TAPPED: "Mueller's argument is basically off-message for just about everybody"

Boy, isn't that the truth. What message are we talking about? The one this blog has pushed for years: (and more recently here: 1 2 3)

The threat to the United States from Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated, and may be close to non-existent.

Here's the full TAPPED entry:

OVERBLOWN. David A. Bell wishes more people were discussing and debating John Mueller's new book Overblown, which makes the strong case against considering terrorism a genuinely dire, let alone existential, threat to the United States; I share Bell's wish. Mueller's argument is basically off-message for just about everybody, but has always stuck me as a truly useful contribution to debates over terrorism and American policy. Cato Unbound held an in-depth exchange with Mueller back in September that's worth a look, and so is this very strong New York Review of Books essay by Max Rodenbeck, reviewing (sympathetically) Mueller and a few other related books.

David A. Bell at TNR: (excerpts)

It's a pity that John Mueller's book Overblown isn't getting more attention. Its provocative--and certainly debatable--thesis is very simple: The threat to the United States from Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated, and may be close to non-existent. There is little evidence that Islamic terrorists have the capacity (as opposed to the desire) to carry out further attacks on the scale of 9/11 on U.S. soil, let alone anything more destructive. Anxieties about chemical, biological, and radiological weapons are particularly unjustified. There is little evidence that terrorists have access to such weapons, and in any case, they almost certainly could not use them in such a way as to kill large numbers of Americans. Nuclear weapons pose a much greater threat, but the difficulties involved in procuring and delivering them are far greater than most observers recognize.

He quotes endless "expert" predictions that terrorists would "definitely" strike the U.S. again in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. He reminds us that even in the worst possible case--which is itself almost entirely unlikely--the terrorists do not pose anything like a threat to the existence of the United States, in the way the Soviet Union once did. And he concludes that our overreaction to 9/11 has done the U.S. far more harm than the terrorists themselves.

I'm no expert on terrorism, and would not presume to say whether Mueller's argument is ultimately sustainable. But the debate does seem worth having. For one thing, at the present time it is clearly in the interest of almost everyone to maximize the threat that terrorism poses. It is in the interest of the administration, which can reap a political dividend, and is also desperate to cover its collective rear end, should another attack actually transpire. It is in the interest of what Mueller calls the "terrorism industry" of consultants, contractors and security companies. It is in the interest of the media, which thrives on fear. And it is in the interest of the terrorists themselves, whose reputation is thereby inflated, allowing them to recruit and raise money.

Alas, Mueller's book seems to have shortcomings (more from David A. Bell):

Unfortunately, a great deal about Mueller's book is frustrating, and some of it is patently absurd. In particular, he places his argument about 9/11 in the context of a potted history of America since 1941 that sounds (unintentionally, I think) like the worst sort of Chomskyan rant. Before we overreacted hysterically to 9/11, he asserts, we overreacted hysterically to Soviet Communism, and to Soviet client states. And before that, we even overreacted to Pearl Harbor! Instead of responding to the Japanese attack with full-scale war, we should have tried containment! ... This section of the book comes close to discrediting the whole project.

Those are notions this blogger doesn't suscribe to. Also, Mueller engages in Rush Limbaugh-like argumentation ("the chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack is less than that of a bee sting") which ignores the scenario of murderous attacks on key facilities and personnel, which might be low in actual numbers killed but result in tremendous damage to the economy or infrastructure (e.g. blowing up Hoover Dam). So maybe he's not the best messenger. More Bell:

But the rest of it is still worth reading. Might we actually be safer than we think? Is this something we can contemplate?

Still, someone has to argue for making an analysis of the capabilities of terrorist groups, instead of running scared by their pronouncements. Remember that Fox News Channel pre-election special, Obsession, that quoted all sorts of al Qaeda grandiose visions? From the Fox News webpage on the documentary: (excerpt, emp add)

“Obsession” is filled with fiery speeches, from the Middle East to the streets of London and New York, in which Islamic extremists offer a stark choice for the world: either convert to a Taliban-like form of Islam or face death.

And many people were impressed with Obsession, even after five years without an attack on the U.S.   Is this country changing its view on the threat posed by terrorism? Apparently not. Witness the recent round-up of six Muslim religious leaders that were taken off a US Airways flight in Minneapolis. Many people are still fearful, and suscribe to the thinking of people like Annie Jacobson, author of Terror in the Skies: Why 9/11 Could Happen Again. That's right, "9/11 could happen again". So much for the notion that 9/11 was a one-time exploitation of a vulnerability which has now been closed (taking over a plane in order to use it as a missle).


posted by Quiddity at 11/22/2006 01:58:00 PM