Terrorism: Big Risk or Big Hype?

Interesting post from author Phil Cooke, who references studies demonstrating that the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack is about the same as being killed by a tornado. While acknowledging that we have to protect ourselves, he states the following:

A little intelligence and a few drops of courage remind us that life is full of risk, and that of all the risks we confront in America every day, terrorism is a very minor one. Taking prudent steps to reasonably minimize the tiny threat we face from a few fanatic ciminals need not grant them the attention they crave. Continuing to play "Terrorball," on the other hand, guarantees that the terrorists will always win, since it places the bar for what counts as success for them practically on the ground.

I generally disagree.

He uses the term "tiny threat," but terrorism seemed like a "tiny threat" on Sep. 10, 2001. True, you probably have a greater chance of being mugged on the Metro in New York than blown up in a plane over New York, but the focus of our concern should not be about the number of attacks increasing or the theoretical possibility of one occurring. What should cause us continued concern is the magnitude of such potential attacks. One bomb goes off in a plane at 20000 feet and 200-300 people are pretty much dead, period.

However, the carnage is not just limited to those within the blast radius. Terrorism can cause political unrest or even spark a war, with more resulting loss of life. Israel v. Hezbollah, U.S. v. Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. WWI was sparked by one terrorist act, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. There is also a real chance of terrorists using nukes. Hasn't happened yet, but then again, we didn't think they would use planes as guided missiles. Does anyone believe that there aren't terrorists and rogue nations out who would like to see a mushroom cloud over D.C.?

I agree that civil liberties are always a concern, but I don't see a real tension between civil liberties and the Patriot act-type measures that even Democrats supported (until the election year, in which they caved to left-wing concerns). I hear a lot of rhetoric but little substance on the "we're losing our civil liberties" front. Where are the documented instances of people losing their right to freedom of speech, press, religion or association because of legislative initiatives in Congress over the last 10 years?

Balance is important, but I believe that we are achieving that, even now in spite of Pres. Obama's earlier dovish campaign rhetoric. Sure, he generally refuses to use terms like "war on terror" and made a rather ridiculous allusion to the underwear bomber being a product of an impoverished country, but this type of stuff is just window dressing for the benefit of the Moveon.org types. When it comes down to it, Pres. Obama is not surprisingly following in the footsteps of W. on Gitmo, Iraq, and other security-related fronts. It's easy to say one thing at a campaign stop in San Fransisco, it's quite another when you are sitting at the Resolute Desk and forced to think about the security of the Nation.

Frankly, I've seen more questionable concerns over civil liberties coming from the Obama admin than Bush, i.e. when the Obama admin who urged citizens to actually contact the White House if they learned of people supposedly distorting facts on health care. The White House was forced to end it soon after. And wasn't it the Obama admin (Dept of Homeland Security) who signaled out pro-life veterans as potential terrorist threat groups? Again, an apology was issued, but only because of the backlash. This sort of political profiling should be disconcerting to everyone, no matter what your party affiliation.