Don't Worry, Be Happy - The Threat of Terrorism

Caught this article by the Cato Institute linked at Schneier.

Essentially its an article stating that the US public shouldn't be hysterical over the threat of terrorism, because the likelihood of it happening to you is very remote. Not sure where they got the idea that the public is in hysterics, or even mildly anxious, on the topic of terrorism. From what I can see their level of complacency is right there at the pre-9/11 levels.

Throughout all this, there is a perspective on terrorism that has been very substantially ignored. It can be summarized, somewhat crudely, as follows:

* Assessed in broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage.
* The costs of terrorism very often are the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.

A sensible policy approach to the problem might be to stress that any damage terrorists are able to accomplish likely can be absorbed, however grimly. While judicious protective and policing measures are sensible, extensive fear and anxiety over what may at base prove to be a rather limited problem are misplaced, unjustified, and counterproductive.

Many very cogent points are made in the article. I would say that Mueller is completely correct with the supposition that terrorism fears have been played up by politicians (of all colors) and that their reactions to put in place protections, for the most part, have been a complete waste of time and money. Just look at the radiation detectors in ports for a massive waste.

He does make some poor statements of facts.

To this point in history, biological weapons have killed almost no one. And the notion that large numbers of people would perish if a small number of chemical weapons were to be set off is highly questionable. Although they can be hugely lethal when released in gas chambers, their effectiveness as weapons has been unimpressive. In World War I, for example, chemical weapons caused less than one percent of the total combat deaths; on average, it took a ton of gas to produce one fatality. In the conclusion to the official British history of the war, chemical weapons are relegated to a footnote that asserts that gas "made war uncomfortable...to no purpose." A 1993 analysis by the Office of Technology Assessment finds that a terrorist would have to deliver a full ton of Sarin nerve gas perfectly and under absolutely ideal conditions over a heavily populated area to cause between 3,000 and 8,000 deaths - something that would require the near-simultaneous detonation of dozens, even hundreds, of weapons.

Let's start with the WWI statement. First, gas fatalities weren't the primary purpose of gas. Incapacitation was it purpose, whether by death or severe physical trauma. I haven't looked up the actual figures, but the statement that the use of gas made war "uncomfortable" is just foolish. Gas worked especially well as a terror weapon. And the fatality level stated I am willing to bet is a field fatality rate, since many died after being sent to hospital for exposure. Never mind the skin burns and the blindness. This also misses the point that many of the gases used were not in themselves fatal. Large quantities of tear gas were used as well. So that quantification of fatalities strikes me as deceptive.

Oh, and Sarin gas doesn't require a "detonation" for dispersal. It can be delivered in water or in a vapor form. Not effective in the open for killing, but it will mess you up with even small levels of exposure.

There is no reason to suspect that President Bush's concern about terrorism is anything but genuine. However, his approval rating did receive the greatest boost for any president in history in September 2001, and it would be politically unnatural for him not to notice. His chief political adviser, Karl Rove, declared last year that the "war" against terrorism will be central to Bush's reelection campaign. The Democrats, scurrying to keep up, have stumbled all over each other with plans to expend even more of the federal budget on the terrorist threat, such as it is, than President Bush.

Another interesting statement. Politicians don't work at doing what is right so much as doing what will get them re-elected.

I think Mueller has a fairly clear point that the public in general shouldn't be soiling themselves over terrorism coming to them directly. Though I think he misses a broader theme that does require action. Terrorism by the more radical Islamists has been on the rise in the west. That should be of concern. Look at this from a perspective on how you'd treat a disease. When a virulent and deadly virus is encountered, the CDC doesn't just note it and wait until it spreads to a plague. They isolate and attempt to stop it as close to the point of origin as possible. That is what the west should be doing with terrorists.

Yes, terrorists are a miniscule portion of the population, but their effect can be very damaging on the economy and people's lives. That is why there should be activity from the governments that works toward the suppression of their activities. I'd also venture that the present situation in Iraq is working in our favor against the terrorists. The Salafi Jihad has in past conflicts concentrated their efforts in specific zones of conflict. Afghanistan was one of the earliest. Albania, Chechnya and now Iraq are theaters playing the part of the fly-paper. They are attracted to those areas where they are pitted against those best suited to fight them, the military.

There are arguments that support that these theaters will do more to spawn more Mujahedin, but I find them unconvincing. The time of this conflict has been relatively short, and I don't see any indications that their population is increasing in any dramatic fashion. If they were the Iraqi insurgency would have gone into substantial escalation. Instead, the insurgency has gotten quieter and sectarian violence has taken its place. Sectarian violence continues to work against the US in a propaganda war, but it's not a breeding ground for vast numbers of terrorists.

The focus of this paper, unfortunately, is a bit to tight. I don't think it provides a complete enough context on terrorism.