"(T)he phrase "Sept 10th thinking" is suprememly stunned and arrogant"

In what way? To me, it seems to be a useful summary of a big problem.

The proof in the pudding since and the now readily dismissed efforts before do not justify the self-congratulatory award of a shiny gold star. My reading on what has been done indicates that communications systems in both the London bombing in 2005 and New Orleans learned nothing from 9/11. Moving homeland security funding away from NYC as well. Plus the Rumsfeld <i>Iraw War Lite</i>^{<small>TM</small>} smacks of it.

It is a consultant-worthy phrase that means do not ask why I did not do things before and do not inquire as to what I am doing now. Reminds me a lot of "world class" or "Y2K" - lots of puff with little substance. People and institutions which has actually taken real steps and made real changes would not use it as they would not think planning for an as yet active enemy would make sense. Find out if the US marines think of themselves as having suffered from sept 10th thinking before 9/11. Not much chance.

If you think about it, this is sort of an example of great self-congratulatory "post-9/11" thought: Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, given Op-Ed space in the NYT (surely a liberal rag, though) to make something of a counter arguement as to why NYC gets less but (like Canada Post would argue) really get more!

And here is a story illustrative of the lack of advancement on the communications front.

Ahh, yes. I see the problem.

I am only saying that while it is a defining point in fact and history and even focus, it is not quite so in response except as a tactic to obfuscate the quality of response. Similarly when I hear "after 9/11 everything changed" I also think "...except for most of the people in charge and most of their practices." Thems that were good before have likely been good since.

This sort of indecency is classic in another related sort of post 9/11 blurt self-absorbed self-promoting and self-appointed protectors of a characature of liberty - who tend to be of the sort who never do anything but complain and rant anyway (read most political bloggers).

Al, as someone who has lived in various parts of the States I really am getting sick of people saying that NYC getting a reduction in overall money for anti-terror is a bad thing. For one thing, they only lost 1% of the overall pie. 1%. (Last year they got 19% of the pie, this year 18%). Overyone got an over all reduction in total monies recieved.

RAND has a few studies out about risk and damage. The biggest risk is Los A/Long Beach in CA and would have the highest risk economic impact. Yet, NYC gets much more money than LA. NY has 1000 CT intel officers. Nobody else has even close to that many because NYC is getting the lions share, has gotten the lions share, and people there assume they should get the lions share in perpetuity. Is it right that NYC gets money disproportionate to the actual risk it faces while other places are shafted(get that La/LB faces higher risk than NYC but gets 50% less money?)? Yeah, that's cool. My family can be blown to bits(since they still live in the area while I moved to the Midwest with no plans on moving back), but they better keep their dirty mits off of Manhattan. Yeah, that's cool. That's fair and right. Yup. Yup.

Worse, it's 'fighting the last war'. Where's the being being smart about seeing that enemies don't go after the most hardened targets? What, terrorists don't read Sir Liddel-Hart or something? They got onto planes at Logan for a reason(weaker security there than just about anywhere). Sorry for the rant, but the way many people are arguing this angers me, a lot.

I appreciate that but I disagree. It is still the bulls eye of the target unless you think it is off the list due to the first strike. If that is the case, print out one dollars bill and spread them evenly because what you are saying is they will not strike at the notorious target.

Not to be jerky, that's not my intention. It may be easy to 'hear' me as shrill here, but try not to, pleeeeeeeease.

Al, do you know what the economic value of LA/LB is? Equal to or greater than NY. Hit those ports(just the ports) you cut gas production on the West Coast by a quarter because you get the closure of refineries that are very close by. You close 2 of the top five ports in the US(and they both carry about as much cargo as NY does, maybe more, and are less than 20 miles apart as the crow flies).
Do you know that the WC has been targeted as many times as NY and the East Coast? You do realize that LA and SF have financial districts that are just as important as Wall Street, right?

Not having lived on the East Coast I'm a bit free of the mythology of NY, and been exposed to the myths of other cities. LA is world (in)famous too. So is SF. NY isn't the only face of the US the world has. Putting out the eyes on those other faces sends the same message as putting out the other eye of NY.

Don't forget that there were plots to hit LA in the past too that got busted(the Millenial Bomber amoungst others. I'm tempted to say that there was a plot to hit the WC on 9/11 but I'm holding off asserting that 'til I double check. Okay. I feel safe about it now.
"On page 154 of the report there appears the following passage:

[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] has insisted to his interrogators that he always contemplated hijacking and crashing large commercial aircraft. Indeed KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts — they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington." from this: http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy200602160833.asp .
Jose Padilla, luckily he was incompetent, planning a radiological bomb attack in Chicago?
So, yeah. NY and only NY are in the crosshairs and the only target ever to be thought of to attack or ever attacked. Everyone knows that NY is the economic and emotional heart of the entire N. American continent. Except it isn't.)

Sorry Al, I hold you in high esteem, but I think this 'NYC alone in the Bullseye' is bunk. Other places are definitely in any potential bullseye right along with NY(and have had people detailed to attack in the past) and always have been. Why else would there be terrorist cells in Lodi, CA with plans to blow up the aquaduct system upon which SoCal is dependent for survival(which to protect requires robust services in places like Bakersfield and Barstow and Fresno) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lodi26apr26,0,7237648.story?track=tothtml )? Why the Millenium Bomb plot to attack LA? There's dollar bills all over the place. Some people just don't want to see that they exist in other places too. NYC is a big fat target. So's LA(bigger and fatter and easier). So's San Diego(crippling WC US Naval capabilities). And those two places haven't seen anywhere near as much money as they deserve based on risk(http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG388.pdf) or on number of attempts to hit it.

NYC matters. But so does everything else. NYC has gotten a ton of hardening in the last 5 years. Nobody else has gotten near the same amount, except maybe DC. Military maxim(not the Lag MAg with the chickies): hit them where they are weak. It's not off the list, Al. It's just lower on the list. Hitting NYC doesn't spread terror any further than it already has gone. Hitting the MW does. Hitting the WC does. Not only is it easier to do(because EC cities have gotten most of the CT money) but it furthers the goal of scaring more people out of int'l affairs.
I get that it's in your backyard and so it may seem more real to you. You're fighting the last war. The Nazis knew that the attack had to come at the Pas de Calais on much the same reasoning you're using. Open your mind up. I don't want them hitting us elsewhere because we were overly fixated on NY. Other places are higher risk. They should be funded accordingly. NY has gotten its money to harden itself. Let's offer other communities the same now.

I think two things and I do not take this as important as you so don't be offended by the bevity:<ul><li>I am assuming these people are nuts. New York is the word on t-shirts up valleys in south-east Afganistan like it is the word on T-shirts in Poland, south sea islands and PEI. Hollywood may have a chance but nothing else is the big show.</li><p><li>Toronto is like London is like New York to ding bat murderers. They could - if they were not bad James Bond digbats - hit Pickering nuclear to the east 100 miles or Oswego nuclear 50 miles to my south. But I am not banking on it. </li></ul>They have attacked capitals and love the big show and do not appear that interested in actual infrastructure of civilization. Otherwise they would screw up the internet. Why? They are nuts. Besides, if they actually get to the point that they will hit some place, they probably will. They are getting intercepted much earlier than that now. If one gets through it will be a fluke. Think of what the Flea wrote here today. Why haven't they spraying machine gun fire in office building lobbies for the past five years? Everyone likes the Ka-Boom! and they want it on Broadway. Terrorists are vain, too.

I agree with much of what Alan is saying here. Frankly, while September 11, 2001 was a catastrophe I have said before (with caution) that we - by which I mean civilization - were lucky to have escaped with only three thousands dead. As awful as it was we got off lightly. More important, we were lucky to have a short sharp shock that woke up at least part of the establishment in the democratic world. If we had not had 9/11 I expect we would have had it since or soon but with a nuclear weapon nobody was looking for outside a Tom Clancy novel. I still think it was critical that Clancy was the only pundit on the day who could recognize what had happened. Barring an atomic device or stray smallpox we have also been lucky that al Qaeda (and "baby" al Qaeda groupiscules) have all been aiming for big-bang, wow-inducing super-terrorist strikes; almost certainly the result of the essential, obscene vanity of this sort of martyrdom. But a few guys repeating DC Sniper tactics would be so much more harmful than even terribly damaging one off multiple bombings. Not in numbers but in actual fear (instead of the hypothetical fear the anti "fearmongers" talk about) and in actual harm to civil society and potentially to our democracy. All it would take is for a few children, pregnant women and pensioners at random and we would have the army in Canada's streets again. Just as was the case with Trudeau taking out the FLQ we would argue about the niceties later. I am astonished it has not happened again and grateful for the piss poor strategic-level leadership networked terrorism of which network terrorism is capable.

Where I disagree with Alan is in underestimating the X-factor of Los Angeles or San Fransicso as high profile targets. The Golden Gate Bridge has reportedly been repeatedly cited to be on the jihadi wish list, for example. And these groups have a habit of revisiting monuments left standing.

That is fine and I as am uncomfortable with being agreed with so I will agree on those places.

Andrew illustrates another excellent example of post-9/11 thinking, which due to the excellence of its clarity is not really a comment on Darcey as much as a call to good research.