What's the secret?

Amy Zegart, who is guest-blogging for Volokh, asks Why Haven't We Been Attacked Since 9/11?:

Just because we haven't experienced tragedy does not prove we are doing things right. This is causality 101, and it's something we drum into UCLA MPP students in their first year. Causal connections have to be examined, not assumed, or you'll get into trouble.

My 92 year-old grandmother, whom I love dearly, still drives a car in Miami. Incredibly, she's had no accidents since 9/11. But I'd never conclude that her driving acumen is responsible for her traffic record, or that she's become a better driver over the past 6 years.

The "we haven't been attacked" argument suffers from the same logical weaknesses. Why haven't we seen another 9/11 since 9/11? A million possible reasons. Many it's al Qaeda's long planning cycles. Maybe it's the disruption of al Qaeda Central in Afghanistan. Maybe it's sheer dumb luck. Maybe it's those ziploc bags at the airport. But the most dangerous explanation is the one that works backwards, inferring causes from outcomes and suggesting success when there may be none.

Who knows, perhaps it is that our security folks have really Gotten Serious and are catching all sorts of terrorists. But it seems to me that the more likely explanation is this: we don't have as many Muslims as Europe, and these days, we're letting in a lot fewer than we used to. And the Muslims we do have are, by and large, much better integrated than those in Europe.

I'm very fond of America's policy towards immigrants, which is to say, we don't have one. No one will try to force you to assimilate, but no one's going to help you keep from assimilating either. This policy of benign neglect considerably alleviates both sorts of Muslim/Christian tension found in Europe: the populations that have been positively encouraged not to see themselves as part of the larger culture, and the populations that feel their traditions are under attack. Obviously, it's not as if America is some sort of perfect paradise where no Muslim kid ever feels either excluded, or forced to assimilate. But the sharp group-on-group rage never seems to have gotten a foothold here. And of course, America in general has much more experience assimilating strangers than Europe.

But our Muslim population isn't just less estranged; it's also smaller. Most of the Arabs and immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are Christian, Hindu, or Sikh. Since only a tiny fraction of a fraction are going to be willing to aid terrorists, much less participate in terrorist acts, Al Qaeda may simply not have the numbers it needs to conduct effective operations. And of course, it's easier to sneak into Europe from the Middle East or Asia than it is to sneak into the US. Europe is a softer target, so it's not surprising that Al Qaeda has put its focus there, as well, of course, as on Iraq.

Then, the other possibility is that we're about to be attacked, and that we haven't been so far merely because These Things Take Time. Given that I live in one of the two main targets, I hope that's not the case.

Comments

It would be pretty foolish to assume the terrorists haven't tried to hit us again. They had several plans which we have seen disrupted in the news. The ones in the US were all in the early stage, which seems to imply that we've cracked down so hard and have such a good grasp on things that they can't even get an the early stages of an operation going without us finding out. Of course, for every 2 we catch in planning, 1 could still get by. Who knows?

But it is the height of foolishness to claim the administrations actions have not accomplished anything and therefore we should do whatever policy X the opposition party is suggesting instead (which appears to be nothing more than repeal patriot act and close gitmo, not sure how either of those things will prevent terrorist attacks)

I'll repeat what I wrote at the outset of this comment, terrorists are dying and being hunted down every day, that anyone could suggest this has not had an affect is either a fool or a partisan hack, most likely both.

Posted by sam | September 12, 2007 5:24 PM

I should no better than start this at this point, but the fact is that terrorism does not pose a significant threat to the average American. It is certainly less pressing of a threat than, say, being mauled by a dog.

Posted by Freddie | September 12, 2007 5:28 PM

Jesus god, KNOW better.

Who's got the crack?

Posted by Freddie | September 12, 2007 5:29 PM

Thanks. When I read your first paragraph about immigrants, I was just about to comment that you need to learn more about the subject of immigration, your next paragraph clearly shows you've been reading experts. Congratulations.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 12, 2007 5:32 PM

"Most of the Arabs and immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are Christian, Hindu, or Sikh."

What? What does this sentence mean? Find me a Hindu or Sikh Arab. I mean really.

Posted by Rickm | September 12, 2007 6:06 PM

And may I say (in a point disconnected from my previous one, since one thing has little to do with another) it's important to always point out that, despite the massive problems in mainstream Islam (and there are massive problems), the vast majority of the world's Muslims do no take part in violence against the United States or anyone else. I know that that's pretty thin gruel, but it does bear repeating in the current climate. I like to point out to people that Islam is as much an East Asian religion as a Middle Eastern one; half of the worlds Muslims live east of Pakistan. And hundreds of millions of Muslims in Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. practice a moderate Islam. That's not to deny the very real problems with Islamic violence in the world, but it is important for context.

Posted by Freddie | September 12, 2007 6:12 PM

It's also quite possible that the lack of any attacks in three years is due simply to the fact that fundamentalist Islam is a much weaker threat than we fear.

Posted by Peter | September 12, 2007 6:13 PM

The example of the writer's grandmother's driving ability isn't particularly apt. What if she had taken a driving course for seniors, which is designed to help them cope with their slowly decreasing ability so they can avoid accidents.

In that light, would it be unreasonable to credit the driving course for her spotless record afterwards?

We *have* taken significant steps to upgrade our ability to detect and stop terrorist acts. The writer simply ignores that fact.

Posted by Jonathan Biggar | September 12, 2007 6:18 PM

While the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 does not PROVE that we are doing a good job with homeland security, it certainly is an interesting correlation. One should certainly do a little more investigation before making any policy decisions but it's a perfectly reasonable starting premise to take that we are doing a good job of security.

I would also second the comment that we have been arresting terrorists and stopping attacks in their early stages. So our security system is doing something...

The whole post over on VC seems pretty weak and full of either trivial or silly comments. For example, her dismissal of Argument #1 as being like a belief in the tooth fairy is just dumb, especially since she goes on to propose a reason that is very similar to Argument #1.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 12, 2007 6:21 PM

Could we not add to the mix the fact that 9/11 really shouldn't have been successful in the first place?

Besides the utter failure of the North American air defense system that day, efforts by FBI agents to investigate the strange men seeking flight training were blocked and shut down by the Bureau's upper echelon. Warnings, both specific and non-, to multiple officials across two presidential administrations were ignored. A functioning government would have, should have prevented those attacks that day.

Does that mean we have a functioning government today? Hardly. If we were caught with our pants around our ankles that day, then today we're similarly dressed but wearing a clown nose as well.

I think it's much more likely that terrorism isn't nearly the threat it's cracked up to be. Our efforts to fight it have tended to further consolidate power among authoritarians in our government, which should indicate their motivation.

In any case, I don't think much about the threat of terrorism on a day-to-day basis. More important, dangerous things require our attention: a looming economic crisis, erosion of our Constitution, outsourcing of key parts of our economy, logging accidents, bee stings, etc. etc.

Posted by Scott | September 12, 2007 6:29 PM

sam writes: "It would be pretty foolish to assume the terrorists haven't tried to hit us again. They had several plans which we have seen disrupted in the news. The ones in the US were all in the early stage, which seems to imply that we've cracked down so hard and have such a good grasp on things that they can't even get an the early stages of an operation going without us finding out."

All of the "plans" you're referring to were small groups of unfunded nitwits working on fantasy schemes that had no chance of success. I don't think you can get too excited about that.

9/11 got Al Qaeda everything it wanted - why follow up with an anticlimactic, meaningless strike? They don't have to lift a hand now and Americans are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq while Osama laughs.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 12, 2007 7:40 PM

All of the "plans" you're referring to were small groups of unfunded nitwits working on fantasy schemes that had no chance of success.

For example, the pizza delivery boys with their fantasy of attacking Fort Dix.

Posted by Peter | September 12, 2007 8:52 PM

If the plots disrupted in the US had been serious, they wouldn't have been arrested "in the early stages"; the FBI would have let them run their course up until a credible threat of attack, to gather as much intel as possible (and build the legal case). See: Germany.

The US does indeed do a better job of assimilating Muslim immigrants than Europe does, and there is agreement on this point all across the American political spectrum. From my experience of living in the Netherlands, I found the Dutch were blind to the ways in which their society was not welcoming. Americans grow up in a highly fluid and mobile society; we move to new cities, make new groups of friends, and so on. European societies are less fluid: people keep friendship groups longer, change jobs and move less often, and are more connected to their families. This makes it easier for immigrants to find their fit in America -- a newcomer from Karachi in Brooklyn is no more foreign than a newcomer from Indiana. (Less so, in many ways.)

The Netherlands, like many other European countries, has a greater sense of social solidarity than the US does -- the knowing-your-neighbor factor (and a concomitant willingness to accept group social responsibilities: "The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest loads," "Many hands make light work," etc.). But I felt that this social solidarity carried a cost: it was harder to fit in. People in society expect more of you: you're expected to know the car/bike traffic rules, to handle complex tax laws proactively, and so on. This was interesting, because the Netherlands thinks of itself as a highly tolerant, diverse and multicultural place. In many ways it is. But it almost subconsciously has higher hurdles for membership than the US does. And the result has been a kind of social exclusion that has led to alienation and anger among a lot of Dutch Muslim youth, and which is now a violent (if ultimately rather minor) threat.

That said, I remain convinced that Holland and France, at least, are going to weather this crisis well over the next couple of decades. There is a nascent positive vision of what it means to be a Dutch or French Muslim, and one which complements rather than undermines these countries' visions of their fundamental identities. Radical Islam, like black separatism in the US, will not remain an appealing ideology for long, for anyone but posturing college students and the occasional artist.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 12, 2007 10:02 PM

9/11 got Al Qaeda everything it wanted - why follow up with an anticlimactic, meaningless strike? They don't have to lift a hand now and Americans are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq while Osama laughs.

I thought OBL's goal (short of the ultimate long-term fantasy of a worldwide caliphate) was to drive Westerners and Western influence out of the Islamic world? I'm sure you are right that he is happy about our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's hard to see that he intended us to invade those countries in the first place.

Posted by Rob Leder | September 12, 2007 10:07 PM

brooksfoe writes: "That said, I remain convinced that Holland and France, at least, are going to weather this crisis well over the next couple of decades. There is a nascent positive vision of what it means to be a Dutch or French Muslim, and one which complements rather than undermines these countries' visions of their fundamental identities. Radical Islam, like black separatism in the US, will not remain an appealing ideology for long, for anyone but posturing college students and the occasional artist."

Someone needs to give brooksfoe a regular forum. Every post is a gem.

Certainly the European countries which have fallen victim to Islamist attacks have handled the aftermath better than the US has. Of course 9/11 was on a different scale, but we have dingbats running around claiming "pizza delivery boys with their fantasy of attacking Fort Dix" (great line, Peter) are capable of bringing down the Empire.

They're not.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 12, 2007 11:03 PM

Either no one remembers anthrax, or there's an implicit assumption about where it come from that I'm not quite understanding.

Posted by Atrios | September 13, 2007 12:17 AM

(which appears to be nothing more than repeal patriot act and close gitmo, not sure how either of those things will prevent terrorist attacks)

Uh, port security?

Uh, the DHS?

Uh, the TSA?

Bush & co. opposed the last two strenuously at first, then caved.

IOW they voted against it before they voted for it.

They still haven't done anything about the first.

Posted by Derek Scruggs | September 13, 2007 12:34 AM

no one's going to help you keep from assimilating either

Tell that to the leaders of "immigrant communities", such as the ones that both the GOP and the Dems pander to.

Back in 2004, our host promoted Bush's reelection because she thought he was the better bet to keep us safe. Before and after that time, tens of thousands of people from "SpecialInterest" countries have successfully snuck over the border; two Hezbollah members were caught after having snuck over a year earlier. While many or most of the Iraqis who've snuck over may be Christians, I'm sure some are not. I doubt whether the Saudis or Yemenis or Pakistanis who snuck over are Christians. And, while many or most of those won't be terrorists, some no doubt are or are sympathizers.

I suspect that AQ realizes it has to do more with their next attack than they did with 9/11; to do otherwise would make them look weak. So, there's the possibility that they're getting something together that would be bigger than 9/11, and that takes time.

Posted by TLB | September 13, 2007 12:44 AM

But it seems to me that the more likely explanation is this: we don't have as many Muslims as Europe, and these days, we're letting in a lot fewer than we used to.

If we have avoided another attack (forgetting about anthrax, I guess) because of assimilation and the relatively fewer number of Muslims, then why did 9/11 happen in the first place?

Weren't the Muslims assimilated and few in number then? Are you just arguing that attacks will be less frequent because the proportion of unassimilated Muslims is lower? Given our larger population, even a smaller proportion of terrorist-sympathizing Muslims could produce more frequent attacks. Where's the evidence to support your assertion?

Your post is just half-baked. I'm with MoeLarryandJesus. Why would the terrorists need to attack us over here when we're doing everything they want us to do? Thanks, W.

Posted by idahogie | September 13, 2007 1:20 AM

Megan says re: not being attacked after 9/11 (ignoring anthrax):

"But it seems to me that the more likely explanation is this: we don't have as many Muslims as Europe, and these days, we're letting in a lot fewer than we used to.

What does this mean? Total Muslims, Muslims as a proportion or per square mile? More twaddle from McAddled. Are they like a molecular cloud, only waiting for Muslims=n? Has she ever heard of Dearborn? Are there more Muslims in Doncaster? Or is it a disease model, in her empty noodle, one Muslim per n? has the jihad virus?

Does McArdle ever read, say, a newspaper? Might she have noticed the entirely homegrown horror bombings in my home town, London, or the just-busted ring in Germany. Those events, (unimportant as they are to an Upper West Sider) were citizen efforts, no scary Muslim immigrants needed.

It wouldn't matter, if we weren't at fucking (fake) war, that The Atlantic gives this raving, silver-spooned flibbertigibbet a megaphone to add to wingnut cacophoney, but since we are, it does. The Atlantic, clearly, is part of the problem.

Trex has something to say about Megan McArdle:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/12/late-nite-fdl-thoroughly-mediocre-megan/

Posted by Steve Kelso | September 13, 2007 1:37 AM

Who knows, perhaps it is that our security folks have really Gotten Serious and are catching all sorts of terrorists.-MM

I think I'll give up on this blog. Megan writes well and her comments are often intersting, but like David Brooks and her former colleagues at the Economist, she tries too hard to please the left-wing (self-styled) intellignetisia.

Here she won't admit the obvious: that George Bush's policies have had something to do with the fact that we haven't been attacked sine 9/11. I too am a critic of Mr. Bush--I'm disappointed in his inept handling of the Iraq war--but I'm a rational critic and I don't just go with the crowd. He deserves some credit for the security measures he has taken--often over howls of leftist disapproval--to defend the country.

Posted by Isocrates | September 13, 2007 1:48 AM

My thoughts are along the lines of what Scott suggested above: that the September 11th terrorist attack was rather impossibly successful.

So if you are Al Queda or any truly radical Islamic organization, you are faced with the difficulty of having to top yourself. I would imagine that the safeguards in place around the world make such further attempts rather difficult.

There are methods by which you can kill thousands, but the visual (and thus mental) impact of a plane taking down a national economic monument is hard to replicate.

It's lining up a lot of ducks, with everything that can go wrong...going right. Al Queda was, by virtue of its success, supremely lucky, and even in that evil luck, did not kill all its intended targets. No JD Powers certification for you!

In the same way that the United States cannot reform its tax system, or create a more refined health care climate, or control its borders, so too an organization like Al Queda, dispersed and often having to use third rate methods and means, will fail at any number of initiatives involving complex planning and human capital.

Like the man who does not want to volunteer for some project overseas for his company (it will take me away from my family, from my kids, from the start of football season, and from my assistant with the cleavage tops who sits on my desk with legs crossed and skirt hiked), so too the smarter Al Queda recruit might not take to the idea of spending a lot of time away from home, laying low, preparing, educating himself, learning new skills, only to, at the end, drive a tanker into Macy's or Penn Station and die.

It takes a level of belief and commitment most people lack. You really have to believe that the afterlife will be the better reality, above and beyond the existing girlfriend, job, and familial ties.

In the end he can be home, going to the mosque with family and friends, reading the Qu'ran, and working on opening a firm that specializes in Islam compliant investing. Al Queda needs the very type of Islamic person who is likely to say, "Uhm, no thanks, will follow Allah in my own way."

Posted by Finn | September 13, 2007 1:49 AM

"He deserves some credit for the security measures he has taken--often over howls of leftist disapproval--to defend the country."

Like: securing the borders, inspecting containers, securing the 200+ major chemical plants in urban areas....

None of which he has done. The Turrists don't need to attack, Bush has done more damage to this country than Osama ever dreamed of.

Posted by Steve Kelso | September 13, 2007 1:57 AM

In the end he can be home, going to the mosque with family and friends, reading the Qu'ran, and working on opening a firm that specializes in Islam compliant investing.

Or, at the moment, in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American soldiers. Megan is right: the threat to the US comes from well-off but ideologically furious Muslims from Europe, the Mideast and elsewhere. At the moment they have a much harder time getting into the US with materiel than they used to, and they have easier targets in Iraq and Afghanistan or in Europe, where many of them live. The threat to Europe comes from a small minority of its own Muslim population. Europe must address that issue, and it is.

Isocrates: You could credit the Bush Admin with making it a lot harder for potential terrorists to get into the US, but saying liberals opposed such measures is ludicrous; liberals have pressed for more and faster action on ramping up the TSA and DHS. The unbelievably incompetent administration of those new organizations is classic crony-conservative Bushism. What liberals opposed was the illegal circumention of FISA (rather than openly amending the law), the use of torture (which has accomplished zilch, apart from helping create new terrorists and Al-Qaeda sympathizers around the world), and the Iraq war (ditto, plus getting lots of American soldiers killed).

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 2:08 AM

We're not the only target on Earth.

It's an awfully egotistical view of the world that can look at the worldwide series of attacks since 9/11 and conclude that it's good news because we and we alone haven't been attacked on our own soil in the intervening six-year period.

Actual attacks on American soil from al-Qaeda have happened twice - 1993 and 2001. Based on that record alone, I'm not sure why we're now searching for reasons why something which historically doesn't happen that often hasn't happened more frequently than it normally does.

Posted by Starscream | September 13, 2007 6:33 AM

This comment has been deleted for profanity and personal attacks

Posted by dave™© | September 13, 2007 6:45 AM

From Al Qaeda's point of view do you think they look back on the 9/11 attacks as a net gain? On 9/10 they basically had a country (Afghanistan) lots of funding and willing volunteers and training facilities that were pretty much unbothered. Now, no more country, tougher funding, willing volunteers are probably still there perhaps of arguable quality and training facilities are a little tougher to find. In OBL's own words the goal was to remove infidel influence (read US and Israel) in the Middle East. How's that working out for you Osama?

What do you think the result would be of another major attack on US soil even partially on the scale of 9/11? Do you think that would make us more or less likely to pack up and leave the Middle East?

In my opinion Al Qaede would look back on 9/11 as a major strategic blunder.

Posted by dix | September 13, 2007 7:52 AM

"Who knows, perhaps it is that our security folks have really Gotten Serious and are catching all sorts of terrorists."

The weakness of that hypothesis is that the terrorists that we know of that were caught by security in this country were either pathetically inept (Jose Padilla and the guy who made his own flight instructors suspicious but missed 9/11), or were merely financially supporting organizations that allegedly help terrorism. There might be complex reasons why security agencies would choose to parade laughable terrorist wanna-be's in public while dealing with the real threats secretly, but the FBI has always been far too publicity-hungry for that.

Posted by markm | September 13, 2007 8:02 AM

Isocrates, when I say who knows? I really mean it. If they're foiling a lot of terrorist attacks, I presume they're not telling us about it, that's all, national security being what it is.

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 13, 2007 9:20 AM

I think looking at the attacks that have been done since 9/11 is illustrative. They hit Spain right before their elections. They hit England. It is likely they are trying to isolate the US from it's allies who went into Iraq. Attacking the US makes our allies justified in helping us. Attacking our allies makes the citizens of those countries feel like the US is getting them killed.

What would attacking the US have accomplished in the last 6 years? Nothing, at best. Most likely, any attack in the US would be counter productive. Yes, they have a significantly diminished capacity to attack the US, but it isn't the only reason they haven't done it.

Posted by Njorl | September 13, 2007 9:27 AM

The most important reason we haven't been attacked, of course, is that the TSA people responsible for ensuring that our planes our safe from moisture are well and properly unionized.

Posted by Dave | September 13, 2007 9:32 AM

Megan writes well and her comments are often intersting, but like David Brooks and her former colleagues at the Economist, she tries too hard to please the left-wing (self-styled) intellignetisia.

The Atlantic gives this raving, silver-spooned flibbertigibbet a megaphone to add to wingnut cacophoney

Speak of casting one's pearls before swine.

Posted by ...Max... | September 13, 2007 9:33 AM

Thanks brooksfoe for raising the level of discussion which seemed to be hitting some low points this morning....

I appreciate your point, but I'm also wary because there's been some notable movement recently in the Netherlands regarding Those That Have Not Assimilated. Rotterdam, according to some anecdotal reporting, now appears to be heading towards a majority Muslim population and this does not sit well with many. And what about Pim Fortuyn? The Theo Van Gogh murder threw some additional fuel on the fire.

The worst that can happen, in my view, is that the Dutch, French, Germans, et al continue to ignore their growing Muslim populations until the kettle starts to boil and whistle, and then have Europe suffer through a subsequent right-wing (of the Jackbooted variety) backlash. Bruce Bawer has made this same point (has a blog and book).

Better that the Dutch get tough now with their immigrants, though assimilation will be tough, I agree. It's not just about learning the langugage but learning the nuances of society. For all their talk about inclusiveness, there's an underlying 'racism light' in Dutch society that's extremely disturbing because it is so covert.

Posted by Michael W | September 13, 2007 9:37 AM

Okay, Megan. I probably shouldn't have written that. But there are many people who want to kick Bush and Cheney when they're down--chiefly because they're down. If they were at 55% in the polls, a lot of the same pundits who attack them now would be singing their praises (no not Paul Krugman, but certainly wafflers like David Brooks and David Gergen).

If someone had foretold on September 12th of 2001 that, after a mild recession, we'd have several years of solid growth and no more terrorist attacks on American soil, most Americans wouldn't have believed it. Things have been a lot better than most people expected and Bush and Cheney have had something to do with that.

Yes, I know the usual litany of their failures--from missing WMD's and a botched occupation in Iraq, to the disaster in New Orleans, but they have also taken important measures that have made us safer--like the removal of the Taliban, the drying up of terrorist financing, the enactment of the Patriot Act, and the courageous authorization of coercive interrogation techniques. Meanwhile, their economic policies have brought us growth, lower taxes and only a small deficit.

Is George Bush my hero? No. He has disappointed me too many times. Nevertheless, unlike so many these days, I give him credit for the things he has done right.

Posted by Isocrates | September 13, 2007 11:00 AM

Megan writes: "If they're foiling a lot of terrorist attacks, I presume they're not telling us about it, that's all, national security being what it is."

Not even remotely plausible. If they'd had successes of that nature Bush and Cheney and Rove would have been crowing about them incessantly during the 2006 elections.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 13, 2007 11:33 AM

Pearsl?!

For sheer naiveté, how can you beat this?

"Isocrates, when I say who knows? I really mean it. If they're foiling a lot of terrorist attacks, I presume they're not telling us about it, that's all, national security being what it is. Posted by Megan McArdle | September 13, 2007 9:20 AM"

Yeah, right. Foiling the turrists and keeping quiet about it.

Ack.

Posted by Steve Kelso | September 13, 2007 11:51 AM

MoeLarryAndJesus: "Not even remotely plausible. If they'd had successes of that nature Bush and Cheney and Rove would have been crowing about them incessantly during the 2006 elections."

Oh, it's very, very plausible. All kinds of little things are caught and taken care of, before they become big things. And they're never revealed, because doing so would also reveal how we found out - it had to be due to a bug placed here, or a spy placed there - which means that source gets destroyed or killed, which means we can't sweep up little things that way anymore. The public at large will never know until that source is no longer useful, and, if it's a spy, can be extracted safely out of harm's way. And sometimes we'll never know, even then. This trumps even election-time bragging points, and politicians know it.

Google VENONA some time.

Posted by Paul Brinkley | September 13, 2007 12:07 PM

I wish I'd thought of calling myself Starscream!

It could be that Al Qaeda has a 7 year planning and execution cycle for a major operation in the U.S. And they wouldn't have gotten started right away after 9/11/01, it was such a major attack they would have wanted to sit back and see what developed.

I also think Al Qaeda finds it far more productive to mount attacks in Europe than in America. The American tendency (post-9/11) is to harden its position and or take strong action after being attacked, while the Europeans seem to cave in when attacked. A good example is the Spanish elections and subsequent withdrawal from Iraq after the Madrid bombings, which is regarded as a major victory by Al Qaeda. Terrorists get real results from attacking Europe, even a failed attack has the desired effect of alerting Europeans to the danger of being allied with the U.S. and increases popular anti-Americanism. It's a win/win proposition for them.

And when will all these comment attacks on Megan's qualifications to blog at The Atlantic stop? They are getting tiresome. I wish those making those comments would get over themselves...

Posted by wss | September 13, 2007 12:19 PM

Isocrates, have you considered the possibility that Bush and Cheney are down in the polls because their policies stink, and that most commentators are "down on them" for the same reasons most Americans are?

Things have certainly not been a lot better than I expected; they have been a lot worse. I never expected that 6 years after the outpouring of sympathy we got on 9/11, the US could have screwed up so badly that the majority of people in the Western world would regard us with antipathy and distrust. Well into the fall of 2002, I still couldn't believe we were actually going to do something as crazy as invading Iraq.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 12:25 PM

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

Posted by sam | September 13, 2007 12:38 PM

Well, there were certainly major Al-Qaeda attacks on Americans. They just haven't been in the US. I assume Rich's "12 to 24 months" included the attacks on the USS Cole, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and so on -- otherwise it's not accurate.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 1:01 PM

I am seeing an increasing ability on the part of Bush (republican?) critics to constantly move the goalposts for a terrorist attack. In the days of Sept. 11 it seemeed we were waiting for the next attack any day now. In the days of invading Iraq we were told that this distraction would allow the terrorists to more effective plan their operations and hit us again within their "12 to 24 month" operation planning....now that we've out live both of those without a successful attack on US soil, it's back to once every 7 years, as if the terrorists have actually committed themselves to hit us once, wait 7 years and then hit us again, which is quit possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard presupposed about an enemy. No enemy is going to have a 21 year plan of attack consisting of 3 attacks over a 21 year period. They're going to hit us as much in that time frame as they are able. I can't believe someone suggesting that Bin Laden had some business plan that calls for an attack once every 7 years.

Posted by sam | September 13, 2007 1:03 PM

brooksfoe and others,

Looking at it from another point of view, if we were hit with a large terrorist attack 4 months after invading Iraq, would you have claimed it was the result of our misallocation of resources that caused the attack to make it through or would you be steadfastly claiming that there was no way we could see this one coming, considering they usually time their large attacks on US soil much farther apart (7 years).

Posted by sam | September 13, 2007 1:10 PM

He said 'flibbertigibbert'. Steve Kelso called Megan a 'flibbertigibbert'!!! Wonderful!! My grandmother used that word. I bet the last time I heard it was over 40yrs ago. No wonder I keep my subscription to Atlantic.

Seems to me (a damn-serious lefty) that government employees and procedures have probably done a good bit to keep us safe. To be honest, Bush & Friends can credibly claim some credit. Not even a small part of the credit they are claiming, but some. Sure, he had to be beaten around the face and chest to put DHS together but finally he did. After false starts and blind alleys, possibly the CIA and FBI are doing somewhat better. And that is something. Not enough but something. See, I'm a liberal...see, both sides have 'Things To Say'.

But the real reason I think we're safer is that individual Americans have decided that we--by God!!!--are not going to let THAT happen again.

'Shoebomber' Reid would have brought down that airliner. The attendants and passengers beat the crap out of him and tied him in his seat. That's what keeps us safe when we're in the air.

I happen to live near salt water and have a nice boat. If I or my sailing friends became aware of Mohammed Atta trying to learn how to anchor his boat there will be a lot of citizens taking action. Calling the Coasties will be the least of it.

I know it goes a lot deeper that this. Of course. (I 'See Both Sides'.) But 300 million pissed off Americans has at the least made planning something like 9/11 more complicated.

Posted by JohnMcC | September 13, 2007 1:21 PM

sam, this whole discussion is really silly. There haven't been enough verifiable Al-Qaeda attacks in the US to say anything meaningful about whether they're up or down. In fact, there have only been 2: the two World Trade Center bombings (and I'm not actually clear on how closely the first was tied to Al-Qaeda). The other major AQ attacks were the embassy bombings in '98, but those were in Africa, and the measures that have turned US Embassies into fortresses since then started immediately, under Clinton. And then there was the USS Cole, which is still not clear but presumed to be AQ, and the Khobar Towers, which was presumed AQ but which neocons seem to be trying to pin on Iran these days, for obvious reasons. And of course Richard Reid, which happened within a year of 9/11 and failed due to wardrobe malfunction, not anything George Bush had done. And again, I'm not entirely clear on how close Reid was to AQ.

In the absence of anywhere near enough data, the reasonable thing to say is that increased government harassment of Mideastern men at airports has probably made it harder for any potential AQ terrorists to get into the US, and there aren't many potential AQ recruits in the US for mainly sociological reasons. And that's what Megan said. And also that it's much more effective for jihadists to kill US troops in the Muslim world at the moment than it would be to target US civilians in the US, so why would they try? But really: who knows? We don't know.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 1:25 PM

Sam:

if we were hit with a large terrorist attack 4 months after invading Iraq, would you have claimed it was the result of our misallocation of resources

I don't think I would have claimed it was the "result" of our misallocation of resources. I think I would have said it showed that our resources could be better concentrated on protecting the US, rather than speculative invasions of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism against the US.

Also, I think the general international reaction to such an attack at that point would have been along the lines of "Well, you asked for it." I would probably be noting at that point that we would never be facing such a response had we stuck to rebuilding Afghanistan and protecting our own borders, rather than speculative invasions... etc.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 1:33 PM

I'm okay with the rest of the world thinking we're a bunch of cowboys. In fact, if other countries think that the US is a little bit dangerous and a little bit unpredictable, it's probably a good thing for negotiating treaties and the like.

If AQ had learned that attacking the US is a bad idea because it pisses us off, then good for them. My biggest fear post-9/11 was that they'd have another successful attack and kill a bunch more people, thereby dramatically increasing the chances that we'd take the gloves off and start killing anyone who looked like a terrorist or terrorist supporter with great prejudice.

As it is, our reactions were restrained, probably too restrained in the case of Iraq. I suspect that if the Democrats win and the MoveOn types get their way and we pull out of Iraq, THEN we'll see more attacks. At least partially because retreating will show that we are, in fact, weak in spirit if not in technology.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if close contact with our military has shown some in the Middle East that Americans are not weak. Arab cultures respect strength and our military forces are strong.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 13, 2007 1:52 PM

if other countries think that the US is a little bit dangerous and a little bit unpredictable, it's probably a good thing for negotiating treaties and the like.

Yeah, I love to sign agreements with people who are dangerous and unpredictable. Excellent business strategy there, Mr. EI.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 2:06 PM

Isocrates:
[T]hey have also taken important measures that have made us safer--like the removal of the Taliban, the drying up of terrorist financing, the enactment of the Patriot Act, and the courageous authorization of coercive interrogation techniques.

Courageous? Are you trying to be funny? Courageous would have been standing up for the values that makes America great; taking a road that, while possible harder, didn't involve selling our national soul. And even that is assuming that torture -- and that's what we're talking about here, so you'll have to forgive me for not using more ambiguous language -- is effective, which is, at best, widely debated. Instead, he willingly, seemingly eagerly, abandoned every tenent of decency and justice by taking the easy road.

No, authorizing torture is not courageous. It is callow. It is complete a complete surrender to fear, and this is compunded by how secretive they're being about it. If Bush were to say, "I'm going to torture people because it's the only way to get the information we need," I would still call it cowardly, short-sighted, and foolish. However, at least there'd be an argument for it being courageous, because he'd be opening himself up to the political reprecussions. By making a point to hide and deny, he's attempting to avoid even that.

There is no courage in torture. It is motivated by malice or by fear. I do not believe Bush is evil, but I do believe he is afraid.

Posted by Christopher | September 13, 2007 2:14 PM

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."-Niccolo Machiavelli

Brooksfoe, Christopher and many others here have a lot to learn from the great philosopher. They want to conduct a foreign policy of sensitivity and compassion. They want to be liked. I want a foreign policy that serves our interests, even if that means we incur some disapprobation.

Posted by Isocrates | September 13, 2007 2:31 PM

By and large, yes, I would like us to be considered compassionate overseas. However, I'm certainly not advocating we abandon all military activity overseas; I was very much in favor of the Afghanistan war, and one of the (many) reasons I was against Iraq was that I felt it would be a distraction from the war we'd already started. That, like an impatient child, we'd forget our old war when presented with a shiny new one; especially since I think many Americans had wanted this shiny new war for a decade or more. While I was against the Iraq war, I am certainly not against all wars, or all military action.

Clearly, you'd prefer America was more feared than loved, if you had to chose one. The logical conclusion of this is that other nations go along with us out of fear rather than any sense of shared goals. We would, in essence, be a bully. If this is your goal, than we simply want to live in different Americas, and there isn't much of amywhere to go. I will say, though, that behaving like this can only work for so long. America is great, but not so great that we can withstand the combined might of the rest of the world. Ruling through fear has serious limitations, and it doesn't seem like you recognize that.

I think we would likely share a desire to have the world view the American military as an unstoppable force. We would likely disagree on specifics here; I don't believe it should be viewed as an instrument that wages war on civilians. Maybe you don't either, but it's where I see torture leading, inevitably. It also seems to me the subtext of your "foreign policy that serves our interests, even if that means we incur some disapprobation." This, however, is another reason I feel Bush has failed. What reason does Iran have to fear us after watching us falter in Iraq? I know some feel this is because we've kept the gloves on, so to speak, in Iraq. If that is how you feel, nothing either of us has to say to the other will register. We'll simply be talking past each other.

Posted by Christopher | September 13, 2007 3:32 PM

Christoper,

I agree with a lot of what you said in reference to Isocrates, if you carried out his sentiment to the logical conclusion on a grand scale.

However, I would just temper his thoughts by adding in that when it comes to times of war, we should be feared rather than loved.

We generally don't throw our might around at the slightest whim. However, once we do commit to violence, I would indeed rather be feared than loved.

Posted by sam | September 13, 2007 3:48 PM

They want to be liked. I want a foreign policy that serves our interests

You keep saying this, and I keep repeating that this presumes a zero-sum world in which, for American interests to be served, other countries' interests must suffer. I keep asking you to provide a single instance of a situation in which other countries must lose in order for America to win, and you keep failing to do so.

Even if it were true that America's gain is generally other countries' loss, which it isn't, it would be stupid to openly phrase the argument this way, since it arouses other countries' anger, unites them against us, and causes us to fail to achieve the goals we sought. Our belligerent foreign policy over the last 6 years has been nothing but disaster; it has won us nothing. You offer your familiar nostrum from Machiavelli, which one saw ad nauseum around 2004, as if it had some relevance here. It doesn't. If we are "feared" these days, it's more like one fears the drunken guy making threats on the sidewalk, not like one fears and respects the power of legitimate authority. In any case, our foolish deployment of force has caused us to look weak, not strong.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 4:09 PM

To conduct the 9/11 attacks, the following had to happen:

1. Suitable hijackers had to be recruited. And it wasn't just a matter of finding people willing to do it, they had to have the aptitude and discipline needed to go through the training and carry out the attacks. On top of that, they had to be people who could reliably get into the country (they can't leave that to chance, if the plan called for 20 hijackers and only 10 could get into the country, that would be a problem). It would take time to assemble that kind of team.

2. All the hijackers had to be trained (flight school, etc...). And they wouldn't necessarily all be able to enter the country and begin training simultaneously.

3. Financing had to be arranged for all this to happen, M. Atta actually tried to apply for a federal agricultural loan.

4. The plan had to be finalized by AQ's loose command structure. Also I think they were flexible on the timing. They were not shooting for a deadline. This would tend to drag things out rather then speed things up.

The process could easily take 7 years. After all the effort and resources put into it, why endanger everything by rushing? I'm not saying that AQ would plan on hitting us once every 7 years because that is desirable on their part. I'm simply saying that operations on the scale of 9/11 are much more difficult to pull off than a simple truck bombing somewhere in the Middle East and 7 years is the best AQ can do.

Posted by wss | September 13, 2007 5:18 PM

Christopher, your response is interesting. I don't think that brute force is the right solution in all cases-or even in most cases, for that matter. I wasn't suggesting that we start bullying Britain or Australia, both of which are valuable allies.

But there is a fundamental debate among those who make foreign policy between those like Hnery Kissinger who favor Realpolitk and those, like Madeline Albright, who wish to make humanitarian cosiderations the centerpiece of American policy. I 'm with Kissinger.

Yes of course we need finesse. Yes, we need allies and it would be smart to treat our allies well. But let's not allow a deblitating softness that masquerades as morality to prevent us from using force or the threat of force on our enemies when necessary. The war in Iraq was probably a strategic error, but the underlying principle of preemption is sound. There is nothing either immoral or unreasonable about dealing with threats before they metastasize.

Nor is there anything wrong with dealing roughly with terrorists who have valuable information. These people want to destroy all of Western civiilization. They cut off heads, and blow up American soldiers with IED's--all in the service of an insane creed. So, I have no symppathy for them.

Posted by Isocrates | September 13, 2007 5:21 PM

brooksfoe, I was not proposing a business plan but a foreign policy attitude. In business, where the courts enforce contracts and the police enforce the law, I wouldn't recommend the same sorts of things that I might in the world of international relations, where there are no courts or world government. Nations are not companies or people living in a neighborhood.

The US does more to help out other nations in times of trouble than any other nation. I think this is a good thing. When disaster strikes, the US military is often the first to arrive and help. US citizens give more than those of any other nation to help foreigners in trouble. We give money to countries all over the world, more than we should, probably. The US Navy has kept the seas safe for commerce for decades.

On the other hand, when someone threatens or attacks us, I want everyone else to take a step back because they don't want to get any on them when it hits the fan. Not that we should respond to every threat with unrestrained violence. But we should not let someone hit us repeatedly with no reaction. I'm quite happy that after we got hit on 9/11, we responded by destroying the base of operations of those who hurt us AND destroyed another regime that had been fighting us for a decade and supporting terrorists even if it was not directly involved in 9/11. Every country in the Middle East has its hands dirty with terrorism. We put them on notice by taking out two of them over the course of a couple of years. Yes, we may not have the soldiers to go and occupy another nation but there is no doubt that could destroy all of the other Middle Eastern nations if we chose to. I WANT people like Aminida-whack-job to be worried about what might happen. I want Lybia and Lebanon to be worried. I hate it when our congressmen go over and suck up to these guys. It undermines our negotiating position.

Christopher, my "gloves on" comment did not refer to torture. I was referring to the fact that our soldiers have been laboring under rules of engagement that are designed to protect civilians and to avoid insulting other religions. Many of our soldiers have died rather than violate these rules. When terrorists shoot at us from a mosque, we would be entirely justified in leveling it with artillery. But we don't. When we invaded Iraq, we tried very hard to surgically take out the leadership and kill as few civilians and even soldiers as we could. We do this even though it costs the lives of American soldiers.

I'm not saying we should take the gloves off, necessarily, but some of our current difficulty is directly a result of how we fight. In fact, my comment was that I was worried that another attack might provoke us into a massive retaliation... worry indicating that I did not favor such a thing.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 13, 2007 6:00 PM

and blow up American soldiers with IED's

That's war, Isocrates. We blow them up with Hellfire missiles. If we can waterboard them, they can waterboard us.

the underlying principle of preemption is sound.

The underlying principle of preemption is stupid for precisely the reasons exposed in the occupation of Iraq: you don't know whether your invasion is justified until it's too late; the reasons why you are really invading probably have little to do with rational calculations, and more to do with powerful interest groups and domestic political calculus; and the unintended consequences of wars are so awful, so unpredictable, and so uncontrollable that they should never be launched except in response to direct aggression.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 6:08 PM

The US does more to help out other nations in times of trouble than any other nation.

This is false. As a proportion of our income or on a per capita basis, we almost always do much less than northern European countries and Japan. In many cases we do less even in flat terms.

US citizens give more than those of any other nation to help foreigners in trouble. We give money to countries all over the world, more than we should, probably.

On both a per capita basis, and as a percentage of GNP, the United States gives less than almost all other developed countries. In 2006 it gave 0.17% of its GNP in foreign aid. That put it second to last in the OECD; Sweden, tops on the list, gave over 1%, and the UK gave 0.51%. This was similar to what happened in post-tsunami aid in 2005: the US gave the largest amount, $350 million, but the UK gave over $110 million, and we have 5 times the UK's population, so they gave more per person.

Moreover, we are violating our repeated pledges at international summits to give more, signed by presidents including GWB. In Rio in 1992 and again at Monterey in 2001, the US pledged along with the rest of the developed world to give 0.7% of its GNP in foreign aid. We haven't made any such effort and have stopped even pretending we will.

It is sometimes claimed that US private giving makes up for our low government foreign aid. This is false. Private giving in 2002 amounted to $12.2 billion, less than the US's then $15 billion in government foreign aid. The claims of higher generosity are only made possible by including the $18 billion in remittances to family and friends which were sent home by foreign workers in the US. Calling this "foreign aid" is ludicrous; these people are not Americans, and the money they send is simply money they have earned in the US. Is profit repatriated to the US by GM from its sales in China "aid" from China to the US? In any case, these sums have never been compared to the remittances sent home by foreign workers in European countries, which are also large.

What Americans do more than any other country in the world is boast, often inaccurately, about how much they give. As a result, we are earning a reputation as a nation of blowhards who renege on their promises.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 13, 2007 6:37 PM

brooksfoe, you wrote:

And also that it's much more effective for jihadists to kill US troops in the Muslim world at the moment than it would be to target US civilians in the US, so why would they try?

So is it fair to say you agree with the assertion that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"?

Posted by SG | September 13, 2007 6:44 PM

Nor is there anything wrong with dealing roughly with terrorists who have valuable information. These people want to destroy all of Western civiilization. They cut off heads, and blow up American soldiers with IED's--all in the service of an insane creed. So, I have no symppathy for them. - Isocrates

That's war, Isocrates. We blow them up with Hellfire missiles. If we can waterboard them, they can waterboard us. - brooksfoe

What are you implying, brooksfoe? That there's a moral equivalence between American soldiers and Islamofascist terrorists? That AQI & friends hew to a sort of Golden Rule ("if the occupying infidels stop waterboarding, it's only fair that we reciprocate")?

It's not like US forces are targeting innocent civilians with missiles, or indiscriminately raiding Iraqi villages for people to waterboard (not that I'm necessarily defending the use of that particular interrogation tactic on anyone). The missiles and interrogations are targeted reactions to a fanatical, violent insurrection that threatens to tear apart the country. If the insurrection stopped, the missiles and interrogations would stop. However, the opposite is not true.

Posted by Rob Leder | September 13, 2007 11:19 PM

brooksfoe, I doubt you would see it this way, but couldn't the expense of keeping the sea lanes open for world trade with the U.S. Navy and stationing troops in friendly countries to guarantee peace be considered foreign aid?

The U.S. gave a certain dollar amount in tsunami aid in 2005, but what about the fact that most of the dollars donated by the developed world sat uselessly in bank accounts in the months immediately following the tsunami because nobody except the U.S. Navy could physically deliver the needed aid to many of the stricken areas. The presence of the U.S. armed forces in that area at that time provided no benefit to the U.S. at all, it was solely to provide assistance to those who needed it. And it cost the U.S. billions of dollars.

Posted by wss | September 13, 2007 11:31 PM

That there's a moral equivalence between American soldiers and Islamofascist terrorists?

Most IED attacks are not staged by Islamofascist terrorists (AQI is extremely small), but by militias representing various Iraqi sectarian factions. Many of those militias and many of those staging the attacks are actually part of the government's own police and Army. 62% of Iraqis feel that attacks on US troops are justified. 62% of Iraqis are not "Islamofascist terrorists".

couldn't the expense of keeping the sea lanes open for world trade with the U.S. Navy and stationing troops in friendly countries to guarantee peace be considered foreign aid? - wss

No one can substantiate these claims that the US Navy "keeps the sea lanes open" or "guarantees peace". In the areas in question, near the Straits of Malacca, there is actually a serious piracy problem; it is being effectively combated by the Malaysian, Singapore and Indonesian Navies, which have rejected US offers of help. The US does not station troops in any of these countries, which have friendly relations with each other and face no external threats.

most of the dollars donated by the developed world sat uselessly in bank accounts in the months immediately following the tsunami because nobody except the U.S. Navy could physically deliver the needed aid

If you wanted to create a dedicated rapid response force to provide humanitarian aid in stricken areas of the world, you could do it for probably 1/1000th of the budget of the US Navy. It is very nice that the US uses its navy to provide this kind of help, but if the navy were not providing help to suffering villages, it would be cruising around the Indian Ocean somewhere else and costing just as much money. When you stop your car to help someone with a flat tire, you do not get to deduct part of the cost of your car as a charitable expense. And it is exactly these kinds of accounting tricks to raise the amount of aid we claim to give to others which makes others very suspicious of our claim that we give a lot of aid.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 14, 2007 2:44 AM

"Just because we haven't experienced tragedy does not prove we are doing things right. This is causality 101, and it's something we drum into UCLA MPP students in their first year. Causal connections have to be examined, not assumed, or you'll get into trouble."

OK, Amy Zegart, if that is your real name, let's try a thought experiment, shall we?

Assume we've been hit several times since 9/11, with everything else held constant.

Would you not be arguing, with equal passion, that the more recent attacks had occurred because "They hate us more now" or "We were distracted by Bush's bad priorities" or "The military and DHS screwed up" or "Our resources are stretched" or any of 1000 other things?

In my thought experiment, you'd be lambasting something else. And if you are to be consistent, you'd have to accept my reworking of your first sentence to read "Just because we HAVE experienced tragedy does not prove we are doing things WRONG."

But you wouldn't, would you? Logic is a b!tch, ain't it?

Perhaps you are familiar with the expression, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Posted by Chester White | September 14, 2007 11:03 AM

In 2004, the US government gave $20 billion in foreign aid. That's twice as much as the next country (Japan). That's .17% of GNI, which is lower than most developed countries. In 2004, private aid (not including personal remittances) was $24.2 billion. Personal remittances amounted to $47 billion. The World Bank extimated that all remittances from host countries to home countries totaled $160 billion. So the US accounted for almost 1/3 of the total remittances while having around 5% of the population.

Private remittances may not be "aid" but they are helpful and are only possible because foreigners are here working and being paid by US companies. They apparently have enough money that they are sending some back home.

Also keep in mind that in situations like the tsunami, the US military was able to transport supplies. In one case, an aircraft carrier provided clean water to an area.

While creating a roving "disaster relief force" might be nice, the fact is that we have a military. When disaster strikes, our military compromises it's readiness for combat to help out in disasters.

Also, don't forget to count 40 years of military spending after WWII to keep the Soviet Union from invading the rest of Europe. Oh, and that spending has allowed the European nations to self-rightously reduce their military spending.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at how much money we give to countries who appear to hate our guts.

As far as giving to the UN... that corrupt organization appears to have "oppose US power" as one of it's unspoken mandates. Not sure why we should be giving money there... didn't they steal enough from Saddam?

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 14, 2007 1:50 PM

Brooksfoe: "They want to be liked. I want a foreign policy that serves our interests"

You keep saying this, and I keep repeating that this presumes a zero-sum world in which, for American interests to be served, other countries' interests must suffer. I keep asking you to provide a single instance of a situation in which other countries must lose in order for America to win, and you keep failing to do so.

Power. Influence. They are zero-sum games, and they are what the people running most of the world's governments value.

No one can substantiate these claims that the US Navy "keeps the sea lanes open" or "guarantees peace". In the areas in question, near the Straits of Malacca, there is actually a serious piracy problem; it is being effectively combated by the Malaysian, Singapore and Indonesian Navies, which have rejected US offers of help. The US does not station troops in any of these countries, which have friendly relations with each other and face no external threats.

Or perhaps it's no coincidence that the pirates choose to operate where the US Navy is barred from patrolling...

Posted by markm | September 15, 2007 10:25 PM

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by George | November 10, 2007 2:16 AM

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by George | November 10, 2007 2:17 AM

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by George | November 10, 2007 6:50 AM

buy cheap meds online viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy order viagra viagra

Posted by buy generic online viagra | November 15, 2007 2:08 AM

cotenancy morigerously omnivolent nondescript paragenetic grendel smectite loggia
http://www.robyncolor.com/ >Robyn Color
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/forecast.asp?zipcode=18420

Posted by Julianne Michael | November 20, 2007 1:24 PM

cotenancy morigerously omnivolent nondescript paragenetic grendel smectite loggia
http://dabr.home.mindspring.com/carving/ >Dave's Carving Page
http://www.countrysideonline.co.uk/

Posted by Lila Dejesus | November 25, 2007 6:10 AM