What terrorist threat?

A recent article in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs magazine posits an interesting hypothesis: that there are, in fact, no terrorists in the United States. Our safety, this argument would conclude, is not thanks to extraordinary security measures, the war in Iraq, etc. Instead, it is because terrorists aren't in America. The author is John Mueller (not to be confused with Robert Mueller, the 6th Director of the FBI), a political scientist See the article here

What Mueller says is interesting food for thought, but Mueller fails to define what constitutes a "terrorist," and for that I think the article could be expanded. He gives roughly 6 arguments for why it's possible a terrorist attack hasn't occurred since 9/11, and then cleverly debunks them. They are:

1.)It is more difficult for potential terrorists to enter the US since 9/11 (Mueller counters that with 300 million legal entries into the US each year, coupled with 1,000 - 3,000 illegal ones, it's impossible that bad eggs don't slip through)

2.)Homeland defense precautions and government programs have thwarted potential threats in the five years since 9/11 (Mueller counters that there were no major terrorist attacks in the US in the five years prior to 9/11 either, without the programs)

3.)The overthrow of the Taliban and destruction of al Qaeda networks in Afghanistan hindered terrorist capabilities worldwide (Madrid 2004, London 2005)

4.)Global terrorists are all being drawn to Iraq, allowing US forces to fight them "over there" (Mueller documents numerous other terrorist activities that have occurred outside Iraq since the Iraq war started. One could also point to the recent CIA report which indicated America is less safe from terrorism, not more safe, since Iraq)



Only in Iraq?


5.)The Muslim community is better integrated in America, and the American social and economic fabric doesn't leave room for "radicalization." (Then why haven't there been terrorist attacks in more homogeneous countries with less integration of minorities, like France and Norway? And why did the 2004 bombings occur in the UK?)

6.)That al Qaeda is planning another attack, biding its time (9/11 only took two years to plan and execute, Tim McVeigh planned the bombing in Oklahoma City for less than a year, Madrid 2004 took less than six months).

So why no plots since 9/11? Are there really no terrorists here? Why haven't they attacked using simpler means, like the Beltway Sniper(s) did in Washington in 2002?

It's important to identify what Mueller means by a "terrorist." It seems likely that he is referring to large-scale foreign-influenced fighters attacking civilian or military targets, and not to the equally despicable but differently motivated "home-grown" terrorist like Tim McVeigh. Today (12/8/06), a US citizen was arrested suspected of plotting to murder civilians in a mall north of Chicago during this holiday season. He was arrested trying to buy grenades from government agents; certainly, he had the will to take the plot past the planning stage (See this article in the San Francisco Chronicle) However, it seems that this individual wouldn't count in Mueller's definition of a terrorist because, although potentially deadly, this person was self-motivated, didn't visit al Qaeda bases for training, and the scope wouldn't have been as wide as a 9/11-style attack.

I had an interesting discussion with my friend Scott the other night, and he made a legitimate point: international terrorism needs to be on a spectacular scale. 9/11 set a morbidly and visually high bar; modern terrorism has a need to be beyond outrageous. Simultaneous attacks, biological and chemical weapons as well as massive attacks on landmarks make impressions in the media, and likewise on the mindset of the public. Small-scale, less logistically complicated attacks using simpler methods isn't as psychologically effective. Terrorist forces lack the resources of a state, and thus they must maximize their perverse output by not wasting efforts on operations they consider too trivial.





Definitely not in America


So maybe everyone can be right. For starters, it seems that there aren't too many al Qaeda cells operating in the United States, which seems to align itself to Mueller's hypothesis. Indeed, true-and-true terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late al Qaeda-in-Iraq leader, are probably not in America. However, what about those "terrorists" who aren't aligned with al Qaeda, but who sympathize with the murder of innocents, regardless of their ideological motivation? This is where I think the article misses the point. Individuals like the one arrested today keep the possibility alive that misguided individuals with no goals other than murder and little to lose could conduct smaller-scale attacks.