[Prodigal Son]

Before September 11, the network launched an attack every two years, but since then, there has been one al-Qaeda-linked attack every three months, he said.

One reason for that is- we were leisurely in going after them pre-9/11. That changed. Now we're attacking them and they, likewise, are attacking- if they don't they won't survive.

[From The Deer Stand]

Let's beat them to it. Why not attack them EVERY month?

[smith288]

That changed. Now we're attacking them and they, likewise, are attacking- if they don't they won't survive.

Well, if they stopped attacking altogether, they would survive...perhaps they should educate themselves while not blowing themselves up...

[Spook86]

The media (typically) missed the real point of this story: the fact that Al Qaeda is still relying on surrogates to carry out most of its attacks is an indication of an organization that's still in disarray, thanks to two years of pounding by the U.S. military and our intelligence agencies.

While Al Qaeda is far from defeated, 2004 is shaping up as a potential make-or-break year for bin Laden and the boys. The terrorist organization that established itself as the only one capable of launching major attacks on U.S. soil hasn't been able to mount one since 9/11--and not for a lack of trying, either. That's one reason Al Qaeda is having money problems. Middle-class Saudis and other casual backers of Al Qaeda are having second thoughts, and are less likely to give money to an organization that (in their view) may be past its peak. And eventually, some of the Al Qaeda surrogates may grow tired of doing bin Laden's bidding as well. As the score new successes against the central network, we can begin devoting more resources to the various Al Qaeda affiliates. And, at some point, the cost of being associated with bin Laden will outweight the potential benefits, and Al Qaeda may find it more difficult to recruit willing surrogates.