War on Terror: an Analysis

Is the War on Terror working? Has it reduced terrorism, has it met its goals? The answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'. There is domestic terror, questionability of the statistics, global terrorism, and other factors in acts of terror. I will, however, argue that on balance the War on Terror has reduced terrorism.

1) Domestic Terrorism 

Domestic terrorism demonstrates the success of the War on Terror. The most recent source I have found is from the FBI, tracking terrorism from the 80s to 2005. Before 9/11, terrorism was fairly low, about 8 incidences in 2000. In 2001 there were 14. After 2001, the amount of terrorism decreased steadily. 8 cases in 2002, 6 in 2003, and 5 in 2004 and 5. 

Terrorism fell from the early 1980s until 1994, it increased steadily from 1994 to 2001, and fell every year or remained the same after the War on Terror. This is in large part due to the War on Terror which has prevented at least 50 terrorist attacks since 9/11. Other than the Boston bombing, I see no other instance of a large terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. After 9/11, people argued that it wasn't if we would be attacked again, it was more of when. However, this was not the case, in fact domestically the war on terror has been "more successful than anyone could have conceived before 9/11." (here) 

2) Around the world

This is where it actually becomes a bit tricky. Terrorism increased in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many argue, around the world. But I would say the increase globally is exaggerated. Although one study argues that there is an "increasing spread of global terrorism over the period [2002 -2011]", and they claim the impact of global terrorism is increasing, I am unsure if their data proves this. 72 countries saw an increase of terrorist impacts over the period studied, but 86 saw less of an impact, or no change at all. Maybe the increases have been larger than the decreases. For example, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen saw a large increase in impact from terrorism over the period studied. However, the increase of two of them (Iraq and Afghanistan) are due to an invasion. After we toppled the current rulers, terrorists began to attack our troops. However, this means fewer terrorist resources are being used elsewhere in the world. On top of this, since we have left Iraw, ISIS has taken control of much of the country, and I would argue our withdrawal likely led to more terrorist incidence.

Now, I will say the war in Iraq was done poorly. We disbanded the military and spent years trying to recreate it... and as we see, it is currently either non-existent or significantly out gunned. RAND has demonstrated that the more freedom there is, the less terrorism. This means that, theoretically, if we were able to properly set up a democratic government we would have seen an eventual decline in terrorism in the region. In Iraq, we had a few options. What we did, but we left too early, which I suspect the withdrawal actually hurt Iraq, keep the military and instill a puppet government, or three, what we did and stayed in the region for a longer period of time. Although it may have led to a temporary increase in violence, it would, in the long term, help the region--in terms of safety, but also economically. As I have demonstrated in other posts (as have many economists), having politically inclusive institutions helps the society on economic and social measures.

Further, there is evidence that military involvement needn't have been used to end terrorism. In fact, 40% of terrorist cells according to RAND end due to arresting or executing the key leaders of the group. Even assuming the war in Iraq, or in the Middle east, has increased terrorism does not mean the War on Terror is doomed to failure. It merely demonstrates that other means could easily be done to reduce terrorism around the world.

Daniel Pipes argues that terrorism actually harms radical Islamists. It leads to domestic counter terrorism laws, which as I demonstrated reduce terrorism in the local area enacted. Further, terrorism demonizes westerners which prevents them from becoming muslim, as many terrorists want. Muslim scholars in Europe argue that terrorism is the worst of the Islamic ideology, and does not represent their beliefs. However, what it does do is prevent people from becoming muslim. That is the opposite of what a terrorist would want... But yep, he is turning the world against him and his culture, and preventing the rise of his worldview. He is not showing the scholarly, peaceful muslim that original muslims were (they invented the number system!), but instead showing the evil vocal minority.

But I actually think terrorism might not be increasing, but it rose because we began looking for it. Before the War on Terror, no one really looked for terror. I mean, there were obvious terror cases, but the vast majority of terror cases were likely wrongly categorized, ignored, etc. So, next time someone says global terrorism is increasing, respond like this: it isn't increasing, our awareness is. We see, record, and report more terrorism because we are actively looking for it.

Conclusion 

This current War on Terror is obviously not perfect. It is arguable that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan may have increased terrorism, however if we instilled a stable democracy we would actually have helped the region immensely.  In the case of Iraq their leader was barring many muslim groups from voting, which many argue has led to the large base of ISIS members. If Iraq was not left so early and was actually supported, we may have seen one of the first successful countries to emerge from the region (other than Turkey and Israel). Domestically the War on Terror has reduced terrorism, and globally the alleged increase is likely overblown or non-existent. Further, the War on Terror makes it so that radical Islam actually has a collective opponent which prevents the ideology to spreading to many European countries. The War on Terror has, on balance, worked, but needs to be reevaluated as to how it plans to reduce terrorism. 

CCW study: Conceal Carry Saves Lives

This is old news, but I will share this anyway for those who dont know.

Mark Gius (2014) An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates, Applied Economics Letters, 21:4, 265-267

Abstract:  The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research  in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997). [Emphasis mine]

Full article: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

WWII: Was the USSR alone?

A simple google search as to why people think the Axis lost WWII (or, Germany specifically) is that Hitler invaded the USSR, and that the USSR, alone, pushed Hitler's forces back from Moscow and then proceeded to take Berlin. I am not arguing, however, that the D-Day invasion is where all the Germans died and US troops is why Germany lost--not at all. I am merely arguing that the USSR alone would have lost, and needed support from the Western democracies to emerge victorious.

First, lets talk about why Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union. Indeed, internet forums everywhere say this decision is the reason Hitler lost. Hitler at the time had defeated all of the western allies (except the UK). France and Poland, gone. Belgium and the Netherlands, defeated. Not only was the USSR really the largest threat to Germany at the time, but also the last major obstacle Hitler would need to overcome to control all of mainland Europe. Germany's industry was beginning to strain, as it has been supplying the German war machine. The Nazi's had been receiving supplies--especially oil--from Russia for a long time, but it was not enough. Therefore, Germany had two options. (1) Invade Russia, take the oilfields, take Moscow, and end the USSR's eastern threat and gain very important supplies, or (2) Give Rommel supplies and men, take Egypt and take the UK's provinces in the Middle East. Both would likely lead to a surrender of a country, if successful. Also, both would lead to oil. It was logical to defeat Russia first. They were the largest enemy, and to quickly defeat them instead of giving them time to prepare would be the superior choice [1].

Now lets discuss a bit how the Western democracies led to an axis defeat. Russia was very important to the war effort, there is no doubt about that. Without her manpower, the US would likely have been unsuccessful in defeating Germany. However, Russia would not have been victorious if it were not for the British and American aid. In the very beginning of the German invasion, the UK was very key in supplying the USSR. Between 1941 and 1945, 5,000 English Hurricane fighters were sent to the USSR, along with 4,000 aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 5,000 anti tank guns, 15 million boots (cant have a counter offensive without footwear!), and 4 million tonnes of war supplies (including food and medical supplies). The United States almost entirely provided the Russian jeep force (remember, without a significant jeep force, Russia would likely have been encircled as they were at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa and lost), supplying 400,000 jeeps and 7,000 tanks. The US also provided 1.75 million tonnes of food, 12,000 armored vehicles, and 11,400 aircraft [2]. Research reveals that British tanks present near Moscow--had Germany won this battle they likely would have won the war--was around 30-40%. By July 1942, the Soviet Union had 13,500 tanks in service, 16% of them imported, and half of the imports from the United Kingdom. The Soviet defense air force on January 1st, 1942 has about 1,470 fighters, 15% of these planes were British Hurricanes or Tomahawks. Although this English Lend-Lease program may have not turned the tide (it's possible that the Russians would have won), the fast is that the program "made a crucial difference" [3]. To summarize how the Lend-Lease saved Russia--and possibly Europe from an Evil German Nazi Regime--can be summarized by this:

Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory ...  The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved through the economic power of the United States and the lives of millions of Soviets [4].

 Look, I know without Russia the allies would have lost. But seriously, the Russians were not alone--if they were, they would have lost. Germany was 20 miles within Moscow, had troops not been placed in the West (due to a fear of English and American invasions), those troops would have marched into Moscow the same way they did to Paris. Stalin himself even said, "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."[2] Soviet manpower, England delaying Barbarossa (Greece), threats of western invasion, American supplies, America essentially singlehandedly taking on Japan (preventing Japan invading Siberia), and many other reasons. I see it extremely unlikely that Russia won alone, but I see it likely that the American and English supplies were life savers. Even assuming the UK surrendered, the US stays neutral, and Germany was eventually pushed back, Germany would have easily held out longer. And possibly, long enough to obtain Nuclear weapons, leading to a mass slaughter of Russian lives. Who won WWII? It was a combined effort--but one thing almost everyone can agree upon: it was a good thing Germany lost.




1. Wright, Andrew. "Military History Online - Was Hitler Right to Invade Russia in 1941?" Military History Online - Was Hitler Right to Invade Russia in 1941?, 26 Aug. 2007. Web. 09 June 2014. <http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/invadingrussia.aspx>.
2.  "Lend-Lease." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR>.
3.  Hill, Alexander. "Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans." History Net. Weider History, 12 July 2008. Web. 09 June 2014. <http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm>.
4. Parrish, Michael. "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)." History Net. Weider History, 12 June 2006. Web. 09 June 2014. <http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm>.