Is Boston only the beginning of a new kind of terror?

Reuters

Two-year-old Wesley Brillant of Natick, Massachusetts kneels in front of a memorial to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings near the scene of the blasts on Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, April 21, 2013.

Article Highlights

  • Why does al-Qaeda not aim for smaller scale attacks like Boston?

    Tweet This

  • Through skill and luck, we’ve done well preventing the next 9/11. Preventing the next Boston massacre may not be easy.

    Tweet This

Of all the unanswered questions since the Boston Marathon bombing, the biggest is this: Why has al-Qaeda not carried out more attacks like the one in Boston?

In the past 12 years, al-Qaeda has repeatedly attempted attacks intended to match or exceed 9/11 in scope and scale. It set in motion plots to fly hijacked planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport and buildings in downtown London. It tried to blow up seven passenger planes carrying at least 1,500 passengers over the Atlantic Ocean using liquid explosive hidden in sports drinks. Its Yemeni affiliate tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit using abomb hidden in underwear. And it tried to blow up planes headed for the United States using bombs hidden in printer cartridges timed to explode over the eastern seaboard.

 

 

Thankfully, none of these attacks was successful. In Detroit, we averted disaster by pure luck - al-Qaeda succeeded in penetrating our defenses and getting a bomb onto a plane, but the bomb malfunctioned. But in other cases, the plots were foiled thanks to incredible intelligence work. The fact is, since 9/11, we have made it much harder for terrorists to carry out attacks on the scale of that day.

So why does al-Qaeda keep trying? Why does it remain so intently focused on spectacular, mass casualty attacks, instead of smaller scale attacks like Boston — attacks that are much easier to pull off, and much harder for us to detect and prevent?

Smaller scale attacks could be equally effective in paralyzing the country. Think about how a man and a teenage boy terrorized the Washington area with a series of sniper attacks in October 2002. It would be easy for al-Qaeda to carry out similar attacks in Washington, New York and other cities in the United States — assassinating members of Congress or innocent civilians, or setting off improvised explosive devices in major metropolitan areas.

Imagine the impact on our country if simultaneous bombs went off one Saturday afternoon at Tysons Corner Center and the Mall of America? Or if suicide bombers blew themselves up at several NFL games on live television? Or if backpack bombs like the one in Boston started going off again and again over the course of several days or weeks in different U.S. cities? Al-Qaeda could turn Washington, New York and Boston into Baghdad.

Yet for the past decade, al-Qaeda has not taken this route. Why?

One possible explanation is that the severity of the 9/11 attacks has worked in our favor. In striking the twin towers and the Pentagon and killing nearly 3,000 people, al-Qaeda set an extremely high bar for itself. The group may have feared that if it followed 9/11 with a series of small-scale attacks, it would been seen in the jihadist world as a sign of weakness — a concession that it could no longer pull off spectacular attacks on the scale of 9/11.

Perhaps, in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden and other high-profile blows , al-Qaeda leaders have become less concerned with such questions. Bin Laden reportedly kept pushing for spectacular attacks on symbolic targets until the very end. But now bin Laden is gone. Al-Qaeda's strategic modus operandi could shift in his absence — especially as its affiliates in Yemen, East Africa and the Islamic Maghreb assume greater autonomy from al-Qaeda's central leadership in Pakistan.

We still do not know if the two Chechen terrorists allegedly behind the Boston Marathon bombing were trained or deployed by al-Qaeda. But if al-Qaeda or its affiliates do turn out to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, the question will become: Is Boston a turning point? Has al-Qaeda internally made a decision to focus less on replicating 9/11 and more on carrying out more frequent, lower-level attacks? Could Boston be the first of many?

Even if Boston does not turn out to be an al-Qaeda plot, the demonstration effect could spark a shift in strategy. Watching the massive news coverage of the Boston bombing, seeing how two kids with backpack bombs seem to have succeeded in putting a major U.S. city on lockdown, it may now dawn on al-Qaeda leaders that a series of small-scale attacks like this can have the same impact as one spectacular mass casualty attack.

If it does, that would be very bad news for America. Because it is impossible to defend in every place, at all times, against every possible form of attack. If Boston turns out to be not an outlier but a tipping point in the war on terror, the intelligence challenges will be enormous. We may no longer have the luxury of blowing up every high value terrorist we find with drones and vaporizing all the intelligence in their brains in the process. We might discover we need to interrogate live terrorists to learn what they know if we want to keep our country safe.

Though a combination of skill and luck, we've done well at preventing the next 9/11. Preventing the next Boston massacre might not be as easy.

 

 

 

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Marc A.
Thiessen
  • A member of the White House senior staff under President George W. Bush, Marc A. Thiessen served as chief speechwriter to the president and to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Thiessen spent more than six years as spokesman and senior policy adviser to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). He is a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, and his articles can be found in many major publications. His book on the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation program, Courting Disaster (Regnery Press, 2010), is a New York Times bestseller. At AEI, Thiessen writes about U.S. foreign and defense policy issues for The American and the Enterprise Blog. He appears every Sunday on Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends" and makes frequent appearances on other TV and talk radio programs.


    Follow Marc Thiessen on Twitter.

  • Phone: 202-862-7173
    Email: marc.thiessen@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Justin Lang
    Phone: (202) 862-5948
    Email: Justin.Lang@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.