I think that you first must quantify and qualify "terrorist attack." I see two distinct types: Lone Wolf and Organized. The former would be some small groups of domestic nutcases, like ELF or McVeigh/Nichols, and the later would be Osama's boys, the IRA, etc.
For the Lone Wolf groups, I would say that the probability is pretty high that they're always going to be planning something. Generally speaking though, I think they hit the high-water mark with the Oklahoma City bombing as large-scale funding for bigger operations isn't there for them.
The Organized groups are a different matter. I don't see them planning anything major at all. I think this for two reasons. The first is that for decades, terrorist groups, and their supporters, could commit all range of actions with little or no consequences. First the groups had the support and quasi-protection of the Soviet Union, and after the Russians pulled their support they had a weak US President, Clinton, who offered little in the way of an effective response to their operations, which resulted in a major increase in their power and influence. The 9/11 attacks occurred for the same reasons that other criminals escalate their attacks: they perceive their victims as weak and are emboldened.
Then came 9/11, and a slew of consequences were thrown at the terrorists and their sponsers. The whole picture of terrorist operations changed. As I said in these forums three+ years ago... there is no better time for terrorists to attack the US than when we attacked their primary sponsors in Afghanistan. That was a time when many Americans were scared crapless of all the hundreds of terrorist sleeper cells that were hiding out under their beds, and attacks would have helped drive public support against dropping the Taliban. Not attacking us then would have been like the Nazis abandoning Berlin or the Japanese conceding Tokyo. If the terrorists couldn't attack us then, it wasn't because they didn't want to... it was because they couldn't. And if they couldn't attack then, they aren't likely to attack anytime soon. And now that we've sent them back to the technological stone age in regards to communications, moving money, and logistic support, the ability to launch another major operation on US soil becomes even more remote.
The second reason they won't attack is that they don't have to. We're doing all the heavy lifting for them. How many millions of dollars are we wasting to prevent another 9/11? How many times in history have terrorists ever run the same game twice? They follow plan A, allow the victim to defend against another plan A attack, and then work on plan B. So if they were able to attack us, they wouldn't be doing the airplanes-as-bombs thing again.
People need to remember that terrorists are not an invading army. They are not intent on siezing and holding territory. Their goal is to influence events through fear, and they can do that just as well by planting stories, conveying threats, offering up red hearings, and having us run about like frightened children worrying about every bump in the night. Osama Bin Ladin need not expose himself to capture or death by planning and executing a massive attack in order to scare America into expending more time and resources to the defense, thus elevating his stature in the terrorist world. He need only sit back in his recliner, tape a brief message, and have a minion deliver it to Al Jazerra. Same effect, but little cost and risk.
JMO.
That seems to be what most of the folks looking for martyrdom are doing these days. An overlooked benifit of the war on terrorism being over there instead of over here.
talk about a terror threat.
