Have We Overreacted To 9/11?
Farheed Zakaria thinks so. He writes in Newsweek:
Since that gruesome day in 2001, once governments everywhere began serious countermeasures, Osama bin Laden's terror network has been unable to launch a single major attack on high-value targets in the United States and Europe. While it has inspired a few much smaller attacks by local jihadis, it has been unable to execute a single one itself. Today, Al Qaeda's best hope is to find a troubled young man who has been radicalized over the Internet, and teach him to stuff his underwear with explosives.I do not minimize Al Qaeda's intentions, which are barbaric. I question its capabilities.
Here's how we reacted post 9/11:
Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that's the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That's more than the rest of the world spends put together. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet--the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built--at a cost of $3.4 billion--to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.This new system produces 50,000 reports a year--136 a day!--which of course means few ever get read. Those senior officials who have read them describe most as banal; one tells me, "Many could be produced in an hour using Google." Fifty-one separate bureaucracies operating in 15 states track the flow of money to and from terrorist organizations, with little information-sharing.
Some 30,000 people are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications in the United States. And yet no one in Army intelligence noticed that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been making a series of strange threats at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he trained. The father of the Nigerian "Christmas bomber" reported his son's radicalism to the U.S. Embassy. But that message never made its way to the right people in this vast security apparatus. The plot was foiled only by the bomber's own incompetence and some alert passengers.
Such mistakes might be excusable. But the rise of this national-security state has entailed a vast expansion in the government's powers that now touches every aspect of American life, even when seemingly unrelated to terrorism. The most chilling aspect of Dave Eggers's heartbreaking book, Zeitoun, is that the federal government's fastest and most efficient response to Hurricane Katrina was the creation of a Guantánamo-like prison facility (in days!) in which 1,200 American citizens were summarily detained and denied any of their constitutional rights for months, a suspension of habeas corpus that reads like something out of a Kafka novel.
While I am not anti-security or anti-military, I see beneath a lot of this the mistaken assumption that government will protect us.
via @DrEades
James Taranto on Best of the Web has spotted this logical flaw in a number of situations. For example
"Despite the fact that more criminals are in jail, the crime rate is going down"
or perhaps
"Person who exercises regularly, does not need to because he is in good shape"
The logical error is the same as the one being made by the quoted column.
Sabba Hillel at September 7, 2010 6:44 AM
The thousands of Al Qaeda we have killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have nothing to do with their lack of success since 9/11, I guess.
Major Hasan was an example of the triumph of political rectitude over common sense. FDR told the Supreme Court to pound sand and executed the German saboteurs we captured during WWII. Too bad neither Bush nor Obama have the stones to do the same.
MarkD at September 7, 2010 8:23 AM
Aside from the fact that more dead Al Qaeda over there means fewer live Al Qaeda trying to pull off terrorist attacks over here, Zakaria is missing the point that it would be almost impossible for Al Qaeda to top themselves in the US. They've been very busy over the past 9 years (Bali, Madrid, London) and especially in Pakistan, where they've blown up thousands of people. What's stopping them from sending a suicide bomber to your local McDonalds or Chuckecheese? Very little that I can see. But 9 years ago they managed to demolish the World Trade Center & blow a hole in the Pentagon. So now the best they can do is blow up a few fat kids munching fast food? In any other country, such an attack would be a sign of strength and a demonstration of their continued ability to spread terror. But in the US, it would be a sign of weakness, because it would be compared to what they were capable of on 9/11 and can no longer do. Does Zakaria really believe American actions have nothing to do with Al Qaeda's diminished capabilities?
Martin (Ontario) at September 7, 2010 9:18 AM
Zakaria is too personally ambitious to take seriously as anything but a weathervane.
Yes; "serious countermeasures" diminished Al Qaeda's capabilities. We're all very happy about that. Right, Fahreed?
And by the way, what's become of all the people, including on this blog, who used to prattle about how Osama Bin Laden was still alive? Did they all retire in January 2008, as did the expediencies of the Bush administration? Or is the capture of this terrible figure simply not important to President Obama?
The United States of America is always going to want to be certain that Afghanistan isn't a hospitable base of operations for terrorist networks.
The United States of America is always going to have an interest in the social development and economic reliability of Iraq and her oil.
______________________________
Thank you, thank you. No. You're too kind. Thank you. I'm here all week.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2010 12:10 PM
so, crid, should I try the veal?
I would say we shouldn't lose the validity of Zakaria's argument, when tossing out the bathwater. A lot of the new security apperat IS actually just bloat, and it doesn't serve us well. But that doesn't change the fact that terroristas don't need much to strike terror. It's an effect they are looking for.
the thing is about our response is that instead of incorportation of the security activities into already existant activities, we've made a whole new group for that. Sure they may never attack us as they did then... or they may wait until we are lax again.
Their time horizon for taking over the world is long term. Kinda like the slow blade getting past the armor. We react to immediate threats, but how do we look at things that may be 50 years from now? We don't look at that at all.
SwissArmyD at September 7, 2010 12:37 PM
Democrats believe if we spend enough money we can make the United States fair and prosperous. Well, maybe.
Republicans believe it we spend enough money, really lots and lots of it ($3 trillion in Iraqistan and counting) we can make the world safe and prosperous.
Well, maybe not.
BOTU at September 7, 2010 1:46 PM
My word, I think hell just froze over!
Pricklypear at September 7, 2010 2:11 PM
"FDR told the Supreme Court to pound sand and executed the German saboteurs we captured during WWII. Too bad neither Bush nor Obama have the stones to do the same."
Presidents Bush and Obama are doing the same thing: operating under the War Powers Act. That way, Congress can shirk its Constitutional duty to declare war and go back to molesting the interns, surfacing just long enough to breathe and blame the President for not doing their job.
Declaring war clears the way for prosecutions for treason, etc., but it would expose the Orwellian purpose of the action: the consumption of human output and interest.
By the way, somebody needs to check their numbers. If you claim lots of expense anywhere, you have to point at what is being consumed, not just name a number which gets bigger with each retelling.
Radwaste at September 7, 2010 6:28 PM
> should I try the veal?
Tip your waitress, and please... Drive safely!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2010 8:44 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/have-we-overrea.html#comment-1751759">comment from SwissArmyDCridster, glad you're back.
Amy Alkon
at September 7, 2010 11:28 PM
And yet no one in Army intelligence noticed that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been making a series of strange threats at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he trained.
Wrong. He was most certainly 'noticed', and he caused great concern both up and down in his chain of command.
But people were too afraid - or looked the other way - as to not offend the delicate Muslim sensibilities.
And too many people continue to do so to this day.
jimg at September 7, 2010 11:44 PM
I just hope for the day that I don't have to be afraid of their offensive and inconsiderate islamic bad manners.
WLIL at September 10, 2010 3:05 AM
Leave a comment