the terrorism industry that got big.

Copyright 2006
The New York Times Company

Posted by Miriam V