June 07, 2006

The Worst Thing About Terrorism Is Our Response to It

Read this.

I won't post anything tomorrow, and since Baltar and Binky are still out of town for a few more days, this might stay at the top of the page for a little bit. And that's entirely appropriate. It makes some key points about how we deal with terrorism, a matter of great importance. And it strikes me as something that's all too rare in that it's insightful, important AND accessible. I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Posted by armand at June 7, 2006 10:37 PM | TrackBack | Posted to War


Comments

I feel like he's simply stating the obvious, though of course what's obvious to you and me on this topic probably isn't obvious to most. I like his framing of the "terrorism industry", though that's probably not a term that will get traction.

Posted by: jacflash at June 8, 2006 06:54 AM | PERMALINK

This is a very limited perspective that suggests a death from terrorism is no greater than a death from the flu. It's ignorant of critical point analysis, that striking against people in a certain way can be far more damaging than just the fear it inspires or the number of deaths involved. Tell New Yorkers who lost friends and family that terrorism damages their lives minimally, or people in the financial industry. As a percentage of deaths, September 11th may not have been extraordinary. But on that day, and correct me if I'm wrong, the number of people who'd died from terrorism escalated five or ten times from the number who'd died on any other day. The terrorists are improving their training, and they're will to use weapons that will kill many more. Why is it that liberals only are so especially concerned with the damage inflicted on this earth by people when it's not human damage. If this were a factory producing CO2 or ozone, they'd jump on this, because it's a special thing when WE destroy this planet we've inherited. It's also a special thing when WE destroy each other, whether in a hundred years war or in concentration camps or with airplanes flown into the hearts of survivors. To treat this threat as stable is ignorant of the evidence we have.
I do agree with one point: "Osama bin Laden’s theory that the Americans can be defeated, or at least productively inconvenienced, by inflicting comparatively small, but continuously draining,
casualties on them will achieve apparent confirmation, and a venture designed and
sold in part as a blow against international terrorists will end up emboldening and
energizing them."
That's exactly the reason we need to finish in Iraq. Given the news about Zarqawi, we're well along the way.

Posted by: Morris at June 8, 2006 08:11 AM | PERMALINK

jacflash - I skipped right over that term, but I'm glad you pointed it out. It's a good one, and since "military-industrial complex" caught on ... And yeah to you and me it's obvious. But what I really liked about the paper was that, to my eyes, it was unusually concise and clearly written, hence it had unusual value in saying something that others might not realize, but should hear.

Morris - There are times - like today - that I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

One, why do you start talking about liberals, concentration camps and the environment when that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS POST. There are indeed lots of bad things in the world (including some liberals) - but Mueller is asking us to step back and look at the relative harm of those bad things.

Two, "striking against people in a certain way can be far more damaging than just the fear it inspires or the number of deaths involved" - I don't get this at all. Morally it wouldn't seem to matter, and in terms of economic costs that seems to be exactly what Mueller is talking about.

Three - "tell New Yorkers who lost friends and family that terrorism damages their lives minimally, or people in the financial industry" - why would I tell them that when no one outside of Ann Coulter believes that, and that's yet another thing this article isn't saying. Everyone who loses a love one is hurt by the matter be it death by lightning, by bounty hunter or whatever.

Four - "The terrorists are improving their training, and they're will to use weapons that will kill many more." Well, duh. President Cowboy has nicely given them lots of targets and opportunities to train against. But the article doesn't say we're never going to see more terrorism, it merely says that the scope and frequency of it is (wildly) overstated by those who stand to benefit from the "terrorism industry".

Five - He's got numbers on the extent of terrorist-caused deaths of Americans, you just don't seem to like those statistics. Will there be another attack here? I certainly expect so. But even if we suffer one big attack every 5-10 years the RELATIVE threat of it is wildly smaller (in terms of the risks to most Americans) than almost anyone is willing to acknowledge. And those who pound on it constantly, as you might say, help the terrorists "win" - at least in the short run. Senior military leaders have certainly framed Iraq that way from time to time.

And as to the morning news, while I'm certainly glad that a vicious killer was brought to "justice", I find the idea that his death will make things there much better close to laughable. The fundamental threat there is the sectarian violence. Zarqaqi was able to make that worse (on a few occasions quite brilliantly in a grotesque and sickening way). But he was playing off an opportunity that structural fissures much bigger than him presented. The Civil Way or whatever you want to call it is much deadly than it was, and Zarqawi's death is unlikely to change that in anything more than marginal ways.

Posted by: Armand at June 8, 2006 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Bro,
On your first point, that is exactly it! The harms in these matters are relative, with deaths from most diseases ("natural causes") being very low on the list, and deaths at the hands of a human being experienced as much worse.

On your second point, how is dying from a disease at all the moral equivalent of a human being intentionally killing another human being? It is the death of human being at the hands of another that is codified into law, both secular and religious, but as yet we haven't found a way to hold cancer culpable, so we don't hold it to a moral standard because we don't perceive it to have a will of its own. Human beings are at least perceived to have such a will, and so they are held to moral standards.

On your next point, you're still not getting it: we don't perceive it to be avoidable when someone dies of cancer, and if a treating physician doesn't do their best to stop that we hold them responsible for the death, or at the least take away their license to prevent their inaction from harming another. The anger with death increases (or at least is apparently magnified by its focus) when a person commits a crime that kills another person.

President Bush has given them more targets to train against? The last we heard from Zarqawi before we sent him to heaven, he was having trouble finding recruits. His organization was breaking down, and that's why one of his own people tipped us off. Things are getting better for us in Iraq, that's how we got him, that's why he was desperate for new recruits. The sectarian violence in Iraq has always been there. The difference now is the Shiites and Kurds can defend themselves. And in case you missed it, the remaining Iraqi cabinet members were sworn in today. Iraq now has a complete, democratically elected government, in no small part because of our armed forces' sacrifices. America. Fuck Yeah!

Posted by: Morris at June 8, 2006 09:22 PM | PERMALINK

You are quoting the lamest of all South Park creations, something that's more or less created for idiots or morons (I forget which set has a lower IQ) when you are trying to make a serious point about foreign policy? Interesting choice, that.

As to this - the sectarian violence in Iraq has always been there - in one sense yes, in many important ways no, and in terms of what that means for the future or how things are going - again a really odd point to bring up. And all the metrics I've seen show that it's gotten much much much worse in the last year. To me, that's not a sign of a successful policy - unless you count increasing body counts and regional instability as "success".

As to your earlier points about morality, intentions, etc. - who the fuck cares? The point of this piece (or one of the points) is that you'd generally think that a government would allocate resources in a way that would benefit as many of its citizens as possible. True, that's a philosophical point not everyone would agree with, but it's widely held. So if that's the case, wouldn't you expect that if a country was most interested in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens it would devote a lot more resources to fighting the things that kill massive numbers of them (say, cancer or car crashes) than kill small numbers of them (say, lightning, terrorist attacks and killer toilets)?

Sure, I see a terrorist as more culpable for a death he or she causes than I would hold a killer toilet responsible for who it drowns. But that's not what I was talking about. I (and Mueller too) was talking about whether or not the government was devoting the proper amount of resources to the threats against its people. And on that score, you can make a strong case for the Bush administration having sold a bill of goods to the American people about the threats they face.

Posted by: Armand at June 11, 2006 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Bro,
Hundreds of times more people die in our country from car accidents and diseases than die from people murdering each other. Does that mean we should fund the NIH a hundred times more than our justice system? Experience is about more than the numbers. And even if we did cut funding for our justice system, you'd find the numbers of murders going way, way up (because antisocials wouldn't get caught, so they'd continue to kill), just as we saw with the number of deaths from terrorist attacks.

Posted by: Morris at June 11, 2006 02:08 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?