I've been thinking a bit lately about where the war on terrorism is heading.  As things stand now, I suspect that we're going to start drawing down troops in Iraq rather soon after the elections, and that our extremely dangerousfixation on fighting the drug war in Afghanistan could well push that country back into a state that presents a threat to U.S. national security.  U.S. policy toward Iran remains non-existent, and I think that quite soon we may discover that they have a nuclear deterrent.  I do not buy the administration's bluster about "not tolerating" a nuclear Iran, and I think that in fact we will find that it is not particularly difficult to tolerate.

My primary concern is the safety of our country.  How safe are we?  Is another attack imminent?

There seem to be two major schools of thought among experts.  Some, like Michael Scheuer and Peter Bergen, among others, continue to emphasize OBL the man, and al Qaeda the organization.  Scheuer recently noted that he thought the fatwa from a Saudi cleric authorizing OBL to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets in the U.S. should be causing loud alarm bells to go off.  Bergen believes that taking out OBL and Zawahiri would be meaningful blows against a cohesive organization that continues to pose a dire threat to America.

The other school of thought holds that we have grossly overestimated the enemy, and that the dramatic transformation undertaken in the United States in response to the terror of 9/11 was an overreaction.  Examples of this school of thought can be found here and here.  This viewpoint is characterized by the belief that, to the extent it ever was, al Qaeda is no longer a coherent organization, even in the sense of being a “franchise” operation.  Rather, it is an ideology that is inspiring and activating Muslims and Arabs to rise up against America and its foreign policy.  Al Qaeda has given rise to small, loosely affiliated groups in various countries, and a jihadi culture that can be found on the internet, in chat rooms and online journals frequented by fellow believers.

I am not sure which school to side with, or whether the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.  I find it extremely difficult to believe that either the war in Iraq or the incredible expertise of the TSA have prevented catastrophe.  I know that Gene Healy has wondered whether there really are legions of nutballs who are genuinely willing and able to come over here and drive planes into buildings.  I for one find this somewhat hard to believe; aren’t there at least a few?  Like a hundred?  If there were ten teams of ten guys each, doesn’t it stand to reason that they could still get through our defenses?

But they haven’t.  And why would they wait?  I’m beginning to wonder whether both schools of thought on al Qaeda are partly right.  Perhaps al Qaeda in the sense of being a large corporate structure doesn’t exist anymore.  But perhaps there is a tiny core of individuals, previously unknown to the U.S. intelligence community, who are waiting to get off a big, spectacular attack.  Though I think an actual nuclear attack is unlikely, it’s not entirely difficult to imagine, say, a dirty bomb attack or a crude anthrax attack.  And though such an attack would probably not even yield casualties on the scale of 9/11, can you imagine the response by the government?  Can you imagine the headlines and the photographs of people vomiting in emergency rooms?  Can you imagine how the Red States would respond?  After the last attack, we invaded one country linked to it and one country unlinked to it.  What would the government do in such a scenario?

I’m not sure, but I imagine it wouldn’t be the right thing.  I’ll have more on this line of thinking later, but I’d certainly appreciate input if anyone has thoughts.  I’m not wedded to any particular theory, but it’s troubling either way.