If you look at causes of death in the United States you'll find that terrorism is right up there with such national crises as falling from a ladder (406 deaths in 2002), drowning in your bathtub (352 deaths), riding a "special agricultural vehicle" (149 deaths) and "overexertion, travel and privation" (128 deaths). Heck, on average more people accidentally shoot themselves to death (243) than die at the hands of terrorists.
Put into perspective, terrorism isn't even close to a national threat. It does not threaten our national survival, and it does not threaten the life of average Americans in any meaningful way. One could plausibly argue that our response to terrorism has done more damage to Americans than terrorism itself. 9/11 killed 3,000 people and caused several billion dollars in economic damage. Our response has killed even more people and cost $400 billion, all of it borrowed. The terrorists could only dream of inflicting as much harm on us as we have inflicted upon ourselves.
Of course we still have to combat terrorism, and of course our response should be outsized; we don't just passively accept the murder of American citizens. And there are psychological and economic aftershocks from spectacular stunts like 9/11. But by any measure our response has been way out of proportion to the risk.
So how much effort should we put into fighting terrorism? That requires an honest national debate, but I think critics of the Iraq campaign had it right: terror is better handled as a law enforcement and intelligence matter than as a military one. Not only would that be more effective, it would be far cheaper.
When clear targets are identified, military force can be beneficial: the campaign in Afghanistan is a prime example of that. But the military clearly should play a supporting role, not a starring one. We are better served keeping our soldiers available as a credible deterrent and to fend off true threats to national survival.
So what works? In Part I, I explained why the "war on terror" justifications for Iraq are nonsense. Instead, I think four broad strategies offer the most chance of success:
Article comments
1 - tommyd
Excellent posts, thank you.
However, just remember that WAR is the HEALTH of the STATE. Rich men get richer by starting wars and having the poor people do the fighting and dying. The USA is nothing but a corporatocracy of oligarchs who profit from the death and destruction of war.
This American war machine needs "enemies" to justify it's profiteering. No enemies, no war, no money$$$$.
Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg trials said, paraphrasing, "the people can be led to do the bidding of it's leaders. Just tell them their under attack, call the dissenters "traitors" and war is absolutely necessary. Works in a democracy, dictatorship, or communist country".
Fascist America has risen, but sadly, because of it's worshipping of greed and money over life and truth, will find itself in the dustbin of history like the other nations that tried to enslave it's own citizens by fear.
2 - Nancy
Excellent blog, & tommyd, excellent comment. I second.
3 - Dr. Kurt
Well argued - I can't fault your logic. These is a strong element of the old (and beautiful) "Millions for defense, not a penny in tribute," but Iraq is not defense. It is offense. I'm not convinced Afghanistan was really that clearly a good idea, either. I know some old Rangers who contend that we could have gotten Osama & Co. faster and better without the bombers and tanks.
Perhaps the 9/11 terrorists (whether they were foreign or domestic)have already won, by bankrupting us & ruining our influence worldwide?
4 - Anthony Grande
Terrorists don't exist. Saddam wasn't bad. Saddam never massacred his own people. Saddam never paid Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam never constantly breached the No Fly Zone. Saddam had no interest in gaining weapons of mass destruction.
Bush went to Iraq because he just loves when people critisize him and his polls numbers go down the drain (suupposedly).
Oh...yeah... we are stealing so much oil from Iraq that Gas back in the States is almost free. But not quite free.
5 - RogerMDillion
What a fun game. Can I play?
Anthony knows what he's talking about. People respect Anthony's opinion and writing style. Anthony is an adult that has life experinces to base his opinions on. Anthony does research and cites information in his arguements on.
6 - Sean Aqui
Dr Kurt,
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I think Afghanistan was clearly a good idea because it destroyed a hateful regime and removed a sanctuary for Al Qaeda. The move dramatically weakened Al Qaeda, enhanced our international standing and sent a clear signal that messing with the United States carries severe consequences. All good things, IMO.
Then we took all that and threw it into the garbage by invading Iraq.
7 - Mike Valdman
Very interesting post again. I have many comments but I'll limit myself to just one. I agree with your overarching point that we have overemphasized and overreacted to the threat of terrorism. However, I don't think that you can estimate the threat of terrorism simply by looking at terrorism in the past. It it true that, in the past 20 years, terrorism has been like a flea on a St. Bernard. But suppose that terrorists manage to set off a nuclear devise in a large U.S. city. The results would be catastrophic -- both in loss of life and in the economic consequences for the country. What is the probability that terrorists will pull off a nuclear attack inside the U.S.? I don't know, but I don't think we can simply look at terrorism in the past to get an answer.
In general, to assess risk correctly we need to consider the magnitude of the threat and not just its likelihood. For instance, the chance of a nuclear reactor meltdown are probably very small, but sometimes small risks are important -- especially if many lives are at stake. Consider voting. The odds that my vote will make a difference in a presidential election is virtually zero, but if there is a lot at stake in the election, then it may still be rational for me to vote. Terrorism may be like this. The likelihood of me getting killed in a terrorist attack may be very slim, but if we're talking about a nuclear attack then there may be enough at stake to warrant taking that small probability very seriously.
8 - Sean Aqui
Mike,
Agreed. That's why I said an outsized response is still justified. Heck, look at the measures I proposed -- they're not precisely free.
I think a dirty bomb is more scare tactic than actual threat. The damage and radiological effects would be fairly minimal. An actual nuke would be very difficult to acquire, deliver to U.S. soil and set off. For one thing, even the smallest nukes these days are big and heavy -- you'd need a pickup truck to haul it around. That's not a simple thing to smuggle in, especially if we pay attention to port and border security.
More to the point, Iraq does nothing to protect us against those things. So the $200 billion spent so far is a waste as far as terrorism is concerned.
The "smuggled nuke" scenario has existed for decades. Let's deal with it the way we always have -- by protecting our borders and using intelligence assets to keep tabs on nuclear material and the people who might use it against us.