Thank you Starchild...very well told.
Mike
Very well told. I hate to say it, but an entertaining read. Well
worth publishing one or more places ... one of the SF blog sites,
Liberty magazine, ...
a terrific
read from
today's The
Daily
Reckoning.
www.
thedailyreckoni
ng.com
YOU'VE BEEN
FOOLED
by Richard
Miniter
"Thousands
of dangerous
killers,
schooled in the
methods of
murder, often
supported by
outlaw
regimes, are
now spread
throughout the
world like
ticking time
bombs, set to
go off without
warning . . .
In a single
instant
[on
September 11],
we realized
that this will
be a decisive
decade."
- President
George W.
Bush, 2002
Presidents
know the power
of their words
and usually
filter them
through
layers of
careful
advisers and
cautious
bureaucrats
before pouring
them
out into the
public domain.
Yet in his
2002 State of
the Union
address,
before the
Congress and
the world,
President Bush
succumbed to a
commonplace
myth: Since
the September
11 attacks,
the world is
more
dangerous
for Americans
than ever
before.
This legend,
often dispensed
in stronger
doses, can be
heard from
both
elected
Republicans and
Democrats as
well from the
pundits and
the press.
It may even
be the
unconscious
assumption of
many people.
But is it
true? The fear
is that the
September 11
attacks, or in
other
variations,
the Bush
administration'
s reaction to
them, have
made all of
our lives
riskier than
ever before.
At any moment,
you could hear
the hum
of engines
overhead or be
rocked by
blasts on the
ground. One of
America's
great
writers summed
up this sense
of formless
dread in a
memorable way:
"The
subtlest change
in New York is
something
people don't
speak much
about but
that is in
everyone's
mind. The
city, for the
first time in
its
long
history, is
destructible.
A single
flight of
planes no
bigger than a
wedge of
geese can
quickly end
this island
fantasy, burn
the towers,
crumble the
bridges, turn
the
underground
passages into
lethal
chambers,
cremate the
millions. The
intimation of
mortality is
part of New
York now:
in the sound
of jets
overhead, in
the black
headlines of
the latest
edition.
"All
dwellers in
cities must
live with the
stubborn fact
of
annihilation;
in New York
the fact is
somewhat more
concentrated
because of the
concentration
of the city
itself, and
because, of
all targets,
New York
has a
certain clear
priority. In
the mind of
whatever
perverted
dreamer
might loose
the lightning,
New York must
hold a steady,
irresistible
charm."
These words
were written
by E. B.
White, in his
book Here Is
New York.
What is
interesting,
now, about
White's words
is that they
first appeared
in 1949.
That simple
fact - the
date of
White's
reflections -
suggests two
things: that
this aura of
shapeless
anxiety is not
new, but
periodically
descends on
New York and
the nation,
and that it is
possible that
the
world really
was more
dangerous in
the past than
it is now.
Indeed, the
Cold War era
was more
perilous than
today. With
its thousands
of nuclear
missiles
pointed at the
homeland, the
USSR had the
capacity to
destroy the
U.S. many
times over.
Nuclear
annihilation,
lest we
forget,
haunted the
Western world
for almost
fifty years.
The Cold War
was not the
mythologized
happy time of
stable co-
existence at
all. At one
point during
the Cuban
missile
crisis, only
one political
officer stood
between a
Soviet
submarine
commander and
his desire to
launch a
nuclear
torpedo. The
Cold War was
a period of
dangerous
instability,
with endless
proxy wars,
coups,
insurgencies,
revolutions,
counter-
revolutions,
and state-
sponsored
terrorism.
When Communism
fell, most of
these
activities
came to an
end.
Nor was
nuclear
holocaust the
only nightmare
hanging over
the free
world.
The Soviet
Union was also
a major
manufacturer
of chemical and
biological
weapons.
Damocles, an
ancient Greek
courtier, once
switched places
with
the king,
Dionysius I.
To demonstrate
the peril he
lived with
every day,
Dionysius
hung a sword
over Damocles'
head,
suspended by a
single strand
of hair.
During the
Cold War, a
figurative
sword hung
over the head
of
every human
being on Earth.
Al Qaeda, or
any other
terrorist
group active
today,
simply does
not have the
same
destructive
power.
Communist
forces were
also
responsible for
provoking two
wars with the
United
States, in
Korea and
Vietnam.
Together,
these two
conflicts cost
more than
70,000
Americans
their lives and
injured more
than 400,000.
Many
of these
injuries left
soldiers or
civilians
permanently
crippled or
disfigured.
By contrast,
al Qaeda has
killed fewer
than 4,000
Americans
since 1992.
And while
the Soviets
and their
allies could
field a
mechanized
army of
millions, al
Qaeda numbers
in the
thousands. The
International
Institute
for
Strategic
Studies, an
independent
research
organization
in London,
estimates
bin Laden's
total force at
18,000.
Department of
Defense
estimates
range as low
as 3,000.
"Today we have
seen the
enemy," writes
Russell
Seitz, a
former fellow
of Harvard's
Center for
International
Affairs,
"and he has,
at most, one
division under
arms."
The Soviets
deployed as
many as six
divisions near
the Fulda Gap
in East
Germany
alone. As
Colin Powell
writes in his
biography, "As
I took over V
Corps, in
1986, four
American
divisions
[including the
U.S. VII
Corps] and
nineteen
Soviet
divisions
still
confronted
each other
over a border
bristling
with even
deadlier
weaponry."
Across Asia
and Africa, as
the colonial
empires of
Britain,
France, and
other
European powers
retreated,
millions more
died in civil
wars inspired
by Communist
guerrillas.
When the false
dawn of peace
finally came,
millions
more suffered
and died under
the ruthless
rule of
dictators
allied with
either the
Soviet Union
or the United
States. Have
we
forgotten
China's
"Cultural
Revolution,"
when the Red
Guards sent
millions
to die in
faraway
fields,
sometimes for
the "crime" of
owning a pair
of
eyeglasses?
They were but
few of the
seventy
million
murdered by
order of
Mao Tse-
tung.
Or the some
forty million
worked to
death in the
chain of sub-
Arctic
Circle
concentration
camps known as
the "gulag
archipelago,"
vast islands
of misery
set up on
permafrost
wastes? Let us
not forget the
millions who
were
murdered by
Communist
revolutionary
Pol Pot's
regime in
Cambodia.
Among the
"political
enemies"
executed by
machete were
crying infants
and
illiterate
peasants. I
walked through
one of the
killing
fields,
outside
of Phnom
Penh, in 1999.
Amid the open
pits, one can
see still bits
of bone
poking out
between the
blades of
grass.
Even the
risk of
terrorism was
higher in the
end years of
the Cold War.
The Soviet
Union and
China provided
an ideological
justification,
extensive
small-arms and
bomb-making
training, and
cascades of
cash for
terrorists
around the
world. From
the Shining
Path in South
America to the
Red Army
Faction and
Red Brigades
in Europe,
these self-
described
revolutionaries
kidnapped,
killed, and
bombed
throughout the
1970s and
1980s. Only
the fall of
the Soviet
Union brought
an end to
their reign of
terror.
Even Near
Eastern terror
had its roots
in Soviet
strategy. The
Palestine
Liberation
Organization
(PLO), founded
in 1964 to
oppose the
1948 creation
of the state
of Israel,
received its
doctrine,
training, and
weapons from
the Soviets
and their
captive
satellites.
The PLO soon
released a
wave of
assassinations,
kidnappings,
hijackings,
and bombings
that plague
the
Middle East
to this day.
Their allies,
Black
September,
would murder
American
diplomats in
Khartoum,
Sudan, and
Israeli
athletes in
Munich,
Germany, in
1972. By the
late 1970s,
the Soviet
Union would
lose control
over its
Arab
terrorists,
who
increasingly
embraced a
radical
Islamist
ideology.
Other
nations,
including
Iran, Iraq,
and Syria,
would take the
Soviets'
place as
terror
sponsors - and
it is the
Russians, from
Moscow to
Chechnya,
who are now
bedeviled by
the demons
they created.
With the
disappearance
of the Soviet
Union, many of
the terror
groups
outside Arab
lands have
withered or
turned to
kidnapping and
drug sales to
survive.
Communist
terrorists in
Europe and
South America,
which were
known to
target
American
executives,
officers, and
diplomats,
have
disappeared.
Americans,
especially in
Germany,
Italy, and
Greece, are
safer as a
result.
But hasn't
the risk from
terrorism
risen in the
wake of
September 11?
Not
according to
any valid
statistical
measure. One
political
scientist who
is
a recognized
expert in
analyzing
risks from
terrorist
attacks is
Todd
Sandler, the
Dockson
Professor of
International
Relations and
Economics at
the
University of
Southern
California in
Los Angeles.
By any
measure, he
is a
distinguished
scholar.
Sandler has
written or has
contributed to
nineteen
books,
published
numerous peer-
reviewed
academic
articles and
newspaper
op-eds, and
won awards and
grants from
the National
Science
Foundation.
Sandler is no
pro-Bush
shill. He
sparked a
controversy in
2004
by claiming
that the Bush
administration
was
substantially
underestimating
the deaths
from terror
attacks,
apparently, he
contends, for
election-year
reasons.
The State
Department's
annual survey
of world-wide
terrorism
showed 208
terrorism
acts for the
year 2003.
Sandler, who
maintains his
own extensive
database of
global
terrorist
incidents,
recorded 275
attacks - a 32
percent
difference.
Such a
discrepancy
between the
official State
Department
figures and
his own did
not appear in
previous years,
leading
Sandler to
suspect the
worst. "It
would seem
someone who is
controlling
the figures
is acting more
out of
politics than
recording
statistics,"
he
told the
press. He
charged that
the Bush
administration
was
undercounting
to leave the
"false
impression"
that the U.S.
is winning the
War on
Terror. (The
State
Department
later updated
its figures.
The dispute
did
not turn on
the number of
al Qaeda
incidents,
which were
essentially the
same by both
the State
Department's
and Sandler's
reckoning.)
So it is
significant
that Sandler
published data
that
challenges the
widely held
belief that
the threat of
terrorism has
worsened since
September
11, 2001. In
Sandler's
paper, co-
authored with
Walter Enders,
titled
"After 9-11:
Is it all
different now?
" he finds:
"While there
is no
doubt that
perceptions
changed and
deep-seated
fears arose
that fateful
day, there
has been no
data-based
analysis on how
transnational
terrorism
(i.e.
terrorism with
international
implications
or genesis)
differs, if at
all, since
9-11."
Sandler's
data reveals
that the
September 11
attacks were
unprecedented
and unusual,
not part of a
pattern. The
almost 3,000
deaths on that
September
morning were
"as great as
all deaths
from
transnational
terrorism
from 1988-
2000. Prior to
9-11, no
terrorist
incident,
domestic
or
transnational,
resulted in
more than 500
casualties."11
To date, no
terrorist
atrocity
anywhere in the
world has
caused as much
carnage as
September
11. Indeed,
terrorist
incidents of
all kinds
"displayed no
changes after
9-11.
Incidents
remained at
their pre-9-11
levels."
As
surprising as
it may seem,
the number of
terrorist
attacks has
declined
since 1990
while the
death toll per
attack has
climbed
slightly.
Twenty-nine
percent of all
terror strikes
since 1968
occurred since
1990.
But 46
percent of all
deaths from
terrorism have
happened since
1990.
While
casualty rates
increased
slightly in the
1990s, and
remained steady
in the years
after the
September 11
attacks, the
risk of
terrorrelated
death is
still low and
is in line
with pre-
September 11
trends,
according
to Sandler.
"Since 1968,
there have
been 14,440
international
terrorist
attacks, an
average of 425
a year. Even
including
September
11, the
average number
of casualties
[which
includes both
deaths and
injuries]
per incident
was just 3.6,
while the
average number
of deaths
was below
one."
Why is
terrorism more
deadly since
1990? Several
factors are at
work.
Terrorists
as a whole
have
increasingly
moved away
from hostage-
taking and
hijacking
plots, which
are hard to
execute and
usually take
few lives.
This change
is at least
partly
ideological.
Communist
terrorists
hoped to
drive public
opinion, not
alienate it
through mayhem
and slaughter.
That
is why these
groups focused
on hijackings
and hostages.
By 1990, many
of
these
Communist
groups began
to disappear,
while radical
Islamic crews
continued to
rise. In 1980,
religious
international
terror cadres
accounted
for only two
of sixty-four
active terror
bands. By
1995,
religious
terrorist
groups made up
twenty-nine of
fifty-eight
terror
outfits
active world-
wide. These
Islamist
radicals
embraced a
doctrine
that allowed
them to
extinguish the
lives of
unbelievers
(and even
faithful
Muslims) on
religious
grounds and on
the firm
belief that
high
death tolls
would persuade
Americans to
withdraw from
Muslim lands.
Their
strategy may
be sinister,
but it is not
irrational; it
has proved
successful
in Lebanon and
Somalia and it
is not hard to
find people in
the
Middle East
who think that
it will
eventually
succeed in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.
As the
composition and
ideology of
terror groups
mutated, the
deadliness
of these
organizations
changed too.
But that
change began
in
1990, not
2001.
Sandler's
work is
squarely in the
center of
research in
this field and
is
backed by
the
independent
findings of
many other
scholars. John
Mueller,
the Woody
Hayes Professor
of Political
Science at
Ohio State
University,
specializes
in studying
public opinion
and risk. The
author of an
array of
peer-
reviewed
articles and
pieces for the
Wall Street
Journal, New
York
Times, and
Washington
Post, he has
won
fellowships
from
Guggenheim and
grants from
the National
Science
Foundation. In
a short
article in
Regulation
magazine and
an academic
paper prepared
for a
conference at
Harvard
University,
Mueller points
out that the
risk of
perishing in a
terror
attack is
quite small.
"Until 2001,
far fewer
Americans were
killed in any
grouping of
years by
all forms of
international
terrorism than
were killed by
lightning, and
almost none
of these
terrorist
attacks
occurred inside
the United
States."
And since
September 11?
"Although
there have
been many
deadly terror
incidents in
the world
since 2001,
all (thus far,
at least) have
relied on
conventional
methods and
have not
remotely
challenged
September 11
quantitatively.
" There have
been no
attacks inside
the United
States since
2001 and the
many attacks
outside have
not yielded
death tolls
anywhere
near the
attacks on New
York and
Washington, or
even the
number of
deaths
following
the 1988
bombing of an
aircraft over
Lockerbie,
Scotland,
which
killed 270.
The Madrid
bombings, as
horrific as
they were,
took some 200
lives.
Mueller,
citing the
work of
University of
Michigan
transportation
researchers
Michael Sivak
and Michael
Flannagan,
points out
that there
would have
to be a
September 11-
style attack
every month
before
terrorism
killed as
many Americans
as car crashes
do. Or to put
it another
way, the
chance of an
American dying
on one nonstop
airline flight
is one in 13
million -
the same level
of risk that
one suffers
driving just
11.2 miles
on a rural
interstate
highway.
So Michael
Moore was
quite right
when he
pointed out on
CBS's 60
Minutes
program that
"the chances
of any of us
dying in a
terrorist
incident is
very, very,
very small."
But his
interviewer,
broadcaster Bob
Simon, clearly
understood
public
opinion when
he rejoined:
"But no one
sees the world
like that."
The threat
of terrorism
should not be
shrugged off,
but actively
fought.
One reason
that the
United States
and many of
its allies
have been free
of
terror since
2001 is that
President Bush
has prosecuted
the War on
Terror
with vigor.
Indeed, if the
goal of
terrorists is
to terrify,
then the best
way to fight
back is to
refuse to be
terrified.
Still,
against all
evidence, fear
remains.
Brendan
Miniter, my
brother and
a staff
columnist for
the Wall
Street
Journal's
editorial-page
website
OpinionJournal.
com, sums it
up best in a
2002 column:
"The other
night I
realized Osama
bin Laden had
taken away the
innocence
of a
perfectly good
rainstorm. I
was standing
on the corner
of Clinton and
Joralemon
streets, in a
Brooklyn
neighborhood
directly across
the East
River from
Ground Zero,
watching
commuters
sense a change
in the air. A
downpour was
coming.
Everyone wanted
to get home
before getting
wet.
"Lightning
flashed across
the sky. I
waited for the
thunder. The
seconds
ticked by. A
man about my
age crossed
the street,
looked at me
and said:
"Lightning?"
His underlying
question was
obvious. It
was a few days
after
the news
broke of Jose
Padilla's
arrest; dirty
bombs and
nuclear blasts
were on
everyone's
mind. Was that
the flash that
precedes a
nuclear
shockwave?
"Then the
thunder
cracked. The
boom was loud.
So loud that
the man,
barely
done with
his question,
hit the
ground.
"I really
hate bin
Laden. There
are anywhere
from 3,000 to
a million
reasons to
hate that guy.
And with each
passing day, I
seem to find a
new
one. The
other day, I'm
sure it was
him, Osama
held up my
subway train.
I
had raced to
catch that
train, only to
hear the
conductor's
announcement:
'All trains
are being held
in the
stations due
to smoky
conditions at
Park
Place.' The
car fell
silent. No one
said it out
loud, but
everyone had
to
be
wondering: Is
this how we'll
first hear of
a chemical or
biological
attack?
"I had
boarded the
subway at the
same stop on
Sept. 11,
minutes after
the
towers were
hit. The
conductor that
fateful
morning made a
similarly
innocuous
announcement:
'Due to an
emergency at
the World
Trade Center,
this train
will not be
stopping at
Park Place.'
Minutes
earlier I was
on
the Brooklyn
Promenade
looking across
to lower
Manhattan when
the second
plane hit,
so I already
knew. But many
that morning
were on
autopilot,
including
the conductor
who drove the
train into
lower
Manhattan. I
wish
he hadn't,
for I never
would've gotten
close to the
burning
towers, felt
the heat and
heard the roar
of the flames.
So, on this
recent
morning, I
couldn't have
been the only
one wondering
if
the smoke up
ahead was the
beginning of
another
attack. We're
not on
autopilot
anymore; we're
on constant
alert. The
train continued
on,
through Park
Place.
Everything was
fine."
Of course,
this reaction
is human,
perhaps all
too human. Yet
to the
extent that
we surrender
to it against
all reason,
terror
succeeds.
Regards,
Richard
Miniter
for The
Daily Reckoning
Editor's
Note: Richard
Miniter is the
author of the
New York Times
bestsellers
Losing Bin
Laden: How
Bill Clinton's
Failures
Unleashed
Global
Terror and
Shadow War:
The Untold
Story of How
America Is
Winning the
War
on Terror. A
veteran
investigative
journalist, he
was a member
of the
award-
winning Sunday
Times (of
London)
investigative
team.
The above
essay has been
adapted from
his latest
book,
Disinformation:
22
Media Myths
That Undermine
the War on
Terror. You
can purchase
your copy
by clicking
here:
Disinformation