How To Make Sure You Can Show You're Not Behind In The War Against Terror
Joe Gandelman
Here's a nifty way to show progress or at least the status quo in the war against terror: if you don't like a report that shows its greater, just eliminate the report.
Sound impossible? And wouldn't that raise a hue and cry on talk radio, cable, in newspaper columns and on blogs — particularly from those who demand that the U.S. take every step possible here and abroad to combat terrorism? Well, maybe it will ....because this hypothetical has actually happened:
WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
Several U.S. officials defended the abrupt decision, saying the methodology the National Counterterrorism Center used to generate statistics for the report may have been faulty, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.
Last year, the number of incidents in 2003 was undercounted, forcing a revision of the report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism."
But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office ordered "Patterns of Global Terrorism" eliminated several weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush's administration's frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.
So let's guess the arguments that'll be embraced by each side and how much time will be spent to find out what really happened — whether journalists, bloggers, politicos will demand to know more. But we digress:
"Instead of dealing with the facts and dealing with them in an intelligent fashion, they try to hide their facts from the American public," charged Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who first disclosed the decision to eliminate the report in The Counterterrorism Blog, an online journal.
Rep. Henry Waxman D-Calif., who was among the leading critics of last year's mix-up, reacted angrily to the decision.
"This is the definitive report on the incidence of terrorism around the world. It should be unthinkable that there would be an effort to withhold it - or any of the key data - from the public. The Bush administration should stop playing politics with this critical report."
A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed that the publication was being eliminated, but said the allegation that it was being done for political reasons was "categorically untrue."
Fair enough. So there is a controversy.
So now let's see whether those who write, belong to both parties, and have forums on radio and in cable demand more specific details.
Or, if an official proudly proclaims we're "winning the war against terroris" ask him to see proof — in a report.
Maybe we should measure the number of dead?
How about the monetary cost of the damage?
Number of killed per attack?
Would any of these measurements tell us, actually, if we are winning or losing?
Nope...we didn't rate WWII a victory based upon the number of German attacks per year, nor in the number of dead...victory was determined by the enemy being taken or destroyed.
The gathering of statistics of what is a terorist attack is fraught with assumptions, which leads to bad data which can be manipulated to say anything.
Progress during a war is difficult to measure in small increments.
It's hard to find the horse when all you look at is manure.
Seems like it...after all, where is the Khobar Towers bombing? The East African embassy bombings? The hijackings of planes? Heck, even suicide bombing is becoming a rarity in Israel...
If India is accounting for nearly half, then how much of the rest is Israel/Iraq/Afghanistan?
And, of course, when was the last attack upon the United States.
At any rate, winning the war means implanting pluralistic democratic regimes in the Arab/Moslem world...we've got two up and running and the rest of the tyrannies at least making noises about democratization...that is how I rate victory.
Also, those two nations in the ME will be up and running when they've survived a number of years without our protection. In other words, miles to go.
There's no question that State's report had serious flaws, as Dan Darling points out over at Winds of Change. I think we're much better off using a standard definition for a terroristic attack and then compiling all incidents worldwide. This might, for example, reveal that terrorism is on the rise in Southeast Asia. It would certainly help focus where resources should be allocated.
Good call. We have three problems to address:
The first problem is that you can't reduce something as complex as the war on terrorism to a few numbers.
The second problem is the question of what they're counting, and how they're counting it. How do roadside IEDs in Iraq get counted? If they are, no bloody wonder the number went up! Especially when you consider that 90% of the attacks are failures.
The third problem is that this argument completely ignores the social processes at work. Take, for example: the men and women building a new government in Iraq, the (stable) government in Afghanistan, the developments in Georgia, the Ukraine, and central Asia, and Lebanon. All of these -as well as other factors I haven't taken time to mention- all indicate "winning," to the extent that one can completely defeat terrorism.
BTW: Joe, I think that last graf answers your question pretty well. Anything other updates I can help you with? :)))