Terrorism: The Overrated Threat

[the_sam]

This isn't to say that there aren't terrorists out there who, presented with no obstacles, wouldn't hesitate to inflict attacks on the U.S. even more deadly than 9/11.

But think about it. The intelligence community knew everything it needed to know to stop the hijackers. 9/11 was preventable. The problem wasn't that they didn't have enough information, but that they just didn't connect the dots (or actually, that they *did* connect the dots (as demonstrated by the warning they issued Willie Brown), but didn't take the necessary steps to protect people.

No state has ever given terrorists NBC weapons, and is unlikely to do so. States generally are very reluctant to surrender such weapons to groups over which they do not have direct control, especially given the difficulty in manufacturing such weapons. Furthermore, any attack that could be traced back to its source would be met with swift retaliation.

NBC weapons are not easy to develop. The fact is that the vast majority of terrorist groups simply aren't well-funded enough to develop or purchase them, al Qaeda being an exception (perhaps a lone exception).

Furthermore, there's been a decline in terrorism globally since the end of the Cold War.

9/11 was an anomaly. We had the resources available to stop it. We simply failed to utilize them.

A bigger military budget will not protect us from people who fly planes into buildings. It won't even protect us from anthrax or sarin. The Coast Guard, the Department of Transportation, and other domestic agencies are the ones who can most effectively address those (still relatively distant) threats. And the Big Brother state heralded by the PATRIOT Act is both ineffective and unnecessary.

Now, don't get me wrong. There could be miscalculations, and very bad things could happen on American soil. But the Bush administration (and most of America) is reacting irrationally to the threat of terrorism.

There's basically one reasonably well-funded and active group that we should be worried about, and that's al Qaeda. And al Qaeda gets its funds from money laundering and fake charities. The way to stop this network is to crack down on these operations -- not to rain missiles down on Third World nations, which will only add fuel to the fire, opening up new sources of funding and recruitment for al Qaeda and encouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We should reward countries for cooperating in shutting down terrorist-funding operations. But most importantly, we need to address the root causes of anti-American sentiment worldwide. We should cut military spending. We have troops in 120 nations -- this isn't necessary. We need to stop supplying 70 percent of the world's arms. We need to quit trying to subvert democracy -- abolish the CIA and replace it with a real intelligence-gathering agency. We need to be a fairer arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We need to quit backing corrupt regimes like those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And we need to quit forcing these nations into poverty by promoting so-called policies of "free trade".

[drdigi420]

1. perpetual war

the bush administration needs perpetual war to rationalize its wasteful military budgets

its all about the money

[bryant69]

2. Oh my

While I agree with some of your analysis--boy is this the wrong image to show America. 3,000 American's died on September 11th, and your policy is for us to accept it, and concede defeat? I'm not saying that's what your argument is, but it sure as hell would be spun that way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[the_sam]

6. No

When Columbine happened, people all over the country asked, "Why?" And schools implemented programs -- counseling, after school programs, etc. -- to try to prevent schools shootings. That hardly means that they were "giving in" to school shooters.

If we crack down on the financial networks that fund terrorist groups, that's not "conceding defeat". Nor is it conceding defeat if we reward other nations for doing the same. Increased airport security is not conceding defeat.

But the fact is that the current strategy will not stop terrorism. Increased military spending is useless. Anyone with half a brain can see that. It may make people feel better, but it will hardly make them safer.

Furthermore, I don't propose changes in our foreign policy because terrorist groups don't like our foreign policy. I propose changes in our foreign policy because it is wrong. It was wrong long before 9/11, and is wrong still.

If America overnight became an Islamist state just to appease al Qaeda, that would be conceding defeat. Examining what's legitimately wrong with our foreign policy and how that wrongness creates terrorism is not conceding defeat; it's looking at the problem rationally.

A war on terrorism cannot be won. Just ask Israel.

[bryant69]

11. Bad Analogy

Colombine, while terrible, was not intended as a message--or insofar as it was intended as a message, the insanity of the action has overshadowed that message.

The terrorism on September 11th, while horrible, was a rational act. They wanted to affect the United States. The terrorists on September 11th selected targets based on the symbols of American Strength--our Economic and our Military Strength. Presumably they wished America to feel the disapproving hand of God.

From our perspective, I think Americans like to feel strong. And the public face you would have us put out is one of weakness. Or would be percieved as such.

And anybody who ignores political ramifications of their positions is not thinking clearly--after all the Nadar supporters (and I was one of them) have taught us the peril of putting ideology before politics, particularly if one believes (and I frankly do not) that Al Gore would have prevented September 11th.

Bryant

[the_sam]

14. But...

Columbine wasn't committed by kids who consciously wanted to send a message, but arguably an unconscious cry for help.

The same can be said of the attacks of 9/11. Al Qaeda wants the destruction of Israel. Al Qaeda wants everyone in America to convert to Islam. These demands are uttery unreasonable, and should be disregarded.

But what leads people to make these insane demands is the failure of the United States to listen to more reasonable demands.

Osama bin Laden knew that none of his demands would be met in response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. So why did he carry them out? Because he knew it would provoke a war, which would fan the flame of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, thus creating sources of funding and recruitment for al Qaeda. American intelligence has admitted that bin Laden planned anti-U.S. resistance in Afghanistan prior to the attacks. They also know that after the war, more and more Arabs sympathized with Osama bin Laden, and have stated publicly their fears that the Iraq war in particular has opened up new sources of funding for the group.

We are not playing bin Laden's game by addressing the legitimate concerns of the Arabs. We are playing his game by embarking on an endless war. But if we address the legitimate concerns of oppressed people around the world (especially those in the Middle East), we show that we're not the bad guys that Osama makes us out to be. We show our humanity. Most terrorism experts agree that winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs and Persians is the most important task facing us. This cannot be done unless we address legitimate greivances.

[the_sam]

15. Another thing

Basically, you're suggesting that we take measures that won't prevent terrorism but will make people feel better, rather than measures that will prevent terrorism but will deflate the American ego.

Great.

[the_sam]

9. 5,000 dead in Afghanistan, 30,000 in Iraq

Are our lives worth more than theirs?

[Pastiche423]

16. 3,000 Americans did not die on September 11, 2001

3,000 human beings from over sixty nations died on September 11, 2001.

It is arrogant and small minded to say that only America lost citizens that day.

Our defeat will be, if we do not rectify the causes of the attacks. Bigger guns are not the solution.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

3. It's attitudes like this...

...that would lead to us getting HAMMERED in 2004.

[the_sam]

7. Maybe So

But what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

12. And what's "Right" is...

...Ending terrorism so my kids don't have to go through a 9-11. Or would you rather we just take it and smile?

[the_sam]

13. Strawman Argument

Does anyone want to live with terrorism? Of course not.

But there are a few important things to acknowledge. First of all, terrorism will never "end". It has always existed in some form, and always will.

However, we can take measures to make it much harder for terrorists to inflict a great deal of harm on innocent civilians.

Increasing military spending is not one of those measures. These terrorists were created by our military adventures. More of them will create more. A British intelligence report recently released predicted a "WMD alliance" in the Middle East -- proliferation in response to the Iraq war.

None of the measures taken so far (besides perhaps federalizing airport security) have had anything to do with stopping terrorism. Explain to me how tanks and bombs will prevent someone from unleashing anthrax on a subway or flying planes into buildings.

If you really wanted to protect your children, you'd pursue those measures which would be most effective in so doing.

I'm no bleeding-heart. I realize that war is sometimes necessary. Like everyone, I'm interested in what will save the most lives. And I think that anyone who really thinks about and forms an informed opinion will come to the conclusion that endless war and a police state isn't it. It will be good for Lockheed, it will be good for the banks and the Republican Party, but it won't be good for America.

Preventantive measures and restorative justice work. Provocative measures and and redistributive justice don't. Ask any psychologist or social worker. Ask Israel.

Do you really want what's most effective in preventing terrorism, or do you want a false sense of security, hubris, and macho posturing?

[TheUnionDemocrat]

19. What I think...

We need to "Go to war" to root-out the Islamofascist clerics. These terrorists HATE everything we stand for. They even HATE any muslim who does not worship the way they do. They are educating young muslims and that MUST stop.

These freaks think their God will reward them if they kill you and me. That is NUTS and MUST be beaten. The middle east deck MUST be reshuffled and personally, I think Iraq was a great place to start.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. There is no such thing as "Terrorism"

in the sense that there is Communism or Republicanism.

There are only different political and criminal elements--and they may be leftist, rightist, or unclassifiably nuts--who use terrorism as a tool for getting attention.

In the present day, they are mostly Islamicists, but some of them are fanatical anti-choice types, and in the 1970s, they were middle class youth who were playing at being revolutionaries.

Saying "We're going to wipe out terrorism" is as stupid as saying "We're going to wipe out crime."

[the_sam]

18. Exactly!

A war on terrorism is like a war on hatred.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. You're right..

"We should reward countries for cooperating in shutting down terrorist-funding operations. But most importantly, we need to address the root causes of anti-American sentiment worldwide. We should cut military spending. We have troops in 120 nations -- this isn't necessary. We need to stop supplying 70 percent of the world's arms. We need to quit trying to subvert democracy -- abolish the CIA and replace it with a real intelligence-gathering agency. We need to be a fairer arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We need to quit backing corrupt regimes like those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And we need to quit forcing these nations into poverty by promoting so-called policies of "free trade". "

but I'm not holding my breath on any of the above happening anytime soon...

[bunnyhop]

5. Of course it's overrated

Hell - highways crashes alone claim 3,500 americans every single MONTH. And we could stop that very easily by cracking down on drunken and reckless drivers. Those are the real terrorists. But the GOP loves cars as much as they do guns and so they say hell with it; we're gonna focus on the miniscule threat from arab terrorists

[the_sam]

8. Also...

The U.S. must make a serious commitment to disarmament. The nuclear powers should begin phasing out their weapons, and embark on the creation of NBC weapons-free zones throughout the world, starting in the Middle East.

Nuclear controls should be strengthened. We should put money into destroying the nuclear materials in the the former Soviet Union and Eastern European states.

Disarmament could be enforced by random inspections, chemical sensors and monitoring equipment stationed at border crossings and ports, and sanctions as punishment for noncompliance (and rewards for compliance).

[PaulB]

10. Can't argue

You make some good points.

All these 'chicken little' terrorist warnings dont' amount to much.