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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment