Steven Emerson: "Split Round" in War on Terrorism in 2005 (updated)

Appearing on NBC's "Today" program today, Steven Emerson said that the lack of terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks is due to a combination of factors, including the investigative and law enforcement activities; plain luck; and the lack of terrorist infrastructure in the U.S. But "U.S. wars" over issues such as the Patriot Act, alleged torture of detainees, the NSA intercept program, and other legal issues, while worthy for debate, are distracting us from the focus on Islamist terrorists, and instead focusing us on perceived threats to our civil liberties. Europe is the new front and will be so in the near future. Once Iraq is dealt with, we will see even more attacks there, and there is no real terrorist command structure there to attack. Self-annointed terrorist "franchise operations" in Europe are the most worrisome development in 2005. In his opinion, this year's final grade is a "split round" - we took out major terrorists leaders, but lost momentum and haven't seized more terrorists' assets.

UPDATE: You can see a clip of his appearance at the Investigative Project website (4.8 MB Windows Media file) and read a full transcript of his appearance below. Steve also appeared on MSNBC today to discuss our effectiveness against terrorism this year (Intelligence Summit video).

The Today Show, December 30, 2005

MATT LAUER: President Bush calls Iraq the central front on the War on Terror. This year terrorists struck repeatedly there and in spots around the world. But the US still hasn't been hit since 9/11. Is it just good luck or are we winning the war? NBC news analyst Steve Emerson is a terror expert. Steve, good morning to you.

STEVE EMERSON: Good morning and happy birthday to you.

LAUER: Thanks very much. I appreciate it. Let's start with the question I just asked in the introduction: The reason we haven't been struck in this country since 9/11- luck or are we doing everything right?

EMERSON: Both of those, A and B, and probably C and D, C being serendipity and D being the unwillingness of the terrorists to carry out attacks right now because they don't have the infrastructure. Let me add one more thing, Matt. I think that in the set-up that you described initially, I fear we are getting away too far from the War on Terrorism. It's not resonating in our mind. We are now having what I call the U.S. wars. We are now a ways away from the war with Al Qaeda directly and we're immersed in this terribly acrimonious debate about the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, about the issue of secret camps, about the use of wiretaps.

LAUER: You think that's distracting people and basically it's taking our focus away. When we talk about this domestic spying, these warrantless wiretaps, we talk about these secret prisons where terrorist suspects are taken and the Patriot Act itself, you think those are valuable tools. Are you saying we shouldn't be debating those things at home?

EMERSON: No, I do not want to imply that we shouldn't be debating them nor do I want to take away the legitimacy of those who advocate those positions. What I am suggesting is that the debate itself has a natural consequence and that consequence is that we've now focused more on threats to our, quote, "civil liberties" as more of an imminent threat than we do focus of the threat of terrorism and that's a byproduct of all of these internal squabbles that have developed. Now, that's a natural development. I am not positing a moral statement on that. But, the reality is, Matt, that the War on Terrorism will naturally suffer. I am not putting in the war in Iraq in that, because I put that in a separate category. But I think that in terms of arresting people, in terms of identifying the radical Islamic groups overseas and trying to seize their monies, all of that has reached a much more difficult stage in the last four years. It's no longer cherry picking.

LAUER: Let me go on to something, in Europe. London, obviously the scene of the July bombings, 52 people killed there. In 2004 it was Madrid where the bombings took place. Is Europe the new front, the battleground for terrorism?

EMERSON: Without a doubt. This is the new front and will be so for the foreseeable future. With the riots we saw in Paris this past summer, with the fact that there was the major attack on July 7th, the subsequent aborted attack in London three weeks later, arrests in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the assassination of the film maker Theo Van Gogh last year. I think this is the new Al Qaeda battlefront outside of Iraq. Once Iraq is dealt with, we are going to see more attacks develop there and they are not necessarily controlled by any hierarchical command center. And that's the real problem for European intelligence as well as for U.S. intelligence.

LAUER: Some trends we saw developing over the last year- Steve, quickly, if we will-independent franchises, these splinter groups really only associated philosophically with Al Qaeda, female suicide bombers and European converts. Which should we be most concerned about in 2006?

EMERSON: I think the self-anointed franchise operations. Anybody can become a 7/11 chapter of Al Qaeda now. All you have to do is carry out an operation, you become a made member, and then you become a chapter that can attract others. It's very dangerous because you can't predict where it will occur.

LAUER: Just ten seconds left. Bin Laden still at large, obviously, Zawahiri still at large. How did we do in 2005 in terms of rounding up terror leaders, capturing or killing them?

EMERSON: I think if you scored it, it would be a split round at this point- very difficult. We took out two major leaders with predator missiles, but also we lost some in the war, judicially, and we have not been able to seize as much terrorist assets.

LAUER: Steve Emerson, NBC News analyst and terrorism expert. Steve, thanks so much.