They haven't gone away
James Forsyth 11:55am
David Ignatius’s column today on the dangers of a nuclear attack by al Qaeda is absolutely essential reading. Ignatius, who is neither a scaremonger nor a shrill but an experienced journalist with incomparable intelligence sources, lays out the reasons to worry about what al Qaeda has up its sleeve.
Perhaps, the greatest puzzle of the last six years is why al Qaeda stood down a cyanide attack on the New York subway. Ignatius reports that Zawahiri told the “plotters to stand down because ‘we have something better in mind.’”
Certainly, one of the reasons why the United States hasn’t been attacked since 9/11 is that al Qaeda would like to one up those attacks when it next strikes. It would be foolhardy in the extreme to believe that al Qaeda’s failure to kill thousands in Western capitals in the last six years is proof that the threat from it has been over-hyped.
Previous
Varon Tipplebeck
October 18th, 2007 2:32pm Report this commentJames, The assertion made by David Ignatius to heed Mowatt-Larssen may be noble in its aim, but surprisingly outdated in view. That Islamic fundamentalists wish to leave a nuclear footprint has, surely, long been known to most governments and feared by thinking civilians. It is not difficult to see the absence of attack on the US as Alqaedian breaktime. What distresses me deeply as a British national is why we consistently look across the water for reality checks! It is not, then, so much a question of whether we can avert the "arrow", as it is of the destruction of the bow, many of which are homemade, as you will no doubt know.
John Fisher
October 23rd, 2007 5:00pm Report this commentOh, dear, this old chestnut again. Al Qaeda certainly has the desire for "WMD", but threat is about capability not just intent. The points generally overlooked are that nuclear (and radiological) weapons are much less dangerous than people think, and very difficult to make/acquire and use anyway. Even if an attack were successful the main impact would be the panic it would induce, and this would occur because ... people think these weapons are more dangerous than they are. The same is true for other types of "WMD". Chemical weapons are less dangerous than home-made explosives (fatalities in Sarin attack on Tokyo underground =12; fatalities on 7/7 =52). Likewise with biological agents, which are extremely difficult to weaponise effectively. It's our (irrational) fear which is the danger, not the weapon. The ironic corollary of this is that the illusory glamour of "WMD" seduces terrorists away from the things that they are good at. They can exploit cheap, low-grade weapons very effectively for maximum impact (e.g. home-made explosives on 7/7) and be brilliantly inventive to mount unconventional, left-field attacks (as on 9/11). Their pursuit of "WMD" (expensive, difficult and ineffective) diverts resources away from these areas of strength into an area of inevitable weakness. Even states find "WMD" very hard to do: al Qaeda has no chance. Any effort devoted by them to "WMD" will be wasted effort. For us this is excellent news: it makes al Qaeda less of a threat - and also more likely to be detected.
Back to top