Seven Years Post 9-11: Are We Safer?

Today is the seven year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The Bush administration is entering its final months, and a new president will inherit two wars and face an evolving terrorist threat.

On this day, I cannot help but reflect on a forgotten moment during the Republican National Convention. A statement made by first lady Laura Bush in the midst of the euphoria over the selection of Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP on the Republican ticket. "Let's not forget," she said at the opening of the RNC, "President Bush has kept the American people safe."

Are we safer today?

The answer is no. The threat from al-Qaeda, its franchises, and its wannabes, is more real than ever. Seven years have passed since 9-11, but there is still no real effective way to combat terrorism. Al-Qaeda, which appeared to be in disarray four years ago and its capabilities dramatically diminished, has grown stronger once again in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. It has also successfully expanded its reach throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It exists in places it never has been in before like Iraq, Algeria and Somalia. Bush's War on Terror has failed. It has failed not because of the lack of resources or effort but rather because of the method and approach.

Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? Al-Qaeda never constituted the real reason for the invasion, and once and for all America has to face up to the truth about this debacle, stop celebrating the "surge" in Iraq, and devote more resources to the real war: the war that has been lost for seven years in Afghanistan.

Is al-Qaeda's threat real?

It is very important to remember that the attacks of 9-11 succeeded because the U.S. failed to counter al-Qaeda in 1993, when its war against the U.S. really began with an attempt to blow up the Twin Towers with a truck bomb in its garage. Al-Qaeda also bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, as well as the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Therefore, it took eight years before it was able to deliver its most devastating blow in 2001. Seven years after 9-11, al-Qaeda is stronger, more spread out, and more elusive. Why has it taken the Bush Administration so long to finally consider shifting some of the U.S. troops from Iraq into Afghanistan?

Still in Denial

Meanwhile, even after seven years, many people do not believe that al-Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks. An independent U.S.-based group called World Public Opinion.org asked 16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. An average of only 46 percent of the people polled in each country blames al-Qaeda for the attacks. Fifteen percent still say the U.S. government plotted the attacks despite that "even bin Laden has publicly made statements affirming that al-Qaeda was behind the September 11th attacks," according to World Public Opinion.org's director, Steven Kull.

For its part, Al-Qaeda is planning to release a video message within 24 hours to mark the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11. The terrorist network's media production unit as-Sahab published banners on the Internet earlier this week flagging the release, with a graphic saying ``Wait 11 September,'' The banner showed a silhouette of a face with a question mark over it. Will it be bin Laden once again reassuring everyone that he is still alive?

Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV

Comments

[PT6]

Frontline reports: "The relationship between the bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family is quite exceptional in that it not simply one of business ties: it is also a relationship of trust, of friendship and of shared secrets. This is particularly the case with regard to the group's present-day leaders and the Soudairi clan."

The Current Administration's Saudi connection is also very strong as this article with a picture of showing them hugging and kissing and details the those connections.

The Saudis clearly want more of the high oil prices we are seeing to continue. They will probably do anything to help get a similar administration elected in Washington.

So using the violence in Pakistan to re-frame the election will only hurt the American people's view of the current and cloned administration, of "four more years".

[PT6]

Frontline reports: "The relationship between the bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family is quite exceptional in that it not simply one of business ties: it is also a relationship of trust, of friendship and of shared secrets. This is particularly the case with regard to the group's present-day leaders and the Soudairi clan."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html

The Current Administration's Saudi connection is also very strong as this article with a picture of showing them hugging and kissing and details the those connections.

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

The Saudis clearly want more of the high oil prices we are seeing to continue. They will probably do anything to help get a similar administration elected in Washington.

So using the violence in Pakistan to re-frame the election will only hurt the American people's view of the current and cloned administration, of "four more years".

[justice2008]

The blogger is right on the money. Thanks to George Bush and his distraction in Iraq Al Qaeda is now stronger and it is all over the Middle East threatening our interests. The recent attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen speaks to this.

[motley2]

Has Al-Qaeda released the video yet? Is it too much to hope that the recent incursions by our special forces into Pakistan may have inferred with their capacity to produce and distribute the video?

[jad114]

Not yet...but then again maybe al Qaeda is saving the tape for an October surprise.

[WOLFIE69]

It would of course we wonderful? fair? just? reasonable?
if the various commenters and editorialist on the vengeful attack on the United States
that occurred on September 11th 2001, ever paid expressed respect? sympathy? to
the twenty five million peope of Afghanistan who were destabilized by President Carter
and then National Security adviser Brzezinski back in hoary 1978 and where President Reagan and his intelligence chief Casey organized the Mujahadeem in concert with the Pakistani intelligence
services, who were then left to their own devices with US supplied stinger missiles; that is,
if all those commenters and editorialists paid a visit to the town of Truth and Consequences
and contemplate the laws of revenge; and how some intercession might be made in that law; contemplated the idea of what constitutes
"the national interest" through a variety of lenses and not just those of imperialists. The same respect
might be paid to the peoples of Iraq for actions committed on them by a regime that would be hanged
at a Nuremberg Tribunal. Or the encirclement of Russia subsequent to the end of the standoff of
of the cold war. Was that really necessary? Is it? If these issues were ever entertained publically in a more
imaginative way than they are currently with candidate of both parties wanting more war
and better executed ones, wouldn't that be something, might that not be "pro bono" indeed? In whose interest is the status quo of continuous war?
Ah good will!
Sincerely,

[justice2008]

Unfortunately Afghanistan has been throughout history the doormat for innvading armies. Many cultures owe Afghans an apology starting from the mongols, the brits , to the soviets and so on.

[appleknocker]

I agree with the thrust of your comment, but please fill me in on something. I know about Reagan's role, but what did Carter/Brzezinski do to "destabilize" Afghanistan?

[siegfried89]

I feel less safe. It has nothing to do with al-Qaeda and much to do with a lack of affordable health care, the economy in general and the threat of more foreign incursions that will put this nation into even more debt, leaving nothing to shore up social services. What are the taxpayers getting for their money?

[dho3]

One more thing. Polling in other countries is never a tried a true assessment of what is happening throughout the world or in our country. Remember, a large number of Chinese believe that there never has been a man to the moon and it was an American hoax. It is called brain washing.

[idest]

A large number of Americans believe the first moon mission was a hoax too. I don't, but a lot of folks too.

[dho3]

Brilliant commentary of our state of affairs. Lets see now. If I remember we have not had a major terrorist attack in this country since 9-11. Lets go all the way back to just before we entered Iraq. That was the time when UN inspectors were denied on multiple, lets repeat that simple word, not a difficult one, multiple times to be allowed in areas to look for weapons of mass destruction to include nuclear weapons. Ultimatum after ultimatum was issued without any action. After countless number of ultimatums, finally we acted as we should have. We knew they had wmd, after all Kurds in the north had been gassed, but again the reason for entering the country was to finally act on multiple ultimatums given to Saddam Hussein. Terrorists have moved elsewhere, but their organization has been disrupted. Kind of like what we did to the Mafia. They still exist, but on a lower key level. Think before opening one cloaca.

[LeftRight]

Or we could go back and look at the actual history, where Saddam Hussein WAS allowing the inspectors in, and BUSH forced them to get out right before we attacked!

[dho3]

Please, you know that is an out right lie except for the fact they were removed to get them out of harms way. Get real.

[37pappy]

"terrorists have moved elsewhere,but their organization has been disrupted.kind of what we did to the mafia.they still exist,but ona lower key level." this statement is untrue and naive.al qaeda has regrouped, restructured,recallibrated, rearmed and refaced.they have moved operatives into europe via the northern and northeastern part of africa, they also have operatives in many other countries.don't be fooled by the nonsense .the key thing is human intelligence, in which there is little.the thing is that a lot of people underestimate what they are dealing with.the lions are at the door just waiting.they have developed patience.(remember it is the female lions who hunt).the modus operandi has changed.

[dho3]

And your sources for these facts are? And will you disclose these sources. I agree they have moved. But, to tell me they are just as organized as prior to 9-11 is statement that is also naive. The type of terrorist attacks of late have been relatively small, in remote parts of the world and certainly not in the US. What would you do to make it better since you are an expert.

[idest]

This is why we are losing the War on Terror. The sheer ignorance of citizens like this and their pride in that ignorance.

[luckyt]

My thoughts were when I heard what Laura Bush and then Cindy McCain had to say, was that these were the same kind of woman like Barbara Bush. The same kind of woman that Sarah Palin is, these are the woman that spawn and nurture man like George Bush and John McCain. If this is the future of America, their is no hope for those that dream.

[daddysboy]

You can't collect all threats both idle and rumored and mix them with substantiated threats from two decades of time and call that a summary of the threat of terrorism; particularly when the title of your essay implies the actions of the last SEVEN years and not the last twenty. There are many complex reasons why the US did not pursue direct action in the middle east following those early attacks on US sovereignty. Part of the reason is obvious now since bush blundered into the region with our military at his command and we have seen the results. There is a CLEAR shift in US foreign policy between 1999 and 2001 and it was not toward a safer, more effective plan. It appears to me that the newly elected politicians at that time were in fact discussing plans for war prior to the Trade Center terrorist attacks. Every bit of will generated by that shared attack has been spent on the continuation of this early policy plan instead of American domestic safety ;this is why we are not one bit safer from terrorism and terrorists after all these years.

[kwon35]

I will never forget 911 where I lost friends

[kwon35]

I thought she did okay for a Gov. I mean we couldn't expect her to have a great deal knowledge about Foreign Policy now, She does live near Russia, and she really doesn't believe her statement about the WAR is GOD's plan. Nah............. She's just a hockey mom from Alaska.

Did any of you see this video that needs to get out fast? Blown away in the first 20-38 minutes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&hl=en

Question yourself on why are we protecting?

[Mel Menzies]

This topic could just as easily be duplicated here in UK. Yes - I know our 7/7 didn't kill as many people as 9/11, but the sense of outrage and violation of our sovereign territory was similar. And the response has been to bring in a surveillance operation which George Orwell (author of 1984) would have been proud of, and which the Human Rights guys must deplore. What do we do? Bicker about which politicians would better serve us.

Isn't the truth of the matter that human beings are inherently me-centred, and that - until enlightened - they'll do anything to force others to their point of view? All civilisations have been through their cycle in history when they first conquered, then mastered, then mellowed and democratised. If we're honest, we would admit that we, in the Western world, have been guilty of the same sort of atrocities we're witnessing now at the hand of others. Perhaps - and it's a big perhaps - when those we currently call terrorists have reached their Age of Enlightenment, we may see peace. But I suspect that there will then be another nation, another uprising, and another era of terror. Mel Menzies www.melmenzies.co.uk

[kwon35]

Two words.............Fabled Enemies! Google it

[rboylern]

The sight of men in uniform carrying enormous guns and walking through our airports do not make me feel particularly safe, nor do some of the dolts at the security checkpoints.

[AzRealProgressive]

Where is that? Since when are pistols enormous? And if someone has a rifle, how do you define enormous from normal? And what would you do to protect innocent people? What security would you do?

[daddysboy]

Just because you clearly support the use of guns and seem to be OK with them being displayed in public doesn't mean that you can't take this person's experiences at face value. You ask for proof of something that thousands of people across the country have witnessed regularly over the last 7 years. I have found even the most benign instances of guns being displayed to be excessive and primarily designed to intimidate and perpetuate fear. Are security staff actually going to shoot guns in a crowded airport? No.

[JonRaymond]

Bush's war on terror has actually given terrorists more motivation to recruit, grow and strengthen. By going after Iraq, and especially the many thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died as a result, more people have been called to arms to fight the US, and to join terrorist cells. The war in Iraq is for naught and our military people as well as many more Iraqis have fought and died in vain.

[AzRealProgressive]

According to Obama and everyone else we are winning in Iraq. As to the terrorists who did many of their evil deeds pre 9/11, how would you deal with them? Anger management?

[LeftRight]

No, according to Obama the surge succeeded in reducing violence, but that we are still LOSING the war. In fact, almost every non-partisan group in the WORLD admits that there is no "victory" POSSIBLE in Iraq!

[idest]

I would agree with the RAND corporation's analysis in that the most effective way to remove terrorist organizations is with the law enforcement brand of engagement, not the military brand.