1 Duhhhhh. We decided to attack the terrorists at home rather than here. Of course there will be more attacks. I would expect lots of terrorist attacks after attacking a terrorist strong hold. Who the f cares. We are killing them there rather than in Boston.

2 Allah -- I care I hope to never see another attack on my country that starts in my country. If we do not win in Afghanistan and Iraq they (Mislin Social--ts) will be able to mastermind and finance inflitrators to sneak across our borders again and attrack us from within. To me the successful elections in both of these countries in the last year is proof that we are winning. The jump in the destruction of property and # of people killed the last month is proof that we are far from victory. No matter what unit of measure is used I would be hard to convince that we are close to the end. As a first hand participant the Tet Cease Fire violation was similar to the Battle of the Bulge up to the turning point. When we turned the tide and could (and should have) go on the offensive our Sec Def said "Do not attack. Do not pursue. Hold your positions." You probably know what happened 30 years ago this week. For the same reason the success this month of the Minuteman Project shows we can win the local part of the War on Terror. Which may be the most important part.If Muslim agents can just walk across the desert and slip into America it will facilitate their gearing up for another 911.

3 Sophist, Surely you can't be this dense or this misinformed. Go back and look at the data on terrorism over the last 7 years. For starters over 80% of the terrorist attacks in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 occurred in Colombia and India. The difference was that the attacks in Colombia were against pipelines and didn't kill anyone. The attacks in India, however, consistently produced casualties. I'm going out on a limb here but I am assuming you are still capable of rational thought. In 2003, for example, 20% of all casualties occurred in this region. I haven't run the numbers for 2004 yet but I suspect they'll still be in the 20% ballpark. 2003 was a watershed year because the casualties shifted almost exclusively to countries where Islamic extremists were operating. Colombia dropped off as a country experiencing significant terrorist attacks. 2004 now continues this new and disturbing trend. I agree with you that Pakistan and India are now starting to make a good effort to settle their conflict but don't pop your champagne cork yet. Musharref does not control ISI, who has been funding and directing the Islamic extremists carrying out the attacks. As far as Iraq goes, if you count that a victory you are as delusional as Zelikow. Tell you what, if life is so good there I challenge you to fly to Baghdad and take ground transportation from the airport to the city. Then return the same. By the way, also list me as the beneficiary on your life insurance policy. Reality is you talk a good game but don't have the balls to put your life your mouth is running.

4 Sophist, Cute, but you know... sorta ignorant. (Demosagnoia) Surely you can't be this dense or this misinformed. Go back and look at the data on terrorism over the last 7 years. For starters over 80% of the terrorist attacks in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 occurred in Colombia and India. The difference was that the attacks in Colombia were against pipelines and didn't kill anyone. The attacks in India, however, consistently produced casualties. I'm going out on a limb here but I am assuming you are still capable of rational thought. In 2003, for example, 20% of all casualties occurred in this region. I haven't run the numbers for 2004 yet but I suspect they'll still be in the 20% ballpark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this basically says that the fight is both more concentrated and more intense. So? We're fighting a war, right? That's the bad news. I figured that out four years ago. I just thought we'd be in far worse shape at this point than we are. Matter of perspective, I guess. 2003 was a watershed year because the casualties shifted almost exclusively to countries where Islamic extremists were operating. Colombia dropped off as a country experiencing significant terrorist attacks. The watershed is that we attacked them at the balance point of the Middle East. In terms of their strategy, they need a sanctuary somewhere. (I think you made this point yourself, to Perl, who seemed to think a virtual or distributed sanctuary was good enough.) We're fighting Totalitarianism 3.0, which is pretty much Salafist/Qtubist Islam, not the tail end of Marxism in the southern cone. We struck them in early 2003. What'd you expect, that they'd just roll over? Is that what you normally expect an opponent to do? 2004 now continues this new and disturbing trend. I agree with you that Pakistan and India are now starting to make a good effort to settle their conflict but don't pop your champagne cork yet. Musharref does not control ISI, who has been funding and directing the Islamic extremists carrying out the attacks. Well, I'm not going to argue with the observation that we need to do something about that, but it's a tricky situation. And of course it's a disturbing trend. The Battle of the Bulge distubed people a lot too. And I don't rule out the possibility of reversals either. All I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe, from these numbers alone, that we're not winning. (And there's some reason, given other trends, to think we are.) I'm certainly not saying that our strategy is perfect or can't be improved upon, but this is the first winning strategy against this type of enemy since its inception at the start of the post-colonial period. As for detailed strategy, these just aren't the right sort of data for that sort of analysis... and I'm fairly sure that if you sit down and think about it, you'll agree. I'm not sure whether the Jihadists (aided by ISI or whatever) are attempting to turn Kashmir into their Islamist sanctuary (following the method of Muhammed) or are just trying to ignite a conflagration between India and Pakistan in order to score some nukes or make Pakistan a sanctuary state. That's not my area of expertise, and I just don't know enough about the details. But they probably have some strategy that's deeper than "kill all the infidels." And they're roughly following the Koranic narrative as a guide. Frankly with that blustery opening I hoped you'd have more. Is that it? As far as Iraq goes, if you count that a victory you are as delusional as Zelikow. Tell you what, if life is so good there I challenge you to fly to Baghdad and take ground transportation from the airport to the city. Then return the same. By the way, also list me as the beneficiary on your life insurance policy. Reality is you talk a good game but don't have the balls to put your life your mouth is running. Now you're just being nasty. I didn't count Iraq a victory. I said we're winning, which we are. As for going there, well I've been studying Arabic so I'll know the language when it's time, and I'm putting in my hours on the firing range at Q so I won't be a pure liability. The bottom line is that there's nothing about this pattern that demands the pessimistic interpretation you seem bound to attach to it, and I'm rather surprised that you insist it does. You ought to know better, with your background.

1 Counterterrorism will be a growth industry for years to come. 4GW is on the rise and somebody has to defend the Westphalian State concept from such dangerous forces.

2 I don't suppose it's exactly flattering to compare Larry's "Demise of Counterterrorism" thesis to Wretchard's observation that we've finally arrived at a method of exploiting Terrorism's "Achilles Heel." After all, that's more like the "Demise of Terrorism," or something.

3 The United States is now using G.I.s to shut down gasoline bootlegging in Iraq - so much for desire that the Iraqis practice free market economics, eh?

4 Collin I may be wrong, but isn't the oil industry in Iraq a state owned entity? If so, doesn't that mean that the people own it, with the proceeds going to the betterment of the society. That being the case, aren't you condemning what amounts to stopping thieves who are taking food out of the innocent Iraqi babies mouths? Why do you hate Iraqi babies Collin? Why? You know what I mean. I do find your almost pathalogical need to paint the actions of the GI's in a negative light interesting, in a makes me want to puke sort of way.

5 YAHOO: President Bush is going to nominate Marine Corps General Peter Pace as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. About time a Marine took charge. General Pace is not an armchair politican. He lead a rifle company in Nam. He served actively in Korea. Got in involved in Somalia. He knows what its like to have people shooting at you and how to kick ass. At last we have a chance to get a fighting man in charge. God bless the Marine Corps. Semper Fi til I die.

6 U.S. Troops are being misallocated and endangered by such trivial concerns.

1 Good call. The problem with saying there was MORE terrorism than last year may just be an artifact of the methodology.

2 To clarify. In my first posting on 14 April I was trying to give Condi Rice the benefit of the doubt. Since then friends inside the intel community have alerted me to the fact that Rice and company tried to get the NCTC to change the methodology to produce a smaller number of attacks. This is more than mere squabbling over a methodology. The NCTC is still using the same definition of a significant terrorist incident (i.e., someone is killed, wounded, kidnapped, or there is property damage in excess of $10,000). The fact that State Department, who does have the lead and still maintains the responsibility for international terrorism, decided to cease publishing an annual PUBLIC report that provided both summary and analysis about the state of international terrorist activity is cowardice. You are free to believe otherwise, but friends on the inside tell me this was pure political cover their ass punting.

3 Larry: Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier. I'm, frankly, a bit mystified by what the issue is supposed to be. If, as you say, the number of attacks really is up then I guess the State Department can be faulted for something, but I'm not sure what. Having egg on their face, maybe? Basically what the State Department brings to the table is the legitimacy afforded an "official" report, though to tell the truth that legitimacy has relatively little impact on me or those like me, who are inclined to distrust the State Department anyway. Do I want the State Department in the lead on counterterrorism? Well actually, no I don't. I don't trust them. Given their historical preference (or should I say "addiction") for stability I just don't think they're the right department for he job. But even if they were, they may not be the right department to publish this report, and certainly the fact that the NCTC keeps the data, doesn't mean it's unavailable to the State Department. Now, if you're saying that they intend to willfully ignore empirical data in the formulation of policy that's something else. Par for the course for the State Department, but very atypical of Condi Rice. I'm pretty skeptical of that assertion, though I can be convinced.

4 OK, down on all fours... This is more than mere squabbling over a methodology. The NCTC is still using the same definition of a significant terrorist incident (i.e., someone is killed, wounded, kidnapped, or there is property damage in excess of $10,000). The term "mere" suggests that methodological issues aren't substantive, which suggests to me that you don't quite grasp what those issues are about. Now, you seem to be saying that the method hasn't changed... and if that's the case then you've got a point (though I'm still not clear about the implications of it). But I'm sure you know that there's more to defining terrorism than the level of harm, whether of persons or property. And the troublesome part of any definition will be how you specify intent, because merely defining it by harm will include lots of criminal acts that have to political intent at all. Again, I don't want to be a pill, but I'm rather impatient at all the stuff that's apparently missing from this discussion. Is the definition of a terrorist exactly the same as it was in 1993? That would appear to be the only decent starting point for an informed discussion.

5 Don't understand the big deal here. If more attacks, we need to hit them harder. No big deal. That is what our military is trained to do. Where we fail is in police work. Believe politicians, or Government career employees? Nobody is that stupid.

6 My friend Greyrooster, Striking out in anger will produce more grievances and promote the unholy cycle of violence.

7 Striking out in anger will produce more grievances and promote the unholy cycle of violence. You've a fundamental misunderstanding. Terrorism isn't a method of expressing grievance and its objective isn't violence, it's control... of you. And for greyrooster, I agree that we should increase the pressure, but we still need to know whether the attacks are actually increasing in order to make those decisions. Larry seems to say that the method hasn't changed, which may be true (though I need some proof). But the apparent number of attacks could also increase because people are reporting more events in terms that meet the criteria. In other words, people are more aware of the phenomenon of terrorism and are therefore reporting more events that fit the description. This is an old problem in following crime trends. Finally, the number of terrorist events would increase as people become more politically free, because the old methods of social control through state terror no longer work. And in addition, totalitarian governments are usually pretty effective at controlling both crime and rival totalitarian gangs. What we're seeing, at least to some extent, could easily be greater competition among totalitarian movements for the opportunity to control compliant populations. And in that sense what's happening in Iraq (and to a lesser extent in Palestine) is critical... because they represent populations that are unwilling to comply with totalitarian prescriptions any longer.

8 Let me take another shot at clarification. On 13 April I learned that unclassified data on the NCTC website showed that the number of significant incidents of international terrorism had soared to 655 in 2004. Initially I did not know whether this was a result of a change in methodology or not. As I said, I wanted to give Rice the benefit of the doubt. I have now learned that State Department did not want to go public with the statistics because the numbers are up dramatically. Consider for example that the number of international terrorist attacks in Iraq alone in 2004 were 191. Remember that in 2003 there were 175 attacks worldwide. From a policy perspective this means that the "progress" in the war on terrorism may not be progress at all. In my initial analysis I pointed out that the scope of extremist Islamic activity may be on the wane. Compared to 2003 I believe (but have not seen the firm data yet) that fewer countries experienced significant attacks in 2004 from groups tied to Al Qaeda. Nonetheless, when you add up several terrorist attacks in Russia (the bombing of two planes for example), the 3/11 attack in Spain, hotel bombings in Egypt and Indonesia, and the fatalities in India and Iraq we are likely to see a death toll that could approach 2000. The numbers are going in the wrong way. I think you are misinformed on what State Department's role is. I know of several cases over the last four years where State Department recommended military action and the Department of Defense vetoed the idea. Methinks you watch too much of Fox News. Best LJ

9 Larry, it stretches credulity to argue that State is on the front lines of fighting terrorism. Their intelligence reports have consistently been more skeptical than those of the CIA. Their diplomats have worked actively to counteract the impact of the GWOT on the states they live in. (In Pakistan, the Ambassador refused to hand out flyers seeking bin Laden, for example.) You may be able to find isolated examples where State is arguably more aggressive than DoD, but the pattern is clearly one of appeasement. Please don't insult our intelligence. We may not have your contacts, but we're perhaps a bit more skeptical of their motives than you.

10 Larry: Let me take another shot at clarification. On 13 April I learned that unclassified data on the NCTC website showed that the number of significant incidents of international terrorism had soared to 655 in 2004. Initially I did not know whether this was a result of a change in methodology or not. As you know, it's entirely possible that there could be other explanations for a false accounting of an increase in terrorist attacks. There might, for instance, be a reason why more attacks are reported relative to the total. Better reporting isn't a change in method. In addition, if the original method were mis-specified and included a subset of events that were not terrorist in nature it's possible that an expansion in the number of non-terrorist events might be falsely interpreted as an expansion of terrorist attacks, even without a change in method. Not that any of this has happened. As you point out, it's reasonable to think that a jump in terrorist attacks in Kashmir might be connected to an internal conflict within Pakistani Intelligence. But does the decision not to publish the report automatically mean that State has decided to keep itself in the dark? If you can figure that dynamic out, so can they. And, as I said in another post above, it may simply be that State doesn't want to handle a report that is so closely associated with advocacy rather than policy. They may simply regard it as an unnecessary and counterproductive distraction. From a policy perspective this means that the "progress" in the war on terrorism may not be progress at all. It's not clear to me that there's anything like a direct correlation between the number of attacks, and the success of the strategy, at least in the short run. Indeed, Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece that argues just the opposite, and that's not only empirical but logical... from one of the great military historians of the present age. By your logic, fighting a bully is a mistake because he's likely to hit you more often for opposing him. It would also suggest that U.S. Grant ought to have turned north after the Battle of the Wilderness, instead of pursuing Lee to Appomattox. But I agree that the embedded information might be very important to policy formulation, and that it oughtn't to be ignored. I think you are misinformed on what State Department's role is. I know of several cases over the last four years where State Department recommended military action and the Department of Defense vetoed the idea. Methinks you watch too much of Fox News. Fox News is tedious. I only watch it because it's an ideological balance to the unrelenting bias of the rest of MSM news, but balance isn't accuracy. If you're correct about State's recommendations then I'd like to see examples, not so much to challenge your thesis as to incorporate some of those "embedded truths" in the data into my analysis. It's the details that matter. As a general rule, though, State has been committed to "RealPolitik," and I'm in a book club with a number of friends from State who, although smart as hell, consistently express that bias. So it's not so much FOX as my own experience, which of course could also misinform me. The bottom line, though, is that I don't think it's necessarily alarming or even a matter of concern that State is no longer publishing this report. That case hasn't been made convincingly.