Hyping Terrorism

The rightwing media (Wall Street Journal editoria page and National Review) have frequently criticized me for my July 2001 op-ed in the New York Times, which argued that terrorism was not the greatest threat facing the United States. Within the last month articles by Ohio State University professor, John Mueller, and Wired Magazine’s, Ryan Singel, acknowledge, albeit indirectly, that I was right. They offer critical facts to buttress their arguments that the threat of terrorism is overstated.

While I fully agree with them, I would note that we have seen a dramatic, significant increase in international terrorist attacks in which people are killed and wounded since the United States invaded Iraq. The U.S. presence in Iraq is fueling a growth in terrorism. Fortunately, those who want to attack us in the continental United States confront major obstacles (which is a key part of Mueller’s arguement).

Let’s start with an article by Ryan Singel that appeared yesterday (September 11, 2006) in Wired. He writes:

But despite the never-ending litany of warnings and endless stories of half-baked plots foiled, how likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack?

Comparing official mortality data with the number of Americans who have been killed inside the United States by terrorism since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma reveals that scores of threats are far more likely to kill an American than any terrorist — at least, statistically speaking.

In fact, your appendix is more likely to kill you than al-Qaida is.

With that in mind, here’s a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005 (extrapolated from best available data).

Ryan offers a handy dandy color code chart that puts things in perspective:

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University is featured in the latest version of Foreign Affairs and provides a more scholarly review of the hype surrounding terrorism. In asking the question, Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?, Mueller notes that:

For the past five years, Americans have been regularly regaled with dire predictions of another major al Qaeda attack in the United States. In 2003, a group of 200 senior government officials and business executives, many of them specialists in security and terrorism, pronounced it likely that a terrorist strike more devastating than 9/11 — possibly involving weapons of mass destruction — would occur before the end of 2004. In May 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that al Qaeda could “hit hard” in the next few months and said that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on U.S. soil were complete. That fall, Newsweek reported that it was “practically an article of faith among counterterrorism officials” that al Qaeda would strike in the run-up to the November 2004 election. When that “October surprise” failed to materialize, the focus shifted: a taped encyclical from Osama bin Laden, it was said, demonstrated that he was too weak to attack before the election but was marshalling his resources to do so months after it.

On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, “Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.”

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?

One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

Even rightwing whackos are starting to recognize the gap between the rhetoric of fearmongering and the reality of terrorism. Commenting on John Mueller’s article, NY Times columnist John Tierney opines (watch it John, that’s what got me in trouble with the right):

The Bush administration likes to take credit for stopping domestic plots, but it’s hard to gauge whether these are much more than the fantasies of a few klutzes. Bush also claims that the war in Iraq has diverted terrorists’ attention there, but why wouldn’t global jihadists want the added publicity from attacking America at home, too? Al Qaeda’s leaders threatened in 2003 to attack America — along with a half dozen other countries that haven’t been attacked either.

Mueller’s conclusion is that there just aren’t that many terrorists out there with the zeal and the competence to attack the United States. In his forthcoming book, “Overblown,” he argues that the risk of terrorism didn’t increase after Sept. 11 — if anything, it declined because of a backlash against Al Qaeda, making it a smaller and less capable threat than before. But the terrorism industry has been too busy hyping Sept. 11 and several other attacks to notice.

Hyping indeed! Terrorism is to the 21st Century what the Soviet missile gap was to the 20th–a threat that was overblown, that provoked an over reaction by the United States, and that fueled the growth of new economic sectors.

We need to recognize that terrorism by Islamic extremists will be with us for the forseeable future and actually could worsen. But it is a manageable threat and should be treated realistically. This requires more international diplomacy, law enforcement, and intelligence than military force. The path forward is visible in part from the latest news about the foiled terrorist attack against the US Embassy in Damascus. Our axis of evil “enemy”, Syria, stepped up to the plate and defended our diplomats from Islamic extremists. While we have policy differences with the Government of Bashir Assad, this much is true–even authoritarian Arab leaders dislike and fear Muslim extremists. Working collaboratively with Arabs and Muslims we can put terrorism in its place.

……………………………………………………..

Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder
of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm
that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by
terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously
with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s
Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized
expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk
management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety
of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio,
ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News,
and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for
publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York
Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and
aviation security around the world. Further bio
details.

Personal Blog: No Quarter
|| Bio
Recommended
Book List || More
BoomanTribune Posts