DanS.

Sep 12th 2008 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

America's fight against terror, seven years after the September 11th attacks

AFP/Shutterstock
AT THE most basic level the “war on terror”—a label many reject—over the past seven years has been successful. There has not been an assault on the American mainland since the September 11th attacks, remembered on their anniversary with a visit to “ground zero” by the two candidates for the presidency, Barack Obama and John McCain. But with two American-led wars in the Islamic world, al-Qaeda still thriving in Pakistan and imperfections in homeland security, the war has not been won. Nor will it ever be, in a conventional sense.

Of most concern is the situation in the original base of the September 11th plotters, Afghanistan. Anything like a victory is still a long way off in the theatre of the battle against terror that most resembles a conventional war. America invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 2001 attacks. Yet this week, Admiral Mike Mullen, America’s top military officer, admitted to Congress that “I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan.”

The Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to mount bold attacks, and American mis-steps—such as operations that result in civilian deaths—continue to hamper the struggle for hearts and minds. Admiral Mullen reckons that America may be “running out of time” in Afghanistan.

Worse, just across the border, Pakistan offers an almost untouchable haven for al-Qaeda. America has begun using aerial drones, and small ground strikes, in the tribal areas, the wild regions along the Pakistani-Afghan border. But this has stirred anger and controversy in Pakistan, where a change of government has hardly added to stability. America pursues al-Qaeda in these areas at the risk of weakening its influence with a crucial ally.

Iraq is a big part of the equation too. America’s top brass now openly admits that, if it had a choice, it would move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. But the war in Iraq is the main concern for the Bush administration. Thus the latest development, a small shift of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, will not be enough for the generals in charge of the latter.

Elsewhere, however, the news is less grim. America’s intelligence agencies have revamped themselves extensively to combat terrorism. Insiders say that while anti-American sentiment around the world remains high, co-operation with foreign spy services is good—perhaps the best it has ever been—particularly for those countries who have suffered terrorism since 2001 themselves: Britain, Spain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the like. This co-operation has led to a large number of high-profile arrests since 2001, including that of two of the leading organisers of the September 11th attacks.

That is one reason no attack has taken place on American soil since. The other is the tightening of “filters” for terrorists who would hit America's mainland. At every level, terrorist organisations face hurdles: finding recruits, training them, getting them visas into the countries they would attack. It is now much harder to get into America. But there is a price for deterring terror: the new practices have choked the flow of eager foreign workers that has traditionally enriched America's economy. It also hits tourism: a travel-industry lobby group says the country has forgone $140 billion in foreign spending since the attacks.

But if that is a cost Americans are willing to bear for security, the highest price to pay remains the tightening of civil liberties. The Patriot Act, passed in haste after the attacks, has been tweaked but still gives the government sweeping powers of surveillance. And of course America still maintains a legally dubious prison at Guantánamo Bay, a symbol of the ugliest kind of compromise of liberty for security.

Americans retain a strong libertarian streak, and all this has been hard to swallow. The country is still getting used to a world in which its citizens feel vulnerable yet uneasy about what they have given up for better security. Another successful attack could start the panic all over again

THX1138

$10 billion a month in Iraq.

I guess about two-thirds of it are secure... (or "sleeping", maybe?)

I really don't think we will ever be able to get all our troops out of Iraq and I know a lot of people are wondering how we got there in the first place.

It was all BS as we know now.

Saddam didn't help by not allowing the inspectors access and by being "defiant" or obstinant during the occupation, Iraq was not a sovereign nation at the time.

If there was a question of bio-weapons or yellow cake they might have put some very serious pressure to inspect and verify some of their info. It didn't warrant an invasion.

But that's just it.

The President is standing there saying "this is so credible and imminent that we are going to invade", most people have to jump to the conclusion we are doing the right thing for good reason.

Anyone can be lied to or mislead.

The last thing we need right now is someone who is going to be hawkish over there in the Middle-east.

I think if we pulled out tomorrow it might take decades until we have anything like normal diplomatic relations with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan, (they said the Russians were nicer to them.)

I see the republicans take credit for there being no further attacks in America. Well, they really can only take a modicum of credit for preventing something that may or may not have been to take place.

(The Martians didn't invade either, they can only take so much credit for that too.)

It's all political at this point. The "war on terror" is something to talk about besides the economic crises'.

Thx

Richterscale

The author gets to the true cost of the WOT in the second to last paragraph.

Torture as an American value, the governments new powers to spy on its citizens without warrant or cause, the dismantling of Habeus Corpus, grossly expanded Presidential powers, and the systematic erosion of the First and Fourth Amendments are the real casualties in this phony 'war'.

Those, and the lives of 4159 American servicemen and women and counting.

__________________
Google Sibel Edmonds

"How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? Who wins?" - Frank Zappa