Replies

But it's not true that Al Qaeda has been silent; they just haven't mounted any repitition of the attack on American soil--presumably in part or in whole because Ashcroft has been effective.

There have been attacks on Australians and Saudis...

Al-Qaeda's command structure has been so badly disrupted since we went into Afghanistan that I think it's a bit of a stretch to assign blame to Bin Laden for the "attacks on the Australians (unlikely) and the Saudis (maybe)." In any case, even if Bin Laden personally ordered those attacks, Harris' point still holds --- 3 offensives do not a Clausewitzean war make. Had the Confederates laid low for almost 2 years after Ft Sumter except for one attack in Mexico City and another in sub-Saharan Africa, I don't think the often attributed designation to that conflict of Clausewitzean "total war" would apply.

As I see it, Harris is really just re-emphasizing the asymmetrical nature of this war, and some of the political pitfalls that go along with that asymmetry. I thought it was a point worth making again because I haven't seen it mentioned in a while.

re-emphasizing the asymmetrical nature of this war, and some of the political pitfalls that go along with that asymmetry.

No question.
It is also worth noting the asymmetrical nature of our politcs . . .

I think it's a bit of a stretch to assign blame to Bin Laden for the "attacks on the Australians (unlikely) and the Saudis (maybe)

I find it an extreme stretch to say that Al Qaeda wasn't involved.

I don't care if the CEO, the COO, or some random vice president releases a new Pepsi product, Pepsi is still responsible.