So I take it your point is that this is a statement of faith:
mbs: Actually the period in question is roughly next April or so till about 14 mos from now. In other words, once U.S. forces have some time when winter in Afg is over (whenever that is), I would suggest an ensuing eight-month period provides some assurance the use of force 'worked.'
Since it is based on the second half of this being true "We know attacks are sporadic, but this one would seem to betoken the start of a real offensive." If it isn't the start of a major offensive, then my former argument should hold -ie. a eight month period won't be a good sample. If it is, then I think the scale and location of strikes indicate that this is qualitatively different from other attacks, and so the past data on rates of terror attacks aren't a good guide of success or failure. So in either case they aren't, but, boy, do I like vino, and these cowries are burning a hole in (rather large) pocket. I base my confidene on the guess that the bombing people is only going to anger more people, and make them more desperate - I don't think that there is much hope of measuring the effectiveness of this bombing campaign as an instrument of counter terror, except in the long run. Besides, it has other flaws than possible inefficiency.
Btw. I don't think there is any way of stopping the US from bombing - although this is a catastrophe - I think left folks should perhaps try to sway public opinion towards a serious redevelopment program for postwar Afghanistan (and the rest of the world). This seems at least theoretically achievable, if improbable. Real, not cynical, development there seems to me to be the only way to avoid some very, very deep resentment from people who are notorious about resentments.
I think we can agree that if a serious program of economic and political development, with sufficient input from Islamic folks , in post-war Afghanistan would do as much as any shelling to erode support for bin Laden and friends. Perhaps the battle for the hearts and minds might then be waged for the vital organs of Afghans, rather than the acquiescence of humanitarian folks at home.
(I accept that there is no precipitating factor for 9/11; but I think if you look at it in the long term there would be clustering after major international events - eg. after 1968, after 1982 and so on - just a guess. It was my mistake to add that - it is irrelevant.)
The comment about Turkey should get a footnote. Aren't there some reasons why it is so happy about this new war on terror that have little to do with Islamic fundamentalist? I thought their main concern was rather with the PKK.
It can't be long now before there is an Islamic Fundamentalist threat in Colombia.
Thiago