I think the real conclusion is that 9/11 wasn't really that significant in the history of terrorism and didn't change anything. Oklahoma City, Achille Lauro, Berlin Olympics, USS Cole, Haymarket Square, etc, etc...they happen every once in awhile. Sure, the ways they're carried out change. Advances in technology also help increase the scale at which they can occur while increasing our ability to combat them.

Like Katrina was a failure in Emergency Management of a massively incompetent scale, so was 9/11 a massive failure of intelligence. As Condi Rice astutely noted, the title of the report was "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States." Bush came in and slashed anti-terror programs in favor of the pie in the sky Star Wars program. It was to a degree, a perfect storm of really rich bitter dude with his life's work ready to come off and a shockingly low level of preparedness within the US.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

    I'm just paraphrasing a C-SPAN speaker here, so take this with a grain of salt. There were some interesting points, though, worth mentioning even if very general.

    Al-Quaida, the main terrorist group actually interested in attacking America, operates under the assumption of the "near war" (against "wrong" Muslim regimes in the ME) and the "far war" (against the Western democracies.) OK, you've probably heard of this- I had- but hadn't really thought hard about what that meant when it comes to terrorism in the US. Once al-Quaida lost its safe base in Afghanistan, where should the organization's leaders direct their attention and resources? To the "far war", which they (apparently) never thought was winnable, or to the "near war"-- namely disrupting a nation (preferably Muslim) so badly that the organization could operate in relative safety? The answer seems clear, and the next step is deciding where to go. Sudan? Certainly unstable, but there's been too much international attention to the Darfur conflict. Yemen? You can't go home again. Afghanistan? The Taliban are making a comeback, but having al-Quaida make a public appearance again would change that. Iraq? Bingo. Even if the US military is there, killing its share of recruits, it's still the best option available. (The possibility that the locals would turn around and butcher al-Quaida along with their other political rivals should the US leave is just one of those chances aspiring despots have to take.) While it's risky to try and get into the head of men like these too much, it certainly seems consistent with past statements and behaviors.
    Of course, there's also the fact that Osama bin Laden was always one for the grand gesture, and even if he's still not in charge (or even alive), his thinking likely permeates the organization. One of the only things that could top 9/11 would be a nuclear attack, and it's a tribute to the international community that fissile material hasn't gotten into their hands-- yet. I still half expect to wake up one day and hear that New York, or DC, or both, just went up in mushroom clouds. (Heck, my first reaction on 9/11 was along the lines of, "huh, the terrorists couldn't get nukes", so this is not a new pessimism.) Do you really think cargo container security is good enough to catch a plot like this?
   Ugh. Time to go think some happy thoughts, even if it is going to be 109 today.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Are there really not as many terrorists as we've been led to believe?  Or is it harder to carry out these sorts of attacks than it appears on the surface?  

I dunno, but I find it interesting that almost every plot they talk having foiled on CNN appears to involve people tangentially related (at best) to professional groups and usually ends up never having progressed past the stage of "Duuuuude, wouldn't it be totally cool if we like went in there and fucked up some shit? Man, that would be far out" or was just completely stupid. I mean, the JFK plot apparently wouldn't have worked as the FBI or whoever said they planned it, and the plot on Fort Dix just sounded retarded. I mean, who goes and leads a frontal infantry assault on a military base with a bunch of retards whose only combat experience is probably playing Doom or Counterstrike? Come on!

So what does this mean? Does this mean the plots that are actually run by nutcases with the skill set to run these things profressionally are likely to succeed despite any effort by domestic law enforcement (God, I hope not) but due to the invasion of Afghanistan those networks have been smashed? I wish that the second part is true, but due to recent reports about the campaign over there I doubt it.

Fixed