[Infowarrior] - Terrorism Threat Hyped, Says Think Tank

[Richard Forno]

Terrorism Threat Hyped, Says Think Tank

By Matthew Harwood, securitymanagement.com

01/26/2009

http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/terrorism-threat-hyped-says-think-tank-005103

USA: The United States needs to adopt a more "grown-up approach" to
counterterrorism, argues Benjamin Friedman of the Cato Institute—a
libertarian think tank.

The core strategy, he says, should revolve around "less fear- 
mongering" and
"more confidence."

Friedman points to three recent examples of bureaucrats and reporters  
hyping
terrorist doomsday scenarios that he argues, while possible, would not
destroy the foundations of U.S. democratic society.

During the confirmation hearing of Dennis Blair for Director of National
Intelligence, Senator Kit Bond said:  "Our entire way of life is just  
a few
moments away from annihilation if terrorists succeed in obtaining a  
weapon
of mass destruction."

"Nonsense," Friedman replies. Even if terrorists did detonate a nuclear
device on American soil, he says, the United States way of life has  
survived
multiple wars and natural disasters. It would survive a nuclear,  
biological,
or chemical attack too.

"The danger to American values comes more from our reaction to terrorism
than the thing itself," he says. "What’s more, these sorts of  
incidents are
not nearly as likely as you generally hear."

Second, Friedman takes on The Washington Times for reporting rumors  
that al
Qaeda militants inadvertently killed themselves while playing with the
deadly bubonic plague, otherwise known as the Black Death.

"What they fail to point out is that, if an outbreak did occur, it was
probably a natural occurrence," he writes.

Finally, Friedman criticizes a recent article from Government  
Executive for
repeating the fear that terrorists could detonate a dirty bomb and  
blanket
Manhattan in the radioactive plume.

"The article dwells on this possibility without giving any space to
plausibility," Friedman writes. "Dispersing radioactive material (here
cesium-137) in a plume that engulfs an area the size of Manhattan  
would be
quite difficult. Nor is it clear that the long-term increase in  
background
'radiation' would have adverse health consequences in more than a few  
square
blocks."

While national security officials should worry about these scenarios,  
the
media should also be cognizant of reporting how likely each scenario is,
Friedman argues.

The Atlantic's blogger and national correspondent, James Fallows, agrees
with Friedman and levels some additional ire on the Department of  
Homeland
Security's Terrorism Threat Level sign at Reagan National Airport.

Really, what is the point of this? 99.9 percent of the people who look  
at it
don't even see it any more, since it's just part of the "boy who cried  
wolf"
ignorable background. Anyone who does think about it has to wonder: Is  
there
a threat to the entire country? Just to Washington? Is there new
information? Is there anything different I'm supposed to do? Does this  
sign
have any purpose other than to make me just a little bit more fearful  
and a
little bit more accepting of anything done in the name of "security"?

Fallows' advice to the new president: tear down this sign.