Is the Threat of Terrorism a Myth?

In Sunday's Washington Post, there was column http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102710.html written by Glenn L. Carle (Former CIA Deputy National Intelligence Officer) stating that the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated and that this exaggeration has led to misguided policies that have cost the U.S. dearly in resources and in lives. I agree with Mr. Carle's general point that the threat of al-Qaeda and groups like it has been exaggerated. Politicians, the news media, and Hollywood are to blame for this, but the reality is that it was bound to happen. Sept. 11th was so dramatic and terrorists are such mysterious and terrifying creatures that they make for good politics and great television. Unfortunately Mr. Carle, in his attempt to diminish the perceived threat of terrorism significantly overstates his case. He also mis characterizes the views of some people (particularly John McCain) who see the threat differently than he does.

Certainly al-Qaeda was never a threat to seriously destabilize the U.S and we have excepted some irrational policies (air port security, certain provisions of the Patriot Act, etc...) as a result of our disproportionate fear of al-Qaeda. However, it is silly to call Osama Bin Laden and his associates "small men" as Glenn Carle does in his column. This "small man" accomplished, what no U.S. enemy has accomplished since Pearl Harbor, an attack on U.S. soil killing thousands of people. (Let's not forget that the attack also helped to instigate an economic recession.) That is not the work of a small man. It is certainly reasonable to believe that had we not invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban, eliminated most of al-Qaeda's leadership, wire tapped suspected terrorists phone calls, frozen terrorists assets, etc... al-Qaeda would have struck U.S. soil again. (Even under these adverse circumstances they have still managed to strike several of our allies with deadly attacks.)

The question I would like to pose to Mr. Carle is- Over the last 20 years what threat has been more grave to the U.S., allies, and interests than Islamic terrorism? If you add up all the attacks, all of the casualties, and the cost in damages, you can make a very strong case that there has been no greater security threat to U.S. and her allies over the last 20 years than Islamic terrorism. Another question I would ask is- what threat is more imminent to our interests and our security than Islam terrorism? There are certainly threats with greater potential for catastrophe, like an Iranian or North Korean missile attack on one of our allies. Or if China ever decided to attack Taiwan and take a more militaristic approach to the world, that could have horrendous consequences. Nevertheless, a terrorist attack on our interests abroad or here at home is far more likely to occur in the near future than any of the events I just described. So, while the threat may not be as potentially dangerous as other imaginable threats, the threat from Islamic terrorism was/is real and arguably the most imminent.

Mr. Carle does have a valid point when he states that there is no "global terrorist network". The level of sophistication that we have attributed to terrorist organizations has taken on mythical proportions. However, he is off base when he states that, "None of these groups is likely to succeed in seizing power or in destabilizing the societies they attack". This has already been proven to be false in locations throughout the world. It is true that terrorist organizations themselves are unlikely to seize political power or destabilize a modern Western nation. However, Islamic fundamentalist groups backed by militias and terrorist organizations have seized power and acted as destabilizing forces all around the world from the Philippines, to Somalia, to Lebanon, etc...

Another problem with Mr. Carle's case is that he limits his discussion to terrorist groups and the threat they pose to this country. This would be fine if terrorists groups were the root of the threat and not simply a symptom. The root of the threat and the real danger comes not from groups like al-Qaeda but from the spread of the ideology of radical Islam. No, the U.S. is not in danger of becoming the United States of Islam and Europe is not going to become Eurabia as some commentators have projected, but the spread of radical Islam is a threat nonetheless. It is a threat because it destabilizes countries, enslaves people, and is enthusiastic about using violent means in order to grow. Right now it is growing throughout Africa, central Asia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Southeast Asia. That is why John McCain and others like him talk about global jihad being the "gravest threat we face". He's not referring to the "global terrorist network", he's referring to a dangerous ideology that occasionally manifests itself in the form of terrorist organizations. In fact, contrary to the impression that Mr. Carle conveys in his column, you will hear John McCain speak of the "War on Terror" in ideological terms far more often than speaks of the threat of a domestic terrorist attack.

So why would Mr. Carle seek to diminish this threat and mis-represent the views of those with whom he disagrees? It is most likely a combination of political motivations and ideological perspective.

First, the CIA has been in a turf war with the Bush Administration ever since 9-11. Many in the CIA resent the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and object to the Bush administration's approach of aggressively using all means at our disposal to prosecute the "War on Terror". The CIA, for reasons self-interested and philosophical, saw the "War on Terror" as an intelligence matter and did not like having to share it's territory while simultaneously receiving a huge portion of the blame for 9/11. The CIA's image has been tarnished and it's influence has been diminished ever since 9/11. Since that time, individuals like Mr. Carle have been working to undermine the administration in order to push policies back in a pre 9-11 direction. The theory is that if you can show that the Bush administration policies aren't working (i.e. the leaked CIA reports that the Iraq war had actually increased the threat of terrorism) or (in Mr. Carle's case) show that the policies were unnecessary, then you can lobby for a return to the pre 9-11 days when the CIA was in control of counter-terrorism efforts. Mr. Carle is also sending a warning shot to whomever becomes the next president (particularly Mr. McCain), saying that he is in for a fight from the CIA if he doesn't change the policies of the current administration.

Ultimately, It's difficult to know why Mr. Carle would mis characterize the views of those with whom he disagrees. Perhaps because believing Senator McCain to be a fear monger is a conveniently simple explanation for their different views of the issue or perhaps because Mr. Carle simply doesn't see the terrorist threat in it's larger context.

In the end I find it extremely interesting that a couple of years ago I was reading fairly regularly about reports being released by the CIA that the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay were increasing the threat of terrorism and that the threat was "greater than before 9/11" (John Kerry touted these reports during his campaign). Fast forward to today- al-Qaeda is (by most accounts) organizationally at it's weakest point since 9/11, is most likely defeated in Iraq, rapidly losing popular support throughout the Middle-East, and there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil in seven years. Now a former CIA operative is saying that the Bush administration policies were unnecessary because the threat was never that big to begin with. Seems curious.

The truth is that as long as President Bush is in power it is hard to believe anything that comes out of a extremely polarized Washington, D.C. One thing I know for certain is that I'm taking Mr. Carle's column with a huge grain of salt.