The Sky Isn’t Falling! Mueller Goes “Overblown” at Cato: Why Terrorism Isn’t Our Greatest Danger—We Are

Field Report

by kwhite

Today John Mueller spoke on America’s distorted view on the threat posed by terrorism, and how continuing irrationality on homeland security imperils American security.

The talk, sponsored by the Cato Institute and taped on C-Span, offered Mueller an opportunity to discuss his new book, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them.

“The scope of the [terrorism] threat is substantially exaggerated,” Mueller told the crowded hall, adding that terrorism, “is not an existential threat.”

Unfortunately for Mueller, the only one agreeing with him so far is Michael Moore. The concession drew laughs from the crowd at Cato, a conservative/libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C.

Mueller’s presentation made three basic points: 1) the threat of dying from terrorism is small, 2) that playing on this fear has led to foolish policies, and 3) there is a reasonable alternative counter-terrorism strategy.

Mueller compared statistics about terrorism with seemingly more benign matters.  The results, however, put things into perspective.  For instance, a person has an equal chance of being killing by a comet or asteroid as from a terrorist attack. Throwing in yet another statistic, he told the crowd the number of people that have died from terrorist acts is on par with fatalities from bathtub tub drownings. He also harped on an important fact: not one serious terrorist cell has been found in the United States since 9/11.

Unfortunately the fear and speculation about another terrorist attack has brought significant consequences—large government spending, two wars, and an erosion of our individual liberties.

Spending has been wasted. Mueller points out the resort Weeki Wachee Springs, showcasing a Mermaid show, that has been designated a terrorist target, thus making it eligible for homeland security funds. The two wars are not going exceedingly well, as seen by eroding support for President George W. Bush. And recent controversies over data-mining and wire-tapping have led many to complain about America’s diminishing civil liberties.

And all the effectiveness of these controversial policies has been increasingly scrutinized by members of both political parties.

Cato’s Jim Harper, moderating the event, brought focus to his recent study exploring the profound limitations—and considerable cost—of data mining.

Former Governor James Gilmore (R-VA), the sole commenter at the event, spoke highly of the book hailing its “counter-cultural approach” as “encourage[ing] people to think.”

But Gilmore did shift the focus back to the reality of the threat by issuing the caution, “Don’t kid yourself, we’re in a war if not against terrorism against terrorists.” But he urged that our country to “have some sense of proportion.”

Gilmore was skeptical of complete success on this front, lamenting America’s “entertainment society” that rewards sensational news coverage on all topics–including homeland security.

Gilmore is a respected voice on security matters. Before going into politics, Gilmore served as a counter-terrorism agent and recently headed up the Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Today he is Chairman of the National Council on Readiness and Preparedness.

Though Gilmore does envision greater transparency on matters of national security and increased engagement by ordinary citizens as constructive steps towards a “secure and free” America.

Mueller was pessimistic on the chances of sweeping change, seemingly pushing for improvement on the margins, i.e. limiting the damage of strategic missteps. But he did think the recent Democratic victory in Congress offered a chance for greater accountability on both the expenditures and policies of the up-to-now unchallenged Bush White House. He also pushed for publicizing the number of false alarms, reassessing some safety standards, following past examples of restraint (the 1983 Beirut bombing on U.S. forces and the destruction of Pam Am Flight 103), and simple common sense as ways to properly recalibrate our homeland security policies.

But even with his criticisms, Mueller considered our current war on terror “generally going rather well.” Yet he urged the audience to show more skepticism about the waste and harms of the counter-terrorism industry. Left unchecked these policies will, according to Mueller, “do the terrorists’ dirty work for them.”

Getting it Right: Slate’s Phony Farewell to Jeane Kirkpatrick

Slate still offers this farewell to Jeane Kirkpatrick, former US Ambassador to the United Nations and renowned political scientist.

Unfortunately trying to fit this neo-conservative into thoughts on Iraq, Timothy Noah gives only hallow credit to Jeane and proves little of his own.

The article’s main point is to show Jeane as a different type of neo-conservative, one highly aware of the limitations of American power.

To support this claim Noah constructs a citation machination–he didn’t get me–and cites James Mann’s observation in Rise of the Vulcans (emphasis added):

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the neoconservative movement had come to espouse ideas directly contrary to those in “Dictatorships and Double Standards.” Whereas Kirkpatrick had ridiculed the notion that it is possible to establish democracy “anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances,” during the George W. Bush administration neoconservatives argued that the United States should seek democratic reforms wherever possible, from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Kirkpatrick had suggested that democratizing third world countries might take decades or centuries, but by 2002 neoconservatives were seeking democratic change among the Palestinians and in Iraq within no more than a couple of years.

Unfortunately Noah witty portrait fails in two dramatic respects. First, he fails to discuss her role as pro-Iraq pundit in the run-up to war. Second, and even more embarrassing, he fails to tease out a central lesson of Mann’s book. Neo-con lites, whether Kirkpatrick or Colin Powell, bought into the same world view as the neo-con heavies—doing nothing to stop the runaway train into Iraq.

For my evidence, I cite this 2002 interview from the Newshour with Jim Lehr discussing Powell’s now-infamous presentation to the United Nations:

GWEN IFILL: You don’t think Secretary Powell is out of step at all, do you agree with that?

JEANE KIRKPATRICK: I don’t think Secretary Powell is out of step. Secretary Powell has spent his life in uniform, and he’s a very disciplined military man and leader and I think he is a very… has a very important leadership role in the administration actually and with regard to foreign policy in the administration. I think he deserves a lot of the credit for the resolution. I also think by the way Prime Minister Tony Blair probably deserves some credit for that too.

JEANE KIRKPATRICK: It has important implications for non-proliferation too and our efforts at non-proliferation and nuclear weapons and nuclear technology because there has been such a effort with regard to Iraq. And if we fail in Iraq, there is little reason to think we’re ever going to succeed any place or in any country like North Korea for example.

Also, from the New York Times:

Fifteen years later, in March 2003, President Bush recalled Ambassador Kirkpatrick to active duty and sent her to Geneva, said Alan Gerson, who had served as her general counsel at the United Nations. The secret mission, previously undisclosed, was to head off a diplomatic uprising against the imminent war against Iraq. Arab ministers wanted to condemn it as an act of aggression.

“The marching orders we received were to argue that pre-emptive war is legitimate,” Mr. Gerson said. “She said: ‘No one will buy it. If that’s the position, count me out.’ ”

Instead, she argued that the attack was justified by Saddam Hussein’s violations of United Nations resolutions dating from the 1991 war against Iraq. The foreign ministers found her position convincing and their resolve against the war faded, Mr. Gerson said.

Here one finds Kirkpatrick favoring the country-specific and force-heavy approach to the world. As such, when it came to crunch time these voices (such as Powell and Kirkpatrick) came out in favor of the Iraq War.

Now I don’t say this to sully Kirkpatrick: one could argue the neo-con world view was not fundamentally flawed, but poorly articulated by the George W. Bush administration.Questions of this sort will fill history books and numerous best sellers for years to come.

But on the simple matter of where Kirkpatrick fell on the ideological spectrum is clear: she was a neo-con. Furthermore, she bought into the Bush campaign to go into Iraq when he did.

Noah’s attempt to sugar-coat her professed world-view is not only superficial, but insulting to Kirkpatrick’s legacy.