Terrorism threat overblown?
Continuing my parade posts countering the prevalent terrorism hysteria, I link to this article in Foreign Affairs (HT: Weigel on Sullivan):
My main beef is that the steps we are taking to prevent terrorist attacks of this kind seem all wrongheaded. The terror hysteria is making us less secure, because we act less sensibly in response to it. Homeland security money seems to be a big pile of pork, security measures that would require industry to bear some burden (e.g. changing the way we transport hazardous materials) don't get implemented, the airline industry gets a lot of panicky attention, and we do things in the foreign policy arena that exacerbate antagonism to the United States. Ironically, I bet we'd be safer if we took the threat less "seriously". Then cooler heads might prevail and important work on securing our ports, increasing human intelligence, and improving police work might actually get done.
Summary: Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.I'm a little more worried about international terrorism than the author of this article seems to be. Even if Al Qaeda is defunct, other organizations may eventually arise and use similar tactics.
My main beef is that the steps we are taking to prevent terrorist attacks of this kind seem all wrongheaded. The terror hysteria is making us less secure, because we act less sensibly in response to it. Homeland security money seems to be a big pile of pork, security measures that would require industry to bear some burden (e.g. changing the way we transport hazardous materials) don't get implemented, the airline industry gets a lot of panicky attention, and we do things in the foreign policy arena that exacerbate antagonism to the United States. Ironically, I bet we'd be safer if we took the threat less "seriously". Then cooler heads might prevail and important work on securing our ports, increasing human intelligence, and improving police work might actually get done.
Comments
Its a weapon. 'Terror' means to be really scared of something! Even if Islamic Fundamentalists are totally neutralized, there will still exist other ideologues who will use terrorism. It is a war that cannot be won, by definition. George Bush's speech on 14th September 2001 condemned the world to a generation of fighting against shadows, reflections, and ghosts.
What is surprising is how quickly we in the west have capitulated! If Americans are scared out of all proportion (as the Reason article claims they are) then the War on Terror has (again by definition) been lost.