Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

This is an interesting, valuable and important book, and I'm fairly sure almost no-one has or, for that matter will, read it. I will do what I can to change that.

John Mueller is from a venerable but sadly rare tradition of Academic commentators: the skeptics. It's that perspective he lends to our "troubled times" and over this course of this tidily executed, thoroughly sourced and entertaining book, Mueller systematically demolishes much of the public hype which holds us up in airport terminals, eats up our tax dollars and does its level best to prevent us sleeping soundly in our beds.

He makes, and repeats, a point which many otherwise perfectly sensible and well-informed commentators can't fathom: The biggest source of terror in our lives is not terrorists in Afghan caves, but our own politicians and media pundits constantly blathering about them. The terrorists themselves cause sporadic but, in fact, very limited mayhem.

The thousands of hungry mouths who comprise the "terrorism industry" on the other hand - the politicians, civil servants, defence contractors, security analysts and media commentators - each of whom is primarily interested in justifying his own existence or convincing us to open our wallets - each has a vested interest in persuading us we should be soiling rather than sleeping in our beds. Their statements, therefore, we should take with a pinch of salt.

But even though we all know we ought to, we don't. We acquiesce: we put up with speculative, unsourced, unattributed, and frequently credulous nonsense - we tolerate queues and being unneccesarily fondled at airports, hikes in tax rates and restrictions on our civil liberties. John Mueller's book sets out to provide us a reality check and ask, pointedly, why we are so easily prepared to do that.

By way of preface Mueller lists a series of items which ought to be - but aren't - conventional wisdom. They're all very big points, among them:
* Terrorism just doesn't do much damage considered in any reasonable context (nine times as many Americans are struck by lightning in the average year as are killed by terrorists)
* Even where Terrorism has horrendous results, it tends to be one-off events (despite six years of anxiety, there has not been another terrorist attack in the U.S. *at all*, let alone one on the scale of 9/11)
* Catastrophic events are by their nature are hard to repeat (never again will a plane full of unsuspecting passengers sit and allow unarmed men to fly them to their deaths without intervening, since the assumption "we'll be used as hostages so we're safe for now" no longer holds)
* Terrorist actions tend to be counterproductive on almost every level any way: far from throwing New York into chaos, panic and Hobbesian brutality, the direct and immediate result of 9/11 was the sudden blossoming of compassion, cooperation and cohesion in the city on a completely unprecedented scale - a place not usually known for its neighborliness or Samaritan spirit
* The cost (both human and economic terms) of the "War on Terror" has been far greater than the cost of Terrorist actions themselves (even taking into account the financial losses sustained in the capital markets)
* The "War on Terror", being as it is a war on an idea, is utterly unwinnable. There is no practical way of eradicating the possibility of individuals, for whatever reason, engaging in entirely destructive acts of violence. Like road fatalities (of which there are tens of thousands each year in the US) the risk of terrorist attacks are a fact of life in built up areas which we should take reasonable, dispassionate, measures to minimise bearing in mind the opportunity costs of doing so.

Mueller doesn't take an (overtly) political position - his arguments are not based on views about foreign policy nor the moral rights and wrongs of the situation, but an statistical analysis of the costs and risks of the terrorist threat, and acknowledgment of the personal agendas which inevitably inform those who shout loudest. "If it bleeds it leads" - people don't buy newspapers to read good news, so in a competitive market it is no surprise if newspapers tend to dwell on worst case scenarios. Yes, terrorism is dreadful, Mueller says, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep it in perspective.

In short, this book is a long overdue and much needed dose of common sense.

Olly Buxton

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.

Has the "war on terror" been worth the cost? The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 triggered massive spending and curtailment of liberties in the US - intended to prevent any repeat event.

Mueller points out that the September 11 attack was the most successful terrorist attack in history. Nothing anywhere before or since comes close to matching its toll of 3000+ dead and property damage in the $50+ billion range. Other major terrorist attacks have occasionally resulted in death tolls in the 200+ range, with property damage at only a tiny fraction of the September 11 total. Annual death tolls worldwide from terrorist attacks amount to an average of about several hundred. Rarely are Americans affected.

Mueller points out that numerous other types of common calamities cause far more preventable deaths and destruction on an annual basis than terrorists, yet do not generate a fraction of the attention that the "war on terror" gets. Mueller says there is a "terrorism industry" that profits from hyping fears of terrorism. This industry consists of politicians, bureaucrats, experts, and the media. The public seems swayed by the fear mongering from the "terrorism industry" in spite of the comparative insignificance of terrorist attacks.

The "terrorism industry" in the USA is constantly embarrassed by the nearly total absence of foreign terrorist activity in the USA before or since the September 11 attack. Is this absence caused by the effectiveness of the US Department of Homeland Security? Mueller posits that the more likely explanation is that there simply are no domestic terrorist organizations or plots to be countered. The number of people arrested and jailed in the USA for terrorism is practically nil. Enormous sums of money have been spent trying to find the terrorists among us, but there is nothing significant to show for all of that expense.

Mueller recognizes that terrorists exist and need to be dealt with, but they are not a threat to our survival. The history and experience of terrorism in this country tells us the problem is one appropriately assigned to local police, and not the US military. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have already cost us far more in lives and treasure than was lost in the September 11 attack. And the death and destruction we have inflicted on those countries far, far exceeds any loss we suffered. Our destructive reaction has considerably exceeded the provocation.

Citing numerous historical examples from the past 100 years in the USA, Mueller explains that overreaction to terrorism has always been far more costly than anything the terrorists have done or could ever likely do to us. He notes that it would be far less costly for the government to reimburse people who suffer monetary losses from terrorism than to maintain the "war on terror." In the war on terror, we become our own worst enemies. Terrorism is a tactic intended to provoke fear.

Franklin Roosevelt once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Mueller doesn't go quite that far. He supports preventative action against terrorists commensurate with the threat they pose. But, as he points out throughout his book, the threat has been greatly overblown.

*****

About a year after 9/11, I was thinking there are so many little things terrorists could be doing, Why aren't they? All of a sudden we went from not being able to prevent planes from being hijacked to being able to prevent suicide bombers from blowing themselves up in malls. Or is it simply, there just aren't that many that want to attack us and have other concerns (moderate Islamic gov't's, European countries). This book discusses all this and more. Very enlightening read that rightfully questions conventional wisdom.

Finally there is truth in publishing when it comes to terrorism. We all have been so programmed to put plastic on our windows duct them the windows and doorways and then hide our heads in the sand while we shake like a washing machine that is off center when we hear there is a red alert. This book tells the entire truth and shows how politicians, the media and people out to make fast and easy money use those fears against us. It also shows how politicians use the threat for their own gains and political advantages. This book covers everything and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject; even if you're not it will help you get a better understanding of how our fear of what happened on 9/11 is being used against us. The truth finally came out.

One reviewers comparison between the chances of being killed by terrorism and World War II in order to illustrate that they both have low mortality rates is so ridiculous that it has a Tony Snow mumbo-jumbo-esque quality. This books illustrates that the infamous broadcasting term "If it bleeds it leads" Is alive and well in the U.S. Studies of Mortality Salience theory has shown that when humans are keep in a state of fear that they are far more likely to literally give their brains over to a perceived authoritarian figure and feel smug and satisfied with a "bring it on" mentality. In a state of fear there is no "grey", you are either one of "them", or one of "us." The effect of this manipulation has worked beautifully since 9/11. American's since 9/11 have re-framed thinking as an avoidable chore. The Administration has co-opted this philosophy and made it an art form. Bush gets bad press, or a scandle is exposed, and magically the security level gets raised within three days. It has happened over and over again. Just as the doomsday prophets refused to believe that there was something was wrong with their beliefs when the messiah failed to appear (they just weren't holy enough), the same applies to the U.S. population who exclaims " Well, it must be working because nothing has happened." "Overblown" much like Glassner's "The Culture of Fear" expertly demonstrates how willing we are to give up human rights in order to gain some sort of false sense of safety. These books illustrate what lemmings Americans can be, and how easily McCarthyism flourished in the 1950's, and how well it is working again.

Is the threat of terrorism overblown? Could it be? I am still learning about the American public's answers to that question for my book, but to scholars who study it, there is little doubt. The infinitesimal odds of dying in a terrorist attack are rarely made clear to many Americans, but if they were they could cast some doubt on the usefulness of the Department of Homeland Security (national security through colour code), the truthiness of political discourse and how threatening al-Qaeda actually is. Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them is clear and sensible thought for a world of headless chickens.

John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, who also wrote "The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons" for the journal International Security a couple of years before the Soviet Union collapsed, begins his book by throwing out empty rhetoric about "the age of terror" in which we live and ushers in some perspective. Statistically, including 9/11, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s is similar to the number killed by deer or allergies to peanuts. One is more likely to drown in a bathtub than be killed by a terrorist, and yet our reactions to the one successful terrorist attack on American soil have been so absurd that after invading two countries and killing hundreds of thousands, the American public still fears another surprise attack.

This attack could take the form of nuclear weapons, perhaps from the ever-present boogeymen of Iran or North Korea. But as Mueller points out in Foreign Policy (and in Overblown), terrorists' exploding nuclear weapons all over the place is almost impossible. We have been afraid of them for more than 60 years, and since then not one has gone off accidentally, been sold to a terrorist or found its way to Manhattan. Chemical and biological weapons, too, fail the terrorist test: they are simply too difficult to develop and wield with any effectiveness. And why would they? The 9/11 hijackers had no WMDs because they did not need them.

And yet, the panic over nuclear or WMD terrorism, or any other kind, was high for years following 9/11. On Feb 11, 2003, FBI chief Robert Mueller told the Senate Committee on Intelligence "the greatest threat is from al-Qaeda cells in the US that we have not yet identified" and claimed somehow to know that "al-Qaeda maintains the ability and the intent to inflict significant casualties in the US with little warning." When he went back to the committee two years later, he never mentioned the secret FBI report that said that after more than three years of intense hunting, the agency had not found a single terrorist sleeper cell in the US, even though the 2002 intelligence estimate said there were up to 5000 terrorists connected somehow to al-Qaeda. Perhaps this oversight was induced by paranoia, as was presumably that which led George Bush to talk about nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein in the same breath.

The media have contributed generously to the terror potluck. Politicians and bureaucrats have an incentive to issue vague warnings from time to time in case there is an attack and they are accused of not preventing it. In Mueller's words, "[s]ince 9/11 the American public has been treated to seemingly endless yammering in the media about terrorism. Politicians and bureaucrats may feel that, given the public concern on the issue, they will lose support if they appear insensitively to be downplaying the dangers of terrorism." It is as if each news program, each politician, each government spokesperson baits his competitors into saying more about terrorism, how wonderful America is, and how bad our enemies are going to get it. But our enemies are not the only ones who have suffered at our hands.

9/11 has cost money. Nearly $10b per year is spent on airport security, not including Homeland Security's $50b budget. A sense of urgency to protect every possible terrorist target has meant a big increase in government spending with the usual billion dollar riders tacked on to each bill. (Florida's Weeki Wachee Springs, in the photo above, was happy to receive funding for preventive counterterrorism. Fortunately, his water park has not yet been a victim.) Visa restrictions have kept out scientists, engineers and businesspeople who could have helped the US economy. But never mind those costs: they are for security. No price is too high for a colour-coded warning system. The true costs of 9/11 are in the wars that would not have been politically possible without it. Hundreds of billions will have been spent on Afghanistan and at least three trillion will have gone toward Iraq after it is all over. Surely if those wars have saved lives and prevented terrorism, they are good wars. But all accounts say they have not.

9/11 has cost lives. One estimate is that more than 1000 people died between September 11 and December 31 of 2001 after they canceled planned trips by plane and took their cars instead. Another study found that in the same time period, 17% of Americans outside New York continued suffering shell shock. More obviously are the two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, which have claimed thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis in the name of nebulous ideals, false security warnings and failed intelligence.

Professor Mueller provides refreshing views not only of the present unwarranted panic but of historically parallel ones too. Pearl Harbour was described by observers at the time as catastrophic, devastating, crushing, "the greatest military and naval disaster in our nation's history". More realistically, however, it was an inconvenience. A colossal overreaction ensued in which a hundred thousand Americans were killed for the loss of 2403 in the initial attack. 120,000 Japanese people, two-thirds of them American citizens, were sent to detention camps without trial. Much more historical analysis provided in Overblown describes additional speculative fears and their consequences that, with hindsight, were exceedingly foolish.

John Mueller is part of a line of thinkers, from sociologists and other scholars to Michael Moore and George Carlin, who explain the destructive effects of the fact that, in the latter's words, Americans panic easily. From Afghanistan and Iraq to freedom at home, this panic has for years led to the trading of lives and liberties for the illusion of security. Professor Mueller does not touch on the less obvious effects of 9/11 that we are dealing with to this day. For instance, while I believe the Iraq War would not have happened without 9/11, I also believe it is the continued fear of al-Qaeda and militant Islam and the Middle East and anyone who wears a turban that is pushing some Americans toward war with Iran. The mentality seems to be, "You think 9/11 was bad? When Iran gets a nuclear weapon..." Such a belief is only speculation, though. Overblown offers a much-needed clearer-headed response to terrorism than to try to blow it up.

They key to the "War on Terror". is in my opinion stopping illegal immigration. Not the development of what this author calls "The Terror Industry".

The ridicules color code system orange alert red alert ect.

The threat of chemical and biological weapons is overblown. It is not all that easy to launch an attack with a "suitcase bomb".

The US has gone to war forever forever and launched a massive wiretapping campaign.

The United States does not need to go broke attacking foreign country it mere needs to secure the boarders and send illegals home.

This book does a good job to convince the reader that indeed the threats are "overblown'.