[Oops. That last one slipped out, and slipped up]
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
> I am happy to be more precise. I would say that after next year's
> spring offensive, if there are no more explicit attacks on targets in
> the U.S. resulting in mass deaths for the next two years, and no
> mega-attacks for the next five years, the U.S. response could be
> looked upon as having worked on one level.
MP: How big is a mega-attack? Does the attack on the Cole qualify? Khobar towers? Just for specificity's sake.
mbs: Obviously any line drawn is arbitrary, but the latter (Cole, Khobar) I would not call mega in light of 9/11.
MP: And is there a difference between mega-attacks and large scale? I'm not sure I understand the US 2 year/anywhere 5 year distinction.
mbs: no on the first. I presume a mega-attack requires more time in the preparation and is intrinsically less frequent, so in line w/some of TO's reservations one would want to see a longer period of time elapse with no mega-attacks to pronounce the U.S. response effective.
MP:And do attacks on US installations overseas count as "in the US?"
mbs: they would 'count,' though it would be hard to imagine a large-scale attack outside of the U.S. Something which blew up a summit meeting and killed all of the leaders of the G7, sure.
MP: As I read it, this is a bet that there will be no mega-attacks against any US installations anywhere in the next five years, with the Cole or Khobar Towers counting as "mega." Is that a fair reading? Michael
mbs: yes on one, no on two, as above. Note that this period doesn't begin until the U.S. campaign has run more of its course, meaning past next April (end of winter in Afgh).