Given the enormous financial and psychological cost that America and other countries continue to incur for fear of al Qaeda, there seems little need for unnecessary activity. If al Qaeda can now achieve a very large effect from an unsubstantiated rumour or half-baked plot, this suggests they have attained an extremely efficient state.
Roger
Two thoughts.
Despite what is common expectation it can be harder for them to operate in the US than Europe. It is common to think that because even Rumsfeld’s stupidities are mild compared to European internal security measures that it would be easier to operate in the US. And maybe for some one who attended grad school and worked in the US this may be so, but Arab countries have much greater contact with Europe. They are probably more familiar with the culture and security procedures in Europe and it makes it easier to operate there. Of course nineteen of their best operatives for working in the US died on nine eleven. It is probably hard to replace them with people of equivalent skills.
What is Al Quada’s objective(s) is it simply to blow up Americans or is blowing up Americans (which it may not be necessary at the current time) a means to an end or both? While there is a certain public relations aspect to their operations simply topping what they did before may not be their goal. I think that if they limit themselves to trying top their previous action, the recruitment, planning, training, recommence, and set up for the execution will create plenty of opportunities to run afoul of our security nets.
Let's see if I'm boiling down what you were saying right: the fact that al-Qaeda hasn't struck is not because heightened security in the US but because they haven't figured out how to top the attacks of 9-11. That statement seems to be in nature an offspring of the anti-Bush political rhetoric. A political rhetoric that in turn is a product of the Bush-prowar/'antiterror' babbling. If we subscribe to the theory that 'the base' is not a bunch bunch of lunatics just trying to blow stuff, but a rather strategically saavy group, it seems to serve no strategic purpose to strike the US at this point since what they wanted, the deployment for combat of US armed forces to 'fight them there' and rouse the muslim world (according to the most educated estimates about what al Qaeda is about) already happened. Their strategy however, still following the same ideas, appears to have failed since the Muslim world appears not to have risen overwhelmingly in unison (but maybe the seed was planted, who knows). Attacking the US is not a matter of opportunity, its a matter of strategic convenience. The chance to fight (and the way things are going, defeat at least in spirit) the US military is their objective. In a way, Bush's "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is true, but in reality they are not interested in fighting over here, that serves no purpose for them, they want to fight the US there. They already rattled the nest and they have what they wanted. I'm not going to get into the debate of whether the anti-terrorism efforts are working or not, I have no way to prove they do or don't; I know of initiatives that are an improvement and others that are a sham, but quantifying the effectiveness is impossible for me. It doesn't seem I'm disagreeing much with you, maybe you're right and the security hasn't improved, but regardless I don't think AQ's priority 1 is hitting the US, big stunt or not. Maybe its just wishful thinking on my part since I live in a target city 
Two of you are saying that al Qaeda has no current interest in attacking the US.
Fine. I'm all for saying that and thus turning down the fear rhetoric that so often enters the US politial discourse. These past few days it was a report that terrorists (or at least "extremists") were trying to become school bus drivers.
I don't think the argument about al Qaeda's goals is emerging from the anti-Bush crowd. Everyone is trying to explain why al Qaeda hasn't attacked for 5.5 years. The four of us have mentioned more than one plausible explanation.
By the way, I agree that the 9/11 attacks were designed to provoke the U.S. into war. However, I do not agree with some who argue that "they will follow U.S. troops home" if the U.S. gives up its most inane war. For one thing, I presume that troop levels would remain stable in Afghanistan -- and perhaps even increase.
Even the Pentagon says that there aren't many "foreign fighers" in Iraq and al Qaeda of Iraq (AQI) seems to have a local agenda.
Don't forget it was more than eight years between the two attacks on the Twin Towers. They may just be biding their time. The operatives who can get into the US and carry out a spectacular attack are, I would imagine a very limited resource. I don't think they want to "waste" them in an unsucessful attack, or even worse for them to be captured.
Roger
I am more saying that I do not know what AQ’s intentions are. As far as I have been willing to read I don’t think your question can be definitively answered. And of course intentions can change.
We do know that AQ has intentions that would not preclude an attack on the US if they wish and can accomplish it, if we are to take there own pronouncements at face value. Given there track record this can’t be ignored.
There is big step between saying I want to launch a major attack and launching it.
Take the oil refinery example you linked to. That was not the work of three people. There had to be a much larger team that ID’d the target and did the set up work even before the bombers were brought in on the plot. The country is full of targets like that, the potential will sell much magazines and air time. But there is problem one who would defend everything defends nothing. If AQ has decided or decides in the future to attempt an attack and is willing to take the time and effort to do it right, the only way prevent it is to disrupt their organization to the point that they can never complete the organization of the attacks let alone launch them. It’s the old and tired truism that “the best defense is an offense.” A truism because it is right far more often than not.
I am not entirely happy, to say the least, with the administrations policies. There is entirely to much public relations security – visible things to keep the public happy with little or no security provided. But in general I can’t offer anything better. And I do not think the policy would change much with a party change. The dynamics seem to be driven by things that have little to do with who is in power
Just to be clear on what I said, I don't think AQ or whomever would 'follow the US home if they don't fight them there.' From the point of view I'm supporting the damage is done. The US leaving Iraq or Afghanistan would be portrayed as a defeat of the US military, the US staying and never finishing 'the job' is also a moral victory for AQ. The trap was set and it worked. I don't think a democratic administration would have acted differently. The Iraq war however was the price of having the dream team of realism at the helm. It is amazing how some people still believe that going to these countries and invading them actually equates to 'fighting terrorism.' It just reveals a profound misunderstanding of what terrorists are and do. Is an invasion of the UK or Saudi next? I was watching Hannity and Colmes today on the Fox (I can't really call it a news network but you get the point); their tactics to boggle the debate are very effective, but they certainly make it impossible to get anywhere and that is where the majority of people get their 'information' and people like O'reily are considered intelligent by many of these folks. It's truly tragic. Sorry for the rant, the point I was trying to make is that when some people, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican are trying to get the conversation forward there are still so many of these babblers using erroneous (deliberately or not) and useless concepts.
This is something I've been wondering about as well. The DC sniper showed them (if they didn't already know) that one or two operatives with almost no training, money, or serious planning can create sustained mass terror over a reasonable sized region, so why don't they? I find it hard to belive that they are that short on (untrained) manpower so I guess they just don't want to. Maybe one or all of the reasons mentioned above are correct, but it still seems an odd level of restraint to me.
Straight Jacket
See my comment above on the difficulty of operating in the US. The DC snipers had been living at a low rung of life in the US for years, they continued to do that and didn’t stand out during that time because they were part of the normal background. How does a forign operative aquire this lifetime of knowledge? If they tried it they would most likely be caught after the first or second attack because they would stand out some how and thus invite queries.
An exceptionally good post.
The lack of further work from JD Salinger is of course sad. Guns & Roses too, if for no other reason than the event that I presume the title's in reference to (Tiananmen) is ever further away in time.
The parallel to al Qaeda is endlessly fascinating.
Al-Qaeda plotting nuclear attack on West
http://www.crusade-media.com/news66.html
Commenting by HaloScan.com
