Over half a million people die in the United States each year from heart disease. Almost as many die from cancer each year. These are the two biggest causes of death, by far. Number three is respiratory disease. Then stroke, and then injuries from accidents.
Suicide is responsible for about 50,000 deaths each year.
In the annual report issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, terrorism doesn’t even get a mention, and we have to go back to 2001 to see any large numbers of deaths from terrorism in the U.S. The horrific 9/11 attacks resulted in about 3,000 deaths in the U.S. — by far the biggest ever from terrorism in the United States.
So why do we spend so much time worrying about terrorism? It seems clear that the attention given to terrorism is far higher than is warranted by the actual harm caused by terrorists.
I think two things explain this trend pretty well. First, we aren’t collectively very good at recognizing the kinds of threats that do the most damage in today’s world. We have a long biological heritage, many millions of years, that weighs heavily in favor of recognizing and paying attention to obvious threats like another human trying to kill us. Paying attention to the things that kill us today (in massively larger numbers than terrorism) isn’t built into our psyches like the obvious threats from those who would do violence to us.
However, we can, of course, become better at recognizing those threats that are serious and discount those that aren’t. Education and a course of “intellectual self-defense” are the keys for each of us becoming better at discerning real threats.
Second, our political and media systems are organized to play up threats of terrorism because this earns votes for politicians and earns money for media sources. Scott Brown, the former senator from Massachusetts who is now running for Senate in Vermont, stated in a campaign ad that Islamic terrorism is threatening to “cause the collapse of our country.” This kind of absurdity should be dismissed, but Brown clearly thinks such hyperbole will earn votes.
Similarly, Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina, said on national TV recently, criticizing President Barack Obama’s actions against ISIS in Iraq and Syria: “This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home.” This kind of thinking should also be dismissed because it is so dramatically over-stated and patently contrary to the facts.
And while this is purely speculation, the timing of President Obama’s new campaign against ISIS is suspicious when we consider the fact that the important midterm elections are coming up soon, and the 2016 presidential election isn’t far off in terms of its ramp up. Democrats (wrongly) often face charges of being “weak on defense,” so political silly season can provoke ever greater shows of strength and resolve against threats real or perceived.
In terms of the second major factor behind our overblown fears of terrorist threats, it is well-known that in journalism “if it bleeds it leads.” Violence and the threat of violence is indeed fascinating to most of us and our media knows this. But it would be great if more of our media outlets placed such events in context and challenged our leaders when they discuss these kinds of threats out of context.
So even though we shouldn’t discount the threat of terrorism we should do a much better job of putting it in perspective. Yes, terrorism is a significant threat — we saw that abundantly on 9/11. And people are still dying even here in the U.S. from terrorist attacks. But the numbers are so small that most of should lose no sleep at all from this threat.
And the threat of terrorism certainly shouldn’t dominate our news cycle like it currently does.
How Do We Educate Ourselves?
As the numbers above show, and Figure 1 below, terrorism is dwarfed to the point of insignificance by the major causes of death in the U.S. (and around the world, too).
Why don’t more people know these figures? It’s not hard to find them. We can literally ask our smartphones with a press of a button today. I asked Siri on my iPhone: “What were the leading causes of death in the us in 2013?”
The graphic to the right shows what she gave back in about one second.
The first article links to the CDC report and the image in Figure 1. My point is that this information isn’t hard to come by. And for those without a smartphone, you can do a quick web search on any computer or go to a library and use a public computer.
What About Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction?
We need to acknowledge that there is at least some risk of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction and achieving far higher damage than is possible with conventional weapons. Terrorists did indeed succeed in using planes as such weapons in 9/11, and there have been some reports of terrorists planning “dirty bomb” attacks. So we can’t discount the possibility, even if very remote, of terrorists succeeding in a major attack.
The obvious problem, however, is that if major attacks with major weapons are our main concern (as they should be), rather than small attacks with guns, homemade bombs or knives, our default military approach to such perceived threats is all but certain to increase the threat of major attacks.
This is the case because by using massive “kinetic force,” the new euphemism for military action, we are using a hammer when a scalpel is more appropriate. When massive force is used it is all but certain that unintended consequences will result because it is impossible to control the spinoff effects, the resentments, the generational hatred, the vendettas, that result from massive use of violence.
Using fire to fight fire, when it comes to terrorism, simply makes the fire bigger. As I highlighted in my last column, the U.S. is the major arms dealer to the world and, in particular, to the Middle East. We are directly inflaming the region and creating more threats with each attempted military solution and with each infusion of weaponry. Each new war in the Middle East has created more problems while solving very few. It’s time to seriously rethink our default military approach to perceived problems.
National Security Strategy Threat Assessments
Where do U.S. security planners place the threat of terrorism? The White House issues a National Security Strategy every few years. The most recent version, the 2010 National Security Strategy that the White House issued shortly after Obama came into office, was a big shift from previous strategy (at least rhetorically) under President George W. Bush. The document states: “Terrorism is one of many threats that are more consequential in a global age. The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.”
More recently, the U.S. intelligence community issued its own assessment of major threats to the U.S. in early 2014. Cyber threats are listed first, then difficulties in counterintelligence, and only then is terrorism discussed. The report concludes that “U.S.-based extremists will likely continue to pose the most frequent threat to the U.S. Homeland.” So, yes, let’s be vigilant for homegrown terrorists, but let’s not let our entire country be thrown off-kilter by perceived threats half a world away.
The report doesn’t address the problem of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. However, the U.S. is working to contain that threat through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an international effort to improve accounting and handling rules for civilian nuclear stockpiles to prevent them from falling into terrorists’ hands. This effort has made much progress since 2008, when it was created.
There is indeed a non-negligible risk of major harm from terrorists using weapons of mass destruction that can’t be ignored. This problem is, however, best addressed through international efforts to reduce and secure WMD, and a law enforcement approach to terrorism. Massive military action is all but certain to make this problem worse, not less.
Of course, we need to ensure that the homeland is kept safe, with strong borders and vigilant defenses against actual plots here at home. But, again, massive military action in countries that haven’t attacked us is all but certain to create more enemies than it destroys.
Terrorism is a tactic of weak actors confronting strong actors. It relies on the ability to sow fear: this is what “terror” means. So today’s Islamic terrorists have certainly succeeded in sowing fear and terror. But they are doing so not because they generally pose a serious threat to us here in the U.S. but, instead, because our politicians and our media amplify and exaggerate the threat.
— Tam Hunt is a lawyer based in Santa Barbara. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.