Maybe you’re a bit morbid and are wondering, in the wake of the failed Times Square bombing: Why don’t we see more low-level terrorist attacks like this, aimed at the many soft targets in this country? These things seem quite easy, if not to pull off successfully, then at least to attempt. And we can all think of a handful of grizzly ways to hurt a rather large number of innocent people, and most not involving such crudities as strapping a bomb to our genitalia and hoping for the best.
Megan McArdle notes that her nightmare is "shopping malls and sporting events," but terrorists just don’t seem interested in such easy, indefensible targets. Why? Megan:
The best answer I’ve heard is that they don’t because it doesn’t actually serve their ends. Their purpose is only partly to instill public terror in Americans. They also need to raise money, and recruit more terrorists. Those people don’t want to hear that you really scared the hell out of Plano, Texas. They want to hear that you bombed Times Square. Their target market, in other words, is not just Americans; it’s the folks at home. […]
Thank God for small favors. If all they really cared about was terrorising us, we’d be terrified, because they’d be mounting the kind of undetectable, untraceable attacks that can kill hundreds, a few at a time. Instead, they’re still trying to top 9/11 and Oklahoma City.
I think there’s definitely some truth to these tactical explanations. But I prefer the structural explanation: there is simply a very, very small number of competent, radical al-Qaeda sympathizers in this country, and it’s exceedingly hard for outside terrorist groups to bring personnel or equipment into the country. There is no community or constituency in America in which a would-be attacker could hope to blend in and find comfort and shelter for very long. Unlike European Muslims, American Muslims are much better educated and wealthier than the average American, and, also unlike Europe, the U.S. has been welcoming and assimilating large numbers of Arabs for over a century. (Tim Noah at Slate wrote a series of articles last year exploring these and other reasons for the dearth of successful attacks since 9/11.)
What this all means is just what we’ve seen thus far: Most attacks in this country will be engaged in by complete mediocrities, and most will fail spectacularly. The trick is for us to become emboldened by these failures, rather than take them as terrifying evidence of our vulnerability.
Steve Coll has a simple formulation regarding the Times Square incident:
Fortunately, like one of those Eleven O’clock News bank robbers who tries to rob an A.T.M., only to topple it over on himself, Shahzad’s case may help to illuminate a truth larger than himself: Terrorists are criminals, and the great majority of criminals are prosaic.
A foreign terrorist group triumphantly taking "credit" for a failed attack deserves nothing more than our derision and scorn. Would that our media and political class lead the way on this, rather than scare the hell out of us with a parade of what-ifs.
0 Response to “"Terrorists are Criminals, and the Great Majority of Criminals are Prosaic"”