Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them (Hardcover)

by John Mueller (Author)
Key Phrases: nuclear fears, limited destructiveness, terrorism industry, United States, Pearl Harbor, World War (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist
Among possible U.S. terrorist targets listed by the Department of Homeland Security are a petting zoo in Alabama and a roadside water park in Florida. By listing such unlikely targets, the administration has heightened fear and the cost of protecting citizens, according to Mueller, a political science professor and national security consultant. He examines how terrorism hypervigilance is threatening civil liberties, the economy, and lives. Mueller explores three themes: terrorist threats are overblown; we can learn from the lessons of previous international threats that they are often exaggerated; and by applying these lessons, we can create policy that reduces fear and the cost of overreaction. Among other observations, Mueller notes that despite fears of chemical attacks, most such weapons are "incapable of perpetrating mass destruction," and our counterterrorism tactics tend to be expensive "self-flagellation" that bolsters the image of the terrorists. If the objective is to keep Americans frightened and willing to spend money and relinquish freedom, then the terrorists are winning, Mueller maintains. Interesting reading on a subject that will continue to hold great political sway. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Product Description
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11? It is ridiculously easy for a single person with a bomb-filled backpack, or a single explosives-laden automobile, to launch an attack. So why hasn't it happened? The answer is surely not the Department of Homeland Security, which cannot stop terrorists from entering the country, legally or otherwise. It is surely not the Iraq war, which has stoked the hatred of Muslim extremists around the world and wasted many thousands of lives. Terrorist attacks have been regular events for many years -- usually killing handfuls of people, occasionally more than that.

Is it possible that there is a simple explanation for the peaceful American homefront? Is it possible that there are no al-Qaeda terrorists here? Is it possible that the war on terror has been a radical overreaction to a rare event? Consider: 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have been subjected to fingerprinting and registration, and more than 5,000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned -- yet there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist crime in America. A handful of plots -- some deadly, some intercepted -- have plagued Europe and elsewhere, and even so, the death toll has been modest.

We have gone to war in two countries and killed tens of thousands of people. We have launched a massive domestic wiretapping program and created vast databases of information once considered private. Politicians and pundits have berated us about national security and patriotic duty, while encroaching our freedoms and sending thousands of young men off to die.

It is time to consider the hypothesis that dare not speak its name: we have wildly overreacted. Terrorism has been used by murderous groups for many decades, yet even including 9/11, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are microscopic. In general, international terrorism doesn't do much damage when considered in almost any reasonable context.

The capacity of al-Qaeda or of any similar group to do damage in the United States pales in comparison to the capacity other dedicated enemies, particularly international Communism, have possessed in the past. Lashing out at the terrorist threat is frequently an exercise in self-flagellation because it is usually more expensive than the terrorist attack itself and because it gives the terrorists exactly what they are looking for. Much, probably most, of the money and effort expended on counterterrorism since 2001 (and before, for that matter) has been wasted.

The terrorism industry and its allies in the White House and Congress have preyed on our fears and caused enormous damage. It is time to rethink the entire enterprise and spend much smaller amounts on only those things that do matter: intelligence, law enforcement, and disruption of radical groups overseas. Above all, it is time to stop playing into the terrorists' hands, by fear-mongering and helping spread terror itself.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (November 14, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1416541713
• ISBN-13: 978-1416541714
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #471,883 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Overdue, January 25, 2007

By	Retired Reader (Maryland) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

At long last, a book has been published that takes a realistic look at the so-called `Global War on Terrorism' (GWOT) and provides an honest assessment of terrorist threat to the U.S. and its citizens. Its author John Mueller is to be congratulated for being the first author that this reviewer is aware of to put the 9/11 tragedy in a rational context.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 were indeed terrible and tragic. Yet according to Mueller, there is ample evidence that these attacks were aberration and not the prelude to an all out asymmetrical war against the U.S. by the Islamic extremists influenced by Osama bin Laden in a movement called al Qaeda. Indeed in his opinion the U.S. reaction to that dreadful day were completely out of proportion to the danger actually posed by Islamic terrorists.

Looking at the essentially pointless GWOT, this book points out that terrorism like crime will always be with us, but the chances of a U.S. citizen being killed by a terrorist are considerably less than the same citizen being killed in a robbery. It also points out that the recurring phantom of terrorist use of WMD within the U.S. or any place else for that matter is highly implausible at best.

Since 9/11 the U.S. Government has spent millions of dollars to protect Americans from a threat which, as this book points out, scarcely exists at all. The tragic events of 9/11 have basically served to fuel to the political demagogy, curtailments of constitutional rights, and bureaucratic absurdity that appear to be the principal fruits of the first foreign attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.

A Baltimore newspaperman and acute observer of the human condition (H.L. Mencken) once commented that real motto of the United States ought to be "Safety First" not "E Pluribus Unim". He comment was based on his observations of the irrational fears that often drove his fellow citizens into ridiculous follies. This book supports his point.

20 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Makes you go hmmm, December 17, 2006

By	B. Stayner - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I think people don't like this book because it forces us to reassess our fears. Many people criticize Mueller by saying he claims Al Queda is not a threat. On the contrary Mueller contends Al Queda is a threat, just not a very big one. Every time a catostrophic event happens in this country, we tend to falseley label it as an omen of things to come. If you disagree with Mueller thats fine, but the book is well written and presents points nobody else is bringing up.

18 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars 911 type attacks kill as many as toilet drownings, March 6, 2007

By	Clark Magnuson (WA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I listened to Michael Medved [right wing radio talk show host with whom I usually agree] interview John Mueller about this book.

Medved stronly disagreed when John said that terrorists are not a big deal.
I had to agree with Mueller.
It is the difference between perceived risk and calculated risk.

Mueller is calculating the risk.
Mueller is the man.
The emperor has no significant terrorist risk and is over reacting.