| |
––––––––
“If you know yourself but not the other side, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” – Sun Tzu
I took the lying source to a nice Midwestern city in the United States. Not the most impressive city in the United States. Not the largest city. Not the most beautiful city. A nice city with nice people.
The nice people in the nice city like to ask where you’re from. If you say you’re from overseas, they ask how you like America. They talk about if they’ve been to your country. They’re friendly. Open. Generous. They’re great for a source to meet.
Great because sources are working for them, ultimately. If a source is working with the CIA, they’re working for people of the United States. Friendly, generous and open people like these.
Midwestern cities are good for another reason: It’s easy to pick out surveillants. It’s easy to see who doesn’t belong. This one had plenty of deserted side streets. And elevation changes. Easy to see if you’re being followed.
I didn’t think I’d be surveilled in a Midwestern city. But that was just a hypothesis. To be tested.
So I tested it. And went to meet the source.
He hadn’t been followed, he said. He was certain, he said. Which he shouldn’t have been. It was just a hypothesis.
I told the source the agenda: We would meet a colleague of mine. The colleague would ask questions. It was important to answer honestly. It was important to be truthful.
“You can trust me,” he said.
We met in a suite. My colleague took him into one room and closed the door. I sat in the adjoining room and turned on the TV.
When you’ve been outside the United States for a while, there’s always something new when you return.
This time it was poker in primetime on ESPN, which was strange. I thought ESPN only did sports. But then it made sense: Poker was a Zero-Sum Game. Like sports. If you like to watch sports for the strategy and tension and competition, poker gives you the same thing. With less athleticism.
So I watched poker. You could see everybody’s cards in real time. You could see how each player played. You could analyze each player’s tactics in the Zero-Sum Game. Strategy, tension and competition.
I watched poker for an hour.
Then I heard a yell.
I got to the door. Put a hand on it. Listened.
It was my colleague yelling. Not in pain. Not in surprise.
He was yelling in anger.
Which was ok. Expected. I stepped back. Stood and listened for another minute. Then, the yelling stopped.
Back to poker. I watched another hour. Then there was a baseball game.
Finally, my colleague came out. Just him. He closed the door softly behind him.
Pity on his face. Like he was sorry. Sorry to tell me what he had to tell me.
“He’s been lying.”
I didn’t want to ask the next question.
Lying about what? I asked.
My colleague took a deep breath. “Lying about who he told about you.”
My first thought was double-agent. Second and third and fourth thoughts were the things I’d have to clean up. The lines I’d have to cut. The backfilling I’d have to do overseas.
Who did he tell? I asked.
“Six people,” said my colleague. “His father and five friends. None intel, as far as he knows.”
None intel? I confirmed.
“None intel, as far as he knows.”
Not a double-agent, then.
But six people.
Six people is a lot.
Six people could tell six other people. And six other people could tell six others. One of whom could be intel. Someone who would do something about me.
My colleague went back in. I started planning how to clean up the mess. No more poker for me.
An hour later, my colleague came out again. “Now, it’s 18. He told 18 people about you and the CIA.”
By the end of the day, it was 23. He told 23 people that he was working with the CIA. With me.
Twenty-three.
A ridiculous number. That would be practically everyone he knows.
Did it start after our second meeting? When he got the information on the torn scrap of paper? Had he told that friend why he wanted the information? That he was going to give it to the CIA?
Maybe it was earlier. Maybe he told his friends at the very beginning. Before our first meeting. Maybe the guy who couldn’t place me in the restaurant was his friend, after all.
Didn’t matter.
To be safe, I assumed it started at the beginning.
And I saw my mistake: I assumed the wrong Endgame for the lying source. I thought his Endgame was one thing, when it was another.
I had assumed he wanted to help in the fight against terrorism, when it was something else.
Now, his lies exposed his Endgame. Now, I saw the people, places and things in his Endgame.
And there was something else. Another wrinkle. Another dimension to the lying source’s Endgame.
Which was the real reason he exposed me to 23 people.
It was the game inside his Endgame.
————-
In the winter of 2011, protests flashed across the Arab world. It started with a self-immolation in Tunisia. It burned east to the Sultanates. It raged west to Libya.
Overnight, tanks and machine guns and concrete barriers appeared in city squares. Protesters massed. Riot police took position.
There were clashes. Then there were stalemates. Then there were talks. Then more clashes. More stalemates.
As winter warmed to spring, the protests got a name: The Arab Spring.
From the outside, it looked like a revolution in slow-motion. The protesters lost in some places. They won in others. In some places, they lost, then won, then lost again.
From the outside, it looked like a simple Zero-Sum Game.
Protesters vs. Arab leaders.
If one side won power, the other lost it. Zero-Sum.
On the inside, it was different.
On the inside, you saw people hold back.
When someone thinks about playing a Zero-Sum Game, they don’t only think about winning. They also think about losing. They think about what happens if they lose. They think about what the winner will do to them if they lose.
Which is one of three things.
After a Zero-Sum Game, there are three things that can happen between the winner and loser:
From the outside, the Arab Spring looked like the first type of Zero-Sum Game. The losers would be vanquished. They would be killed or exiled. The Arab Spring looked like first type of Zero-Sum Game.
Or maybe the second type of Zero-Sum Game. An interminable civil war. Zero-Sum Game after Zero-Sum Game. Conflict after conflict. One side against the other forever.
But if you were inside the Arab Spring, you saw something different.
You saw that most people wanted to play the third type of Zero-Sum Game.
If you were an Egyptian protester, you didn’t like the 30-year-old state of emergency laws. You didn’t like the lack of free speech. You didn’t like that you had a PhD but could only get a job giving tours. You didn’t like how food was distributed. You didn’t like a lot of things.
But there were other things you liked about Egypt. Maybe you liked how the Egyptian government protected you from Israelis. And from Tunisians. And from Libyans. Maybe you liked that the Egyptian government subsidized your education. Maybe you liked that the Egyptian government gave some food to your family.
But maybe you didn’t like that a neighbor got more. Or had a better job. Or got more vacation time than you did. Or maybe you experienced an injustice. When the Egyptian government punished you or a family member without reason.
So you protested. You protested so good people would get justice. So the right things would be done.
But you didn’t want to destroy Egypt. You didn’t want to destroy even the government of Egypt. You just wanted different decisions made. You wanted someone else in charge. You wanted a better boss.
Which meant you held back. You didn’t want too much violence. You didn’t want things to get out of control. You didn’t want the clashes to become the second type of Zero-Sum Game. You didn’t want a civil war. And you didn’t want the first type of result from the protests. You didn’t want the winner to destroy the loser.
You wanted the third type of Zero-Sum Game. You wanted a Positive-Sum Game to be the next game played. You wanted peace and cooperation in the end. You wanted Egypt to stay Egypt. You wanted the nation to stay together.
You just wanted a different kind of boss.
A better kind of boss.
Inside every Positive-Sum Game, some people have more power than others. Some people make more important decisions than others. Some people decide what the rest of the group will do. Inside every Positive-Sum Game, someone is the boss.
Sometimes, the boss is a committee. Sometimes, it’s a group within the larger group. But every committee has a chairman. Every group has a leader. Which means one person is usually the ultimate boss. Usually, one person makes decisions for a group.
Usually, groups have a hierarchy of decision-making.
It looks this:
Few at the top. Often, just one. Many more below.
A hierarchy.
But hierarchies don’t exist in isolation.
Hierarchies exist inside a larger game. Usually, hierarchies exist when people agree to follow the boss’s decisions.
It’s not always voluntary. Sometimes, there are tapestries of threats to keep underlings in line. Punishments keep the people at the bottom following the decisions of people at the top. It’s how dictatorships are run.
But fortunately, dictatorships are rare.
Usually, hierarchies exist inside a Positive-Sum Game. Where underlings voluntarily follow the decisions of people at the top. Because everyone benefits. Because it’s a win-win.
When you put a hierarchy inside a Positive-Sum Game with the people, places and things every Positive-Sum Game requires, it looks like this:
If you were in Egypt before the Arab Spring, Egypt looked like this:
If you were an Egyptian protester, you didn’t want Mubarrak at the top. You wanted someone different. You wanted a different hierarchy inside Egypt. You wanted a different boss. You wanted someone else making decisions. You wanted Mubarrak out.
But you didn’t want to destroy the larger Positive-Sum Game. You didn’t want to lose the people, places or things of Egypt. You just wanted to change the hierarchy inside it.
You wanted Egypt to stay Egypt. You wanted Egypt to keep all its resources. You wanted the Positive-Sum Game to continue. Just with different decisions made. Just with a different hierarchy inside it.
You wanted this:
You probably wanted the hierarchy to be chosen differently, too. By a vote, maybe. Or based on ethnicity. Or maybe you wanted an Islamic cleric to have ultimate authority for Egypt.
Whoever you wanted to be the new boss, you didn’t want to destroy Egypt. You wanted to stay joined to the people, places and things of Egypt. You didn’t want to destroy the Positive-Sum Game.
You wanted Egypt to stay Egypt.
Which meant when the protests started, you held back.
You avoided bloodshed. You didn’t throw as many rocks as you could have. You didn’t shoot as many rockets as you could have. You didn’t kill as many policemen as you could have.
But sometimes, events spiral out of control. Sometimes, there’s a misunderstanding or a bad interpretation of an order or a lack of compromise.
Sometimes a Boss Game becomes one of the first two types of Zero-Sum Game. A Civil war. Or a genocide.
Informal rules change. Inhibitions are lost. No one holds back.
Strong men take charge. People disappear. It only ends when one side gains complete and total victory. Or the country fractures into pieces.
Fortunately, those events are rare.
Usually, Boss Games end peacefully. Usually, people compromise. Usually, leaders negotiate.
Which means protesters become part of the government. Everyone agrees on a new set of rules. Everyone agrees to follow the decisions of the new boss, however the new boss is chosen.
Which is what happened in most countries after the Arab Spring. Mubarrak left Egypt, but Egyptians stayed Egyptian. Ben Ali left Tunisia, but Tunisians stayed Tunisian. A Positive-Sum Game followed.
But it didn’t happen everywhere.
Libya fractured. Libya became the 2nd type of Zero-Sum Game. The one where people keep fighting. Where Zero-Sum Game follows Zero-Sum Game. Civil war.
Which is why spies watch for Boss Games. Not only for what they are and who wins. Also for what they can become. For the games that will follow.
Because what starts off as a Boss Game can become a revolution. Or a civil war. Or a genocide.
You watch for Boss Games. And you watch for Boss games spiraling out of control. Because they can turn into something much worse.
When you’re looking at the other side’s strategy, you watch Boss Games closely. You watch because if the boss of the other side changes, their strategy will change, too. An ally can become an enemy.
But if the other side is already an enemy, there’s another reason to watch Boss Games closely.
If the other side is an enemy, their boss will build a strategy to make sure they stay boss.
Which may mean attacking you.
—————-
Bin Laden had won the Boss Game inside Al-Qaeda. Which seemed inevitable. After all, Bin Laden had created Al-Qaeda. It was his database of trusted fighters.
But that didn’t mean Al-Qaeda would stay his. There was a chance someone else could take over. Someone more charismatic. Or stronger. Or more devout. There was competition inside Al-Qaeda to be boss, as there is in any group.
But Bin Laden stayed boss. Bin Laden was the boss of Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda looked like this:
Which meant Bin Laden made the important decisions for Al-Qaeda. He set the strategic direction for the group.
When we put a hierarchy inside Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden’s strategy looks like this:
Being boss of Al-Qaeda was important to Bin Laden.
But he wanted much more than that.
Bin Laden wanted to be Caliph.
Bin Laden wanted to be boss in the Caliphate to come.
When he won, Bin Laden imagined he would be the true successor to Mohammed. He would be the spiritual and political leader of the Ummah. Which is why Bin Laden consciously mimicked Mohammed in everything he did.
Bin Laden imagined a Caliphate that looked like this:
Bin Laden would be Caliph. He would rule over the Ummah in the Middle East and use its resources to sustain the Caliphate.
Putting that hierarchy into Bin Laden’s Endgame, Bin Laden’s strategy looked like this (if you can’t see the full graphic on your device, go to spysguide.com/strategy34 to view):
In early 2001, Bin Laden was a long way from his Endgame. A long way from becoming Caliph.
And Bin Laden had another problem. A strategic problem.
The people, places and things Bin Laden needed for a Caliphate were under the rule of fellow Muslims.
The Ummah would frown on attacking fellow Muslims. Some of the Ummah might even say Bin Laden could never be Caliph if he attacked fellow Muslims.
But Bin Laden couldn’t sit back. He couldn’t accept the status quo.
To change it, Bin Laden needed a conflict. He needed to attack someone. He needed to start a war. Or else his Endgame would never come to be. He would never become Caliph.
If he couldn’t attack Muslims, who could Bin Laden attack?
Attacking Russia would be of limited value.
Attacking Israel was too hard.
Attacking India wouldn’t prove anything.
Attacking Europe wouldn’t get him anything.
So Bin Laden chose to attack the United States.
But Bin Laden didn’t just attack the United States because he wanted to start a war. There were other strategic reasons why he chose to attack the U.S.
Strategic reasons that started with the fact there was an Endgame that stood as a rival to his Caliphate.
An Endgame that had the United States as its boss.
——————
To become President of the United States, you win a lot of Boss Games. First were state-level primaries. Then the general election, with many games inside it. Then the Electoral College.
If you’re President, you won all those games.
You’re boss of the richest, most powerful country in the world.
At first, it feels like this:
You take office by swearing an oath to the Constitution of United States. The Constitution lays out which decisions you can make. Which decisions Congress and the Supreme Court will make. Which decisions the states and individuals will make. Which decisions you’ll need others to agree to for new laws.
You get started in the first 100 days. You focus on your signature issue. The one you campaigned on. The one people elected you to do. The one you said you’d get done the first year. You get to work.
You work with Congress. The House and Senate. You twist arms and negotiate. Which means a lot of compromising. Which means accepting some changes from your original plan.
You work and work. Maybe you fail. Maybe your first year is a disaster.
Or maybe you succeed. Congress passes a law that’s not what you wanted. But maybe it’s close. Close enough. So you sign it and make it a law.
Then, it’s challenged in court. And appealed to the Supreme Court. Where it’s determined to be Constitutional. Or not. Or changed again by interpretation.
If you succeed, you got something close to what you wanted. But not exactly what you wanted.
The process was exhausting. You burned political capital. You made a lot of promises. Some of those promises will take the rest of your Presidency to deliver. And you didn’t get exactly what you wanted.
You recognize a simple fact: Presidential decision-making is limited. Being boss in a constitutional system like the United States is limiting.
The Constitution limits your power. Congress limits your power. The opposing party limits your power. The Supreme Court limits your power. Your decisions rarely turn into action. And even more rarely, into results.
Plus, you have mid-term elections. Where the American people will vote by proxy on your decisions. Up or down. And after your first term is done, the American people can vote again. They can keep you or replace you. They can elect someone who undoes everything you did. Or doesn’t.
The Boss Game in the United States looks more like this:
At least, that’s true for decisions you make about what happens within the borders of the United States.
For decisions on what happens outside U.S. borders, it’s different.
Outside the United States, the Constitution gives the President more power. Congress doesn’t intervene as much. The opposing party gives you more latitude. The Supreme Court only steps in if something crazy happens. Outside the United States, it’s a lot easier to turn your decisions into action. And into results.
Outside the United States you are Commander-in-Chief. You have more power. On a bigger playing field.
Which is why most Presidencies follow a pattern. At the beginning, the President focuses on domestic issues. Then the President conflicts with Congress. And the Supreme Court. And takes some losses. Domestically, the President is not as powerful as they want to be.
Outside the United States, international institutions are less likely to stand in an American President’s way. Foreign countries may resist, but that’s a different kind of game. Played with tools not available domestically. Like the U.S. Armed Forces. And the CIA.
Which creates a natural dynamic: Presidents start making decisions where their decisions are turned into action. Where they can get results. Which is outside U.S. borders.
As a Presidency goes on, Presidents are more likely to spend time on international issues.[xviii]
Presidents create currency agreements, world trade agreements and international institutions. They create a network of defense alliances and support. A world system under U.S. rules.
Most other countries don’t mind. They see the benefit of working within the U.S.-led system. Most countries have joined a U.S. defense treaty or trade agreement. Most countries are in a Positive-Sum Game with the United States. Win-win for everyone.
Add it all together, and it’s one big Positive-Sum Game.
Some call the global Positive-Sum Game the post-Cold War system. But that defines it by what it’s not. Some call it Western Civilization. But includes Asia, too. Some call it the New World Order. But that’s creepy.
Most of the time, a Positive-Sum Game takes its name from its leader. Like law firms have top partners in their names. Like Walmart was named for Sam Walton. Like kingdoms are named for kings. Caliphates for caliphs. Like how the Pax Romana was named for Rome.
Some people call it the Pax Americana.
If that’s what we call it, the Pax Americana looks like this:
Like every Positive-Sum Game, it has people (most people in the world), places (most places in the world) and things (most resources in the world).
But not everyone likes it.
Some people don’t like U.S. leadership. Some people don’t like U.S. rules or institutions or dispute mechanisms. Some people don’t like U.S. Presidents. Some people want more from the Pax Americana. They’re not winning as much as they’d like in the Pax Americana.
So they start a conflict. Maybe it’s the third type of Zero-Sum Game against the United States: They want to win the power to make certain decisions.
But they hold back. They limit the conflict to a vote at the U.N. Or a proxy war in a remote corner of the world. They don’t take the conflict too far. They don’t want to destroy the world system.
But some don’t see any benefit to the Pax Americana. They want it destroyed. They want to break the world into pieces. Into regions. Maybe they want a Pax Sinica. Or a Pax Africanus. They want to start wars. The kind of wars where the losers are vanquished or killed. They want the first type of Zero-Sum Game.
Which are threats.
When you’re an American spy, it’s your job to watch for those threats.
Because it’s always easier to win a Zero-Sum Game before it starts.
When you’re an American spy, you’re preparing for the next war. You’re watching potential enemies. You’re helping allies. You’re getting your Positive-Sum Games and Zero-Sum Games in line. To get to your Endgame.
You’re reasoning backward. From the Pax Americana. To the conflicts that threaten it. To the alliances that support it.
When you’re a spy, you’re building micro-strategies to win. You’re building alliances to win the conflicts that will come.
You’re using that strategy to prioritize which intelligence is important. And what’s not necessary. Which sources to work with. And which aren’t worth the time. Which relationships are worth the risk and denied area travel and high-threat encounters. And which aren’t.
You’re reasoning backward to today. To which meetings are worth the risk. And which aren’t.
Which is important when your boss tells you to do something you shouldn’t.
————-
I hadn’t seen the lying source’s strategy. Because I hadn’t seen his Endgame.
I hadn’t seen it because I made a mistake. A mistake I had made before. A mistake I didn’t make again.
My mistake was that I believed his Endgame was similar to mine. But it wasn’t. He didn’t care about saving lives. Or fighting terrorism. Or the Pax Americana.
He just cared about his friends. His village. And his influence in it.
He cared about a very small Boss Game.
I hadn’t seen that the lying source had this Endgame:
All he cared about what his village and his influence in it.
This type of Endgame isn’t unusual. It isn’t unusual for people to want to be a leader among their friends. It isn’t unusual to want to impress the people around them. It isn’t unusual to want to be popular and deferred to and respected. It isn’t unusual to want to be the boss.
But it was the first time I’d seen it up close in espionage.
It was the first time I’d seen it drive such an obviously dangerous strategy. It was the first time I’d seen it mean a cavalier attitude toward secrecy. It was the first time I’d seen it mean stupidity and risk.
All to impress his friends.
Looking back, there were clues in our first conversation. When he talked about gun battles. When he acted like a tough guy.
He was trying to impress.
Which hadn’t worked with me. I had tried to diminish what he thought were his impressive skills. His tough guy skills. I had tried to make him more like a spy.
Which maybe he didn’t like.
When I turned him toward intelligence collection rather than tough guy activities, he turned on me. He leveraged me. He took what I gave him and shared it with others.
He took without giving.
He turned our relationship into a Zero-Sum Game.
His strategy had become this:
He took information. He took knowledge. He took whatever would push him higher in his Boss Game. He took things.
But he hadn’t taken that much.
Because I had held back. I had waited to talk about the important things. If the onion of intelligence collection has twenty layers, he had barely been past the first.
But he didn’t know that.
He didn’t know there was much more.
He didn’t know that his stupid strategy had stopped him from something much bigger.
Now, he would never know.
Now, it was over.
Now, it was time to deal with him.
But there were risks.
Risks because he knew he had been caught. He knew that I knew.
Which meant he was thinking about what I would do next. He was thinking about whether I would do bad things.
He was thinking of worst-case scenarios.
Worst-case scenarios that came from spy movies. From what spies in the movies would do. James Bond. Jason Bourne. Jack Bauer.
Movie spies hurt people. Sometimes, movie spies kill people. Sometimes, movie spies blow up whole villages. For less than what he’d done.
Now, he was gaming out what I would do. Would I hurt him? Worse: Kill him? Worse still: Hurt his family?
I wouldn’t. But he didn’t know that.
Which was a problem.
A strategic problem.
————-
Before 9/11, we knew Bin Laden was a threat to U.S. interests abroad. He attacked us in Africa. He attacked us in the Middle East. He had the capability and the will to attack U.S. interests abroad.
We knew Bin Laden wanted a Caliphate. We knew he wanted to be Caliph. We knew he wanted the Ummah, the Middle East and its resources under his rule.
But few saw that Bin Laden’s strategy was a threat to the United States homeland.
Few reasoned backward from Bin Laden’s Endgame to his full strategy. Few reasoned backward to how Bin Laden could win the people, places and things for a Caliphate. Few reasoned backward to Bin Laden attacking the U.S. homeland.
The first step backward for Bin Laden from a Caliphate was a Zero-Sum Game. A Zero-Sum Game against those who had the people, places and things Bin Laden needed for a Caliphate: Arab Rulers.
Isolated, it looked like this:
Eventually, there would be a conflict between Bin Laden and the Arab Rulers.
If Bin Laden won, there would be a Caliphate. If Arab Rulers won, there would be the status quo.
Then, the next step backward. To the alliances that would fight this conflict.
Bin Laden saw that the Arab Rulers were part of an alliance. An American-led alliance.
Which Bin Laden saw first-hand before the First Gulf War. That’s when Arab Rulers rejected Bin Laden’s offer of help. That’s when Bin Laden saw the Middle East was embedded in the Pax Americana.
When Bin Laden saw that, he looked at the bigger picture.
Bin Laden saw this (if you can’t see the full graphic on your device, go to spysguide.com/strategy34 to view):
Bin Laden saw that to build a Caliphate, he would need to weaken the Arab Rulers. Which he could do by weakening their alliance. By pulling them away from the Pax Americana. Bin Laden wanted to separate Arab Rulers from the United States.
After separating Arab Rulers from the United States, he would defeat them individually. Which would be easier. Maybe, without force. Bin Laden could use his position as a cleric to persuade the Ummah to overthrow the Arab Rulers.
It wasn’t a new strategy. A similar strategy had worked in Afghanistan. There, a dominating foreign state had been terrorized into withdrawing. When the foreign state was gone, theocratic warlords fought for power.
In Afghanistan, that’s how the Taliban had won.
Bin Laden wanted what happened in Afghanistan to happen in the Middle East.
Bin Laden wanted the world to look like this:
Bin Laden wanted to cut the Middle East away from the rest of the world.
Bin Laden wanted the Middle East to leave the Pax Americana. To become a separate entity. So that he could fight the Arab Rulers directly. A fight Bin Laden thought he could win.
With that strategy in mind, Bin Laden launched the attacks on 9/11.
And he used Saudi passport holders to do it.
There’s no better way to destroy an alliance than to have one side of the alliance attack the other. There’s no better way to sow distrust. There’s no better way to weaken. There’s no better way to create fear in one side and anger in the other.
In the hours after 9/11, the Saudis felt that fear. They gathered as many of their citizens as they could. When the airports reopened, the Saudis took them on private planes back to Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis were right to be worried. Some Americans blamed the Saudis for 9/11. Some Americans wanted the U.S. alliance with the Saudis to stop. Some Americans wanted to stop supporting Arab Rulers. Some wanted to withdraw completely from the Middle East.
The U.S.-Arab Rulers’ alliance was weakened on 9/11.
Just as Bin Laden wanted.
The attacks on 9/11 did four things to weaken Bin Laden’s enemies. And the attacks did four things to strengthen Bin Laden.
How Bin Laden strengthened himself on 9/11:
How Bin Laden weakened his enemies on 9/11:
The effects of 9/11 looked like this, following the gray arrows (if you can’t see the graphic on your device, a full-size version is available at spysguide.com/strategy34):
For Bin Laden’s strategy, the attacks on 9/11 were tragically effective.
But afterward, what happened?
For ten years, Bin Laden was holed up in Afghanistan, then Pakistan. Ten years of inactivity, frustrated operations and tactical failures.
And then, Bin Laden was killed on May 2nd, 2011.
Ten years in which Bin Laden didn’t strike again.
Why didn’t Bin Laden do more while he was alive?
Why didn’t Bin Laden attack shopping malls or stadiums or other soft targets?
Did Bin Laden lose the capability or the will to attack?
Or both?