Terror at Home: So Far, So Good

March 26, 2003 -- The FBI and local police have been bracing for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the first bombs fell on Iraq, but so far no attacks have come.

Have the security measures — raising the national alert level to orange, flying F-16s over New York City — worked? Or has America just been lucky?

"Heightened security measures prevent what we call 'low-hanging fruit.' They prevent the easy attack," said former White House anti-terrorism director Richard Clarke, an ABCNEWS consultant. "They scare some people off. They may make people redo their plans, which could cause delay. But basically what they probably do on the low road is just redirect the attacks somewhere else."

It is possible that the show of force, along with ongoing international police efforts, have disrupted and discouraged terrorist networks. But it might also be true that assumptions about the terrorists' timetable were just wrong to begin with.

"The terrorists do not want to adhere to any schedule that is given to them by the rest of the world. They think in terms of a war with the West and the U.S. spread over generations, so they really want to spread out their attacks rather than attack just immediately," said Husain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

War Might Fuel Anti-American Feeling

In fact, Haqqani said, the war could be making it easier for terrorist groups to attract support — especially with the images of civilian casualties playing repeatedly on Arab television networks.

"The chances that a lot more people in the Muslim world will embrace extremist ideology and thereby also join the ranks of the terrorists will certainly be far greater as a result of this conflict," he said.

Clarke agreed, saying there is a "very good chance" that the war in Iraq and the expected occupation by U.S. forces will radicalize some Muslims and "push them over the top to becoming terrorists."

Heightened Security Doesn’t Come Cheap

One thing that seems clear is that the United States will have to maintain a high level of security for some time. That costs money — money that many budget-strapped state and local governments don't have.

"We need full support for our troops, ... but we also need full support for our troops at home: those police, fire and emergency health responders. And we can't shortchange that," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who has publicly complained to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge about the lack of federal resources directed to local governments.

President Bush earmarked $4.2 billion for homeland security in his $74.7 billion supplemental funding request to Congress, but will it be enough?

This report aired on Nightline on March 25.