"Because of the nature" is not a reason for keeping victories secret. A democratic government is responsible to its people.

Moreover, you do not do a very good job of preventing terrorism by keeping secret all the times terrorism fails and publicly over-reacting every time it does.

Yes, I think about it all the time but when pressed for numbers the CIA/NSA/FBI never reveal any.

What isn't discussed here is the numerous times that these institutions have actually created terrorists. Or lead people to a course of action of their choosing.

Genuinly curious: why would they hide their successes? It would change public perception about the surveillance, and it would also act as a deterrent to potential terrorists. I get that they don't want to reveal their methods, but I can't see any issues with sharing their successes.

Revealing their successes would probably just lead skeptics to believe they were engaging in propaganda, and it probably wouldn't act as a deterrent to terrorists at all.

Maybe... On the other hand, keeping silent doesn't seem to convert a whole lot of skeptics either. And revealing a couple of successes would probably result in a lot more votes for your administration the next elections, right?

It certainly could bring in political capital, but aren't politicians who do that already accused of manufacturing terrorist plots and ratcheting up fear for points during election season? How valuable is public relations for the US intelligence community versus keeping their methods secret (within a culture of secrecy?) It's not as though the CIA or NSA are likely to be defunded soon, regardless of who gets elected.

Revealing how the plots were foiled might teach future would-be terrorists how to better avoid detection. Just to play devil's advocate.