Love the way the feds do math. And the way their pockets bulge for
awarded contracts.
Come to think of it, it's not unlike those undeserving welfare
recipients getting something for contributing nothing, right? Well,
getting a hell of a lot more something. But we will still respect and
support everyone working in the industry breaking American citizens
because it's real work, right?
*Natalia*
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/06/20/terrorism-arithmetic/
Terrorism Arithmetic
by Philip Giraldi <http://original.antiwar.com/author/giraldi/>, June
21, 2012
Print This
<http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/06/20/terrorism-arithmetic/print/>
| Share This <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20>
The most recent issue of the National Counter Terrorism Center's annual
/Report on Terrorism
<http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annual_Report_Final.pdf>/ [.pdf]
came out last week, covering the year 2011. I would like to say that it
is well worth a read, but actually it is quite tedious. For those who
are interested, it is essentially a statistical and analytical breakdown
of the terrorism phenomenon derived from the U.S. government--maintained
Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, or WITS, which is based on publicly
available open-source material reporting alleged terrorist activity
around the globe. Most often the analysis is bare bones and avoids
political coloration, not, for example, going deeply into the motives of
the various terrorist groups but instead providing information in a pie
chart and chronological fashion. This year's report is 33 pages long.
The United States is engaged in what most Americans still refer to as a
global war on terror or, in shorthand form, a war on terror. The Obama
administration avoids the expression because it is a legacy of the Bush
years and because it uses the expression "war," so it refers to
"overseas contingency operations," which has a nicer sound and does not
appear to be so preemptive or premeditated. It also fudges the reality
of what is taking place by pretending that the process is reactive,
which it is not. The unrelenting expansion of U.S. military intervention
is in response to many diverse overseas developments, most of which are
not genuine threats. This was recently demonstrated by the White House
decision to extend the U.S. terrorism fight to the entire continent of
Africa.
Terrorism is clearly a dying profession, both literally and
metaphorically. The /Report on Terrorism/ does not list how many
terrorists were killed in 2011, perhaps fearing that the definitions and
numbers could easily be challenged, but it does provide detailed
breakdowns of the terrorism victims, a number around which there is
considerably more consensus. Worldwide terrorist attacks in 2011 were
down 12% from 2010 and 29% from 2007. Most attacks, and most victims,
roughly 65%, came from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, and
Somalia. Al-Qaeda, the gold-standard terrorist group, is in sharp
decline, staging far fewer attacks worldwide except in one country,
Somalia. Somalia's al-Shabab claims to be an al-Qaeda affiliate, though
that means little in practical terms. Engaged in what is essentially a
civil war, it bombs and executes its opponents. Each shooting or bombing
is therefore counted as a terrorist attack. Its ability to threaten the
United States is close to nil, however, and even Washington is waking up
to the fact that the threat al-Shabab does pose is largely because the
group has been radicalized by U.S. involvement in the conflict.
For me, the report's statistics always invite a cost/benefit analysis.
So how many Americans were actually victimized by terrorism in 2011 and
what is Washington spending to deal with the threat? First of all, a
definition of American is not so simple. Some American citizens who have
been terrorism victims are in fact dual nationals who have a U.S.
passport for one reason or another but who are natives of another
country and have chosen to live there. Far from being singled out as
American targets, the dual nationals are generally perceived as
indigenous to their countries of residence.
But even including all U.S. passport holders or permanent residents, the
numbers are disappointing for those who have imagined a world awash with
militants all of whom are seeking Americans to kill while planning to
travel to the United States so they can blow themselves up. No Americans
were killed by terrorists inside the United States. Only three American
citizens were kidnapped by overseas terrorists in 2011 (in Somalia,
Afghanistan, and Iraq, all of which were war zones), and only 17 were
killed in foreign lands (15 in Afghanistan, a war zone). Not to minimize
in any way the horror of becoming a terrorist victim, the numbers are
only 0.3% of all terror-related kidnappings and only 0.1% of
terror-related killings. Most, possibly 97%, of people killed or
kidnapped are Muslims targeted by indigenous terrorist groups that are
fighting to change or take control of their own governments. Micah Zenko
of the Council on Foreign Relations has determined
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/>
that the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks is comparable
to the number crushed to death by falling television sets or furniture
each year.
The insight that only a minuscule number of Americans actually become
terrorism victims raises a question: how much does the United States
government spend to counter the threat? The numbers are not precise as
overall budgets tend to roll many items in together, but a useful way of
addressing the problem is to subtract the federal budget in 2001 from
the budget today in the key areas relating to defense, intelligence, and
homeland security. The ongoing intervention in Afghanistan, justified by
President Obama as a war to prevent terrorism, runs more than $8 billion
per month. The federal government employs
<http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/>
2,100,000 today compared to 1,500,000 in 2001, not including the
military, which has itself grown by 100,000 personnel to 2,300,000,
including reserves, with more increases planned through 2013. Most of
the new hires were directly related to the War on Terror for manning the
200 new military and CIA bases that have sprung up around the world and
to serve as Fortress America's defenders. The number of reported federal
employees does not include contractors, who add considerably to the
payroll. More than half
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/opinion/main3095935.shtml> of
the employees in key sectors within the intelligence community and at
the Defense Department are contractors.
Uncle Sam will spend
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget> $3.796
trillion in 2012 compared with $1.863 trillion in 2001, $1.327 trillion
of which was borrowed, reversing 2001's budget surplus of $127 billion.
The Department of Homeland Security gets $57 billion and employs
180,000, the intelligence agencies get an estimated $100 billion and
employ 100,000, the FBI gets nearly $9 billion, and the Department of
Defense gets $671 billion, which does not include the war in
Afghanistan. In 2001, the Pentagon budget was $277 billion. When all the
increases are added up and compared to the baseline of 2001, the war on
terror currently costs the American taxpayer more than $500 billion per
year. As there may be only 100 or so terrorists interested in attacking
the United States directly, that works out to something like $5 billion
per year per terrorist.
And that is only at the federal level. Most states now have their own
departments of homeland security, and most have dramatically increased
both the numbers and firepower of their police forces. There is
full-time security manning the entrances of nearly all federal and state
and even some local office buildings. The total costs of state and local
expenditures to counter the essentially bogus terrorist threat might
well exceed the federal expenditures, and then there is the spending on
security, often mandated by the government, in the private sector. But
as bad as all those numbers are, consider for a moment the legacy costs
and institutional damages that are not so readily visible. Professor
Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University estimates
<http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/09/06/911-and-the-War-on-Terror-A-5-Trillion-Choice.aspx#page1>
that Iraq will cost as much as $5 trillion when all the costs, including
interest paid on borrowed money and medical treatment for life for the
tens of thousands of wounded soldiers, are paid off. The bill for
Afghanistan will be proportionate, depending on how long the U.S. stays
there and at what commitment level. All of the deficit-feeding spending
for the War on Terror and associated military actions has gone down into
a deep, dark hole, as there have been no terrorist attacks to justify
the spending since 2001.
I don't suppose statistical analysis of an official government report
really means anything as President Barack Obama is expanding his little
wars and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney appears to be intent on
turning the little conflicts into much bigger ones. When Osama bin Laden
announced his intention of breaking the United States economically by
enticing it to overreact to terror attacks, he surely knew a good thing
when he saw it. More to the point, he might even have understood that
politics as usual in the United States would mean that the two parties
would try to outdo each other in being tough about the terrorist threat.
That is precisely what has occurred. Breaking the pattern does not
appear to be in the national DNA, even though continuing to do as we
have been doing is a recipe for ruin. The ultimate irony in U.S.
politics is that fearmongering always appears to be a good card to play
for a politician even when the numbers and analysis say otherwise. It
seems safe to say that neither an Obama nor a Romney will do anything to
disrupt that pattern.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
