There’s a serious problem with this analysis. It is this – you have to take into account the POTENTIAL magnitude of the threat, not just actual deaths. E.g. I work in IT security. I have to consider risk assessments on a daily basis. So, I have a datacenter. Chances of a tornado, etc. leveling the place are infintesimal, but not zero. So if I accepted the argument in the article, I would recommend no money spent on hotsites, backup, etc. After all, this has never happened so the stats for datacenters leveled (analogous to deaths per year stats) would be zero.

However, in reality, even though the chances of the loss are low the POTENTIAL consequences are so devestating (loss of data, equipment, etc.) that having recovery procedures is justifiable, even absolutely necessary. In fact, a corporation without backup/disaster recovery procedures would and should be hit with due diligence lawsuits from shareholders, etc. Many industries are required by law (banks, health care)to implement hot sites, backups, etc.

Terrorist attacks are a similar situation – the chance of a nuclear strike wiping out millions of people and sparking a war that could kill tens of millions more is admittedly small. But it is non-zero, especially if we do nothing about the threat. So, a “risk assessment” would justify, even demand, serious expensive measures be taken to mitigate this risk.

So risk is actually high, even though number of deaths per year appears to be low. Deaths per year also ignores the number of deaths that have been prevented by agressive action against terrorist organizations and states worldwide.

Terrorist attack = low to moderate probability * absolutely devestating consequences to all civilization =
v. high risk

Auto accident = high probability * very
small loss (on a nation wide scale) = low risk (again on the scale of a nation of hundreds of millions of people)

If we want to do an actual risk analysis, clearly terrorist attacks must have a very high priority compared to auto accidents and government priorities are in fact well placed using traditional risk analysis techniques. The idea that risk assessment would indicate otherwise is simply false and belies a serious lack of knowledge of statistics and risk analysis in general.

No matter how tight security is. No matter how many civil liberties we are robbed of by Congress, if a terrorist is willing to give his own life to take the lives of others there is little that can be done to stop him.

Why piss our money down a bottomless pit. The region (Middle East) has been unstable for a thousand years or more. It will probably be unstable for a thousand years to come. Unless, of course you like the idea of long occupations under a foreign rule. (American Revolution, anybody? Bueller?)

It seems as though Peter and the like are the ones who have forgotten. Forgotten the reasons why we fought for independence.

Hi

The Arab street did not erupt because they are becoming afraid of us. Not some nicey,nice humane traits. Look how they took to the streets cheering on 9/11 in Palestine…Either our media is being ‘selective’ on the images shown to us or the Arab world figured out that the USA is serious unlike the Clinton years. My guess is the latter seeing as Syria told Uday and Qusay they were not welcome.

A lot of the unrest there is perpetrated by foreigners who have come there to pursue the jihad against us.

And, are those Iraqis “in line” pursuing this with the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart — or are these the dead-enders who want to renew their bloodstained meal ticket, under another name?

The Arab street didn’t erupt after we took Iraq, despite the predictions to the contrary of those who share your viewpoint. The Arab peoples are human beings first — when you show them a way out of the brutality that has overtaken their culture, they will take it.

We can either act to deny the small minority of virulent Islamofascists the state resources that would make 911 look like a fender-bender … or do nothing, let them hijack those resources from ordinary Arabs, and feed their resolve with the perception of our weakness.

In fact, they can (and will) also gain more allies when their descriptions of us (as soft and decadent) are reinforced by our own passivity. I could be wrong, but I assert that this passivity will drive more Arabs to join the Islamofascists as “the winning team”, than will join them out of spite for resolute action on our part.

We persistently focus on OUR conduct, as if our actions and Al Quada’s are somehow morally equivalent. My question is, what right do these Islamofascists have to impose their will upon others?

The only cure for muslim hatred of the United States is Freedom.

And that is just what we are doing in the middle east no matter what the cost.

Is this what libertarianism is all about? Government policy set by number of deaths per year? Hell Radley, we should just scrap the whole armed forces and spend all of our money on ant-smoking, pro-health, and AIDS research.

I must admit that you libertarians had me beliveing in your cause and almost becoming one but this post today has destroyed that.

However, shouldn’t your (and my) pronouncements be held to the same standards of veracity and wisdom — and therefore be subject to an equivalent level of criticism, when called for — as those of this Administration (or any other) if we are to be taken seriously?

This is the mistake the loony Left makes — they define free speech as being immune to challenge. I don’t think you’re that far gone, but you are definitely leaning close to that cliff.

As I have said before, each of us has the right to say even idiotic things … but we also have the DUTY to declare them idiotic when the facts call for it.

From what I see, when we stop straining at the philosophical gnats, most of the Patriot Act is about letting our government catch up to the edge the bad guys presently have, due to their ability to leverage today’s technology, prosperity, and freedom of movement against laws and policies written for a slower-paced world.

We should be vigilant in our watch for abuse … but we should also accurately assess the risk of rendering legitimate protective activities impotent in our vigilance.

–

The reason many of us are “Bush apologists” is because there is only one other viable alternative for the forseeable future … and that “alternative” has already declared that (1)his view is that terrorism is a law-enforcement matter, and (2) good, bad, or indifferent, we will subordinate our judgment to that of the “international community”.

We tried the “terrorism-as-crime” apporach — and it kept the door wide open for 911. This isn’t about justice in the law-enforcement sense.

This is about war and survival … and precision-guided ruthlessness is called for, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

This includes making judgement calls about recurring problems like Saddam & Sons. One thing is for sure — those loose cannons will no longer be a factor in the War on Terror. Was it good judgment to continually rely on the leaky bucket of containment to hold them, when we were going to fight others of like mind in their backyard?

The fact that you would even consider “deaths by terrorism per year” a measure of the significance of the threat of terrorism is idiotic. Give them a nuclear bomb and a deployment system and see how your numbers change.

Argue about it all you want, but you have a better chance of surviving running across a 6 lane freeway than you do by being in the mere presence of one who wants to kill you.

Spare me the hysterics. I drove by the Pentagon every day on my way to work — for the first week after 9/11 while it was still smoldering. I live and work in the D.C. area. The odds of my dying in another terrorist attack are higher than most of the rest of the country. No, I haven’t forgotten 9/11, and no, I don’t underestimate the threat.

Who is saying anything about stomaching terrorists? I think we ought to kill them. But I also think we have an obligation to make sure that what our leaders are doing in the name of protecting us is worth the sacrifice, cost and loss of liberty they’re asking us to give them.

Not to mention that the money we’re spending and the wars we’re waging actually do diminish the risk, and don’t exacerbate it.