The Costs of Terrorism and American Engagement in the Iraq War

The article in Scientific American by John Horgan criticizes the United States’ reaction to 9/11 and their involvement in the Iraq War in a mathematical tone. Hogan relies on numbers – costs of war, death tolls- to argue against the America’s war policy. While the article provides shocking numbers, for example comparing the annual fatality risk of terrorism to the annual fatality risk of drowning in bathtubs, these numbers negate the emotional impact of terrorism. One can easily argue that you should avoid war because of its high costs and death rate, however, it is important to acknowledge that the basis of terrorism isn’t only to kill perceived enemies, but it is grounded in trying to attack establishments and ideologies that are harmful or contradictory to terrorists’ school of thought. The article also mentions Osama bin Laden’s remarks on how he was “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy”. While it is true that U.S. military and counterintelligence spending spiked drastically following 9/11, what did not happen, under George W. Bush’s presidency, was another attack on American soil or Western ideology. It is important to be logical and balance the costs of war, but if the actions and decisions are made to engage in war, it is necessary to see it through. It is un-American to try to occupy another country and leave it worse off than it was before. A contradictory article to the argument presented by John Horgan can be read here https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-bush-legacy/2013/04/25/b6de6efa-add8-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?utm_term=.8551f2bdc8f9

The section in The Global War on Terrorism outlining war dissent largely discusses the shift from American support of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars towards American opposition of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. The section devotes a large portion to criticizing and highlighting Bush’s declaration of the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq and other rhetoric used by his administration to gain support for his war or terror. In comparison to the article in Scientific American, the section in The Global War on Terrorism presents an argument that is far more emotional than mathematical. It analyzes rhetoric and American opinion rather than concrete numbers. The reading also discusses many of the counterintelligence systems created and put in place by the Bush administration in response to 9/11. These include the Patriot Act, the creation of the department of Homeland Security, and other measures. The Patriot Act is particularity significant because it restricted American’s civil liberties. Americans were asked to but the greater good of the nation above their constitutional rights. This legislation had many opponents such as libertarian Ron Paul, and many Democrats. Without appropriate rhetoric from the Bush administration, it is unlikely that Americans would have responded positively to the restriction of their constitutional rights. One of the main things that can be taken from this reading is the importance of expressing accurate information to the American public. With the faulty belief in Iraq’s nuclear stockpile, came a costly war with the goal of advancing American interests under the faulty cover of fighting terrorism. Explanation of how Bush’s rhetoric gained American support can be seen here http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-the-bush-administration-sold-the-iraq-war

The timeline of the Iraq war shows the history of Western influence in Iraq and also shows the how quickly relations between Iraq and the United States escalated between 1990 through today. It is useful to have a record outlining when and what the big events were that contributed to the Iraq War. It is easier to see how drawn out the war was after the 2003 US toppling of Saddam Hussein’s power and government.

Here are some additional articles that analyze current dealings or opposition to the Iraq War and various conflicts throughout the Middle East. While all the readings focus on Bush and his foreign policy these are articles that present a different focus on Obama’s foreign policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/12/politics/obamas-meet-malalas/ – This article highlights a popular argument that U.S. airstrikes and drone attacks provide further destabilization to Middle Eastern regions and that many terror organizations are fueled by U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-phony-war/2015/11/19/cacea0dc-8eeb-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?utm_term=.089892e65996 – This article provides a criticism of Obama foreign policy and dealings with ISIS post Iraq War.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35123915

– This article provides a criticism of Obama’s rhetoric in his dealings with the Iraq War and other conflicts throughout the Middle East and in particular his rhetoric towards ISIS and recent terrorism.

37 Responses to "The Costs of Terrorism and American Engagement in the Iraq War"

Madeline Tolsdorf says:

January 17, 2017 at 11:07 am

Horgan’s article has a point: Terrorism kills less people per year than bathtubs or airplanes. These items don’t lead to grounded fear and destruction, however. As Caroline states, terrorism has a deep emotional aspect to it. The constructs behind terrorism are not all about killing as many people as possible. Rather, it is oriented around its base word: Terror. Horgan notes on this little; instead, he argues the United States was too eager in its desire to wage war on the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 9/11 attacks needed to be taken seriously because of the terror and sorrow caused in the hearts of many Americans. They were on United States soil, they killed United States citizens, and should President Bush had not taken drastic actions in order to fight back he would have lost intense support within administration.

The second article gives a more detailed timeline into the accelerating tensions throughout the 1990s leading up to the tragic 9/11 attacks. However, as the United States rushed to war after 9/11, many Americans did not comprehend the true implications of going to war. As the article goes on, a more emotional input comes to light and the reasons behind the shift of opinion and support regarding the Iraq/Afghanistan war is illustrated. “The Global War on Terrorism” adds a more emotional meaning to the ideals behind terrorism; therefore, the impending tensions leading up to the critical attacks allow the reader to comprehend the motivations behind the declaration of war.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 7:58 pm
  
  I agree with what you said about not understanding the true implications of war. When it comes to war it never seems like there is enough time to weigh out all the options. This is a bad thing. It is much easier to judge responses to 9/11 after knowing the fallout of the Iraq War, but you cannot change the past.
  1. Madeline Tolsdorf says:
    
    February 16, 2017 at 12:17 pm
    
    You’re completely right – we were caught between a rock and a hard place right after 9/11 and weighing all the options would have taken too much time to form a reaction for the country.
Sean Foley says:

January 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm

Horgan’s data shows how the United States must reel back its counterterrorism budget. I agree with Caroline’s point that the numbers Horgan use do not show nearly to the full extent the true impact of terrorism. A terrorist attack anywhere will receive significant news coverage and will ultimately enter everyone’s mind. However, the main takeaway for me in Horgan’s argument was that most terrorist attacks fall short of success. It is extremely possible that some have been thwarted by the measures placed on counter terrorism, yet it is even more plausible that they failed because of the lack of knowledge, organization, and many interior mistakes. Another good point made by Caroline was that another attack on American soil did not occur under Bush. However, I am still opposed to the fact that $1 trillion has been spent on counterterrorism in an time in which the the United States government is working with a deficit. Therefore, I believe that the budget on counter terrorism should be reduced with some money going to other projects, but mainly going to reducing the deficit.

The Global War on Terrorism’s in depth breakdown of the bush administration’s actions following 9/11 provided, as Caroline stated, the emotional feel of the country. From his first post 9/11 speech to his last it seemed that President George Bush knew how to use rhetoric to persuade the nation. The first action to start the “War on terror” was inevitable and I believe would be almost everyone’s first move in the president’s position. Only by claiming hindsight 20/20 could we really have said that the proper thing to do was to wait and plan the appropriate action. Yet, Bush knew what the country wanted and was going to ride that wave to get what he wanted in Iraq. The MSNBC article Carline posted detailing the Bush administration’s rhetoric was interesting in showing how the cabinet was able to use the terrorist act that was 9/11 to convey false messages to the American public that would push America into more war.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:00 pm
  
  I agree with what you said about the importance of balancing the budget and working on overspending. While going to war was necessary at the time, the American economy was just pushed even farther in debt.
Isaiah Duplessis says:

January 17, 2017 at 2:58 pm

Part of a government’s function is to provide people a feeling of safety. There is an interesting point in all these articles comparing the number of American Death’s as a result of 9/11 attacks to the number of deaths in combat of American troops. When the quick campaign in Afghanistan came to an end the ratio was decidedly skewed. The campaign not only felt like a success, the nation was divided behind the effort, despite the fact Mastermind Osama Bin Laden was not captured. In the quest to pursue terrorism was the war on Iraq.
Advertised by playing on the fear of the American people and the poor relations between Iraq and the rest of the world, there was initially little dissent, certainly not enough to stop what inevitably happened. The issue is the safety of the public became a question as more and more gruesome stories of troops dying arose, and further the death ratio shifted to American troops. This arose the dissent, as the American Public’s larger threat was becoming a war, one not entirely fought against terrorism.
As we destabilized another country, the values and government America has been forced upon a region. Much like throughout the Cold War, we would see Americans protest as more soldiers died for the cause of liberty.
That’s because it’s Life first, then Liberty, then the Pursuit of Happiness.
In the other parts of the world, innocent civilians lost lives as the lines were blurred between enemy and bystander. If the premier human value is life, the concerns that American Military presence assist the development of terrorism, must be considered valid, as the fear of loss of life is more pressing to the misfortune to have been occupied.
We must consider our actions in response to terrorism, as Martin Luther King said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:03 pm
  
  I agree with what you said about the importance of preserving life. However, it could also be possible that American Intervention would save the lives of Kurds, Christians, and other Muslim minorities targeted in terrorist controlled areas of the Middle East, i.e. Al Qaeda Controlled Afghanistan or areas controlled by ISIS.
  1. Isaiah Duplessis says:
    
    January 22, 2017 at 4:43 pm
    
    It boils down to whether you think that is really occurring. I believe ISIS has reconquered the regions AMerica has left and has resumed killings. What has our intervention in the conflict changed considering our current presidents stance against opening our borders to refugees. I am aware that as a civilised nation we have this responsibility to an extent the issues is that back to colonial times European Powers would carve up maps and include groups that ideologically struggle for control of a region. Who are we to make borders, or defend ones that are not our own?
    
    Why should we whimsically send troops to guarantee these minority groups the civilian rights we have when it would be cheaper to harbor them as refugees?
Michael Horan says:

January 17, 2017 at 7:32 pm

The article by John Horgan in the Scientific American is persuasive because of its sheer statistical evidence and numbers. Since terrorism is generally viewed as a massive terrible threat, it was certainly a shock to see that Americans are more likely to die drowning in their bathtub than by a terrorist attack. That takes a few moments to settle in. Nevertheless, Caroline is accurate in pointing out the complex, emotional impact of terrorism. Terrorism is not comparable to an accident such as drowning or getting struck by lightning. 9/11 struck in the heart of our nation, and is the most devastating terror attack to date in America. Consequently, similar to Pearl Harbor, 9/11 incited an instantaneous emotional response. Expanding on Carolines argument, the U.S.response certainly may be deemed an overreaction, but we as a nation can also be assured that no more attacks occured on American soil and the targeted terrorist leaders were killed. I think there is great value in considering what could have been if the U.S did not react so violently. Would subsequent attacks like 9/11 occur and would western culture be even more threatened.

There is no doubt that The Global War on Terrorism takes a more emotional approach than the first article. It was very interesting to analyze the rhetoric used by George Bush. Bush clearly saw and seized his brief moment of solidarity in our country. The U.S aggressively attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and initiated the Patriot Act. The use of rhetoric such as falsely announcing Iraq had nuclear weapons may have been the last trick in the bag to keep support for the war. Honesty is always the right answer especially in a free country in the United States, so I do not condone his actions.

Lastly, the timeline of the Iraq war depicts the main events in the war. I can’t help but notice how many car bomb explosions and suicide bomber attacks there were. This only helps confirms that the attempts in this drawn out war were not at all effective in ending the violence in the middle east. The war persists today under the name of a new enemy we know as ISIS.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:06 pm
  
  I think what you said about honesty in the government is an concern of many American voters even today. In a democracy like the United States, citizens deserve transparency from their leaders. Without this transparency, corruption can thrive.
Corey Beutel says:

January 17, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Horgan’s article states that the war on terrorism doesn’t make any empirical sense. There have actually been 6,500 Americans killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number is double the amount that died from 9/11. In addition to that, the U.S. has been bled dry financially. We have funneled trillions of dollars into the Middle East. Caroline states that this can be justified because we are combating the terrorist ideology. However, terrorism cannot be beat. The best approach we can take as a society is exemplified by Bloomberg, who asserts “You can’t sit there and worry about everything. Get a life,” while it may seem harsh this statement stands as a reality. Terrorism cannot be beaten by funneling additional lives and resources into the Middle East. Instead it may be best to ignore terrorism so our society can save more lives by focusing on issues with higher death tolls like cancer and accidents. Remember, terrorists aren’t successful if they don’t inspire fear in their targets. So, we must remain resilient and unafraid.

The article about Malala’s statement to Obama expresses another issue with taking action in the Middle East. Of course, the main goal is to kill and remove terrorists, but there has always been some civilian loss. So, the locals there may see the U.S. troops as armed forces invading their land and killing their people. The case is made even worse because drones are carrying out orders. Drones are seen as inhumane because they are robots and faulty since they have killed civilians before. Malala’s major point is that education and reform for the poor people in the Middle East will work better than armed forces will.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:09 pm
  
  I think what you said about how “terrorism cannot be beat” is interesting. While I agree that it cannot be beat, I do believe that terror organizations and ideology can be hindered. I think it is important to lessen the threat. This is very applicable today when dealing with terror organizations like ISIS.
  1. Corey Beutel says:
    
    February 20, 2017 at 11:03 am
    
    Terrorism can definitely be hindered. However, the idea that brute force and military action can hinder terrorism is not the correct approach. Terrorism is an idea and violence towards the middle east will only incite more violent terrorists. Instead the U.S. could take a more defensive approach to protect from attacks and a human approach to prevent the growth of terrorism.
Steven Zhang says:

January 17, 2017 at 8:27 pm

In Horgan’s article he opposed the war by stating that it’s costly and putting U.S. citizens in a greater danger in pursuing eliminating terrorism. Although his argument and data make some point, it seems not a sufficient reason to me . As Caroline mentioned above, starting the war isn’t just eliminating terrorists, but the hate and all of those potential harm on U.S., and the fear among people of unexpected attacks. And it turns out that there aren’t another attack on American land. Besides, considering the situation from right after the 9/11 attacks, the president would quickly lost faith in public if he analyze the cost and choose to negotiate instead of fighting back.

Mann’s article shows the timeline and the detail of how did U.S. started the war with Iraq and Afghanistan in response to 9/11 attacks. He collects many laws, comments and public voices about starting the war in Afghanistan. He described that Bush earned the public’s support by using some political method and manipulated people’s fear and high patriotism after the 9/11 attacks, to destroy the non-existing threat in Afghanistan with high cost. Objectively, his point make sense. It’s even seems unbelievable that the rhetoric used by George Bush had so much influence on people. Reconsidering the case, there are many unnecessary costs and sacrifices that are totally avoidable. People naturally want to fight against terrorism, but they are also responsible for their fellow’s life, by staying rational in the rhetoric of the government. It’s not the decision but the U.S.’s act in the war, initiated by Bush using his aggregating power, somehow seems overreacting.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:13 pm
  
  I agree with what you said about how much influence Bush’s rhetoric had over people. However I think it is also interesting that rhetoric can only influence people to a certain extent. While Bush initially had a large amount of support from the American people, there came a point where he had support from only a minority of Americans.
George Clayson says:

January 17, 2017 at 8:54 pm

As someone who appreciates a comparison of an event to others I found Horgan’s article easy to understand. His comparison of the 9/11 attack to other forms of death set up his argument that we put too much focus and spent too much on war after the 9/11 attack. It was completely understandable how right after 9/11 tensions and anger levels were high in the United States, however the decision to go to war resulted in more US deaths and the unwise spending of money. As we eventually saw peoples opinions on whether or not we should be at war in Afghanistan and Iraq changed, but the country was not ready to remove its troops from the region. This bad planning going into the war is the biggest mistake made by the US after 9/11. I agree with Caroline that Horgan should not have ignored the emotional impact of terrorism, because it gives reason for over-spending.

The Global War on Terrorism along with the Iraq War Timeline make it understandable why the Bush Administration was pushing so hard to go to war with Iraq even before the terrorist attack on the United States occurred. The fear the country caused to the US due to nukes and the detrimental effects the county had on the region around it showed a reason for Bush’s choice. Only after 9/11 and the belief that Iraq had nuclear weapons was the fear realized and understood by the majority of the public and they could they agree to war in Iraq.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:15 pm
  
  I agree with you about how Iraq was not ready to remove troops from the region. Perhaps with a a longer occupation, the U.S. could have created a democracy and an ally like Japan post WWII.
  1. George Clayson says:
    
    January 24, 2017 at 12:13 pm
    
    Right, and the United States should have put more time into creating a plan to help Iraq, like creating a democracy, before going to war in the country. Then, the outcome could have been more predictable and resulted in a structured society, able to control terrorism and corruption without the help of the US.
Nicolas Delvalle says:

January 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm

While I do agree that the value of a rigorous anti-terrorism effort is both the psychological security it provides as well as the physical defense inherent, there is also something to be said about the damaging fear that comes with launching such a program. As Mann makes note of, one of Bush’s primary objectives is to justify his war in terms of why a the Patriot Act was necessary to defend American soil. It is just like building a wall: one is safer inside, yet they also must ask what is to fear outside, and for what reason a wall is necessary. By stressing the need for such measures, the Bush administration to some extent created the culture of fear that now grips the media.

The war on terrorism is much more a clash of ideals than physical conflict. While much of the actual fighting is done overseas, there is an underlying clash on American soil between its peoples. This war is fought with information and rhetoric, words and pens. The American war on terrorism is as much a war with foreign agents as it is a war of politics waged between domestic bodies.
1. Nicolas Delvalle says:
  
  January 17, 2017 at 10:51 pm
  
  Apparently I can’t edit a post so I will continue here. Oops.
  
  To an extent the war on terrorism is no longer about terrorism at all. It is trendy to bash American efforts against terrorism but there is a reason why no running candidates mentioned decreasing funding. While mentioning support to the anti-terrorism efforts may be disagreeable to many, it is not nearly as much a sticking point as opposition is when weighing politician’s sales pitches. Thus the war on terrorism is entrenched in politics, an inescapable promise to the American people: you’ll be safe from terrorism, whether you like it or not.
2. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm
  
  I agree with what you said about how terrorism is about a clash of ideas. To me, 9/11 seemed like more of an attack on American way of life and Western thought than an attack on American lives.
Emily Wu says:

January 18, 2017 at 12:24 am

Horgan’s article examines statistics such as fatality risk to question the extent of the threat of terrorism. Terrorism is often perceived as an immense threat due in part to the attention it receives on the news and media and the fear it fosters. Horgan reveals however that unexpected accidents like those involving bathtubs and home appliances are more common causes of death, facts which caught me by surprise. His criticism of the US response to terrorism relies heavily on practical terms of risk and benefits, preferring to determine how best to appropriate money in order to save the most lives. Horgan’s article reminds me of the article Terrorism Truths No Politician will admit which asserts that although terrorism cannot be defeated, it is not an existential threat so we have to get used to living with it. Still, there is an overwhelming desire to “defeat” terrorism; perhaps because unlike other causes of death noted in the table like natural disasters and accidents that most accept as random or due to chance, acts of terrorism are intentional and planned and we think we can control the people behind them. I would agree with Caroline that Horgan neglects to account for the powerful emotional impact of terrorism.

The second article first describes the push for unity and patriotism in response to the 9/11 attacks. I thought it was interesting when the article notes how Bush was concerned about how protests and divisions within the US might send a signal of weakness to Hussein. The article also describes various forms of rhetoric used by the Bush administration to garner public support for the Iraq war. I found the spread of misinformation regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq particularly concerning and wonder how these claims went essentially unchecked. The article also highlights a key conflict that emerges in fighting terrorism to preserve individual safety and liberties and compromising those liberties to fight terrorism.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:19 pm
  
  I think the part of the article that you mention about Bush stressing unification from Americans is interesting. It makes sense that Bush wanted to have a united front against Iraq and Afghanistan. Logically, the stronger the moral of the American people, the more that Hussein or Al Qaeda has to fear.
Colin O'Donnell says:

January 18, 2017 at 1:20 am

Hogan’s article is very interesting and makes a lot of good points about the Iraq war. The number that he puts out are very eye popping and definitely make a good case for why some money should be reallocated as their are many more deaths in things such as violent crime. However Caroline makes a great point about the emotional impacts of terrorism as terrorism is much more psychological than it is physical. Part of the reason why so much money is spent on counterterrorism is because while it might not affect all people physically it affects everyone mentally. This is seen more so than things such as violent crime as with violent crime I know that as long as I avoid certain areas and dealing with drugs and things of the sort my risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime. Terrorist attacks on the other hand are random leading to people feeling unsafe no matter where they are or what they do.

The second article provides an indepth look at how the home front felt and responded to the war on terror. It helped to show how americans for the most part came together and coalesced after the 9/11 attack. At this time period when the was still immensely popular dissent was not tolerated. Then as time went on dissent became more and common. This is seen with the US senate majority leader coming out and criticizing the war. Then when it became clear that the US was headed to Iraq mass portests swept across the nation.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:22 pm
  
  While you can avoid areas and be less at risk of violent crime, it is not full proof. Also, it is important to address and help relieve those areas in America that are torn apart from gangs, drugs, and poverty.
Virginia Thornton says:

January 18, 2017 at 9:00 am

John Horgan’s article in the Scientific American argues that the United States overreacted to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He backs this argument up by quoting numerical values comparing the amount of deaths caused by terrorism to deaths caused by very everyday tasks. What this article failed to take into account, in my opinion, is the psychological impact that terrorist attacks have on nations. Terrorist attacks are meant to instill fear into the minds of the group or nation being attacked. In my international relations course we defined terrorism as “the premeditated use or threat of violence by an organized group against civilians for political ends.” This definition brings up a point that Horgan fails to make- that the point of 9/11 was not to try and kill as many people as possible, it was a way to instill fear into American minds and a way for the terrorists to get what they want politically. Taking this into account, the United States reaction might have been on par with what was needed. There is really no way to measure the psychological impact of 9/11 to compare it to the American reaction to the attack, but terrorism is not just about numerical deaths.
The second article, “The Global War on Terrorism” mentions the effects of the psychological effects of 9/11 in an indirect way. As Caroline stated, the article plays more into the emotions surrounding the attacks, rather than just the numbers. Whether Bush was “right” or “wrong” hardly matters now; what’s done is done. What matters as we look back is taking the “human factor” into account. No President could have known exactly what to do in that situation. They were leading a hurting nation, and they were hurting too. Something had to be done, and Bush did what he thought best.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:24 pm
  
  I agree with what you said about whether Bush was right or wrong not mattering now. While it can be an easy topic to debate, Americans should look for solutions to fix the current terrorism problem at hand.
  1. Virginia Thornton says:
    
    April 22, 2017 at 4:48 pm
    
    Exactly. Looking at the past and talking about what could have been or should have been does nothing to help the current situation. Understanding history is one thing, but simply judging or criticizing decisions already made improves nothing.
Claire Brown says:

January 18, 2017 at 11:27 am

While the statistics presented in Horgan’s article certainly express the analytical side to 9/11 and terrorism, they fail to demonstrate the emotional impact a single act of terrorism can have on a country. Part of a country’s duty to its people is to provide each citizen with security and in some cases, such as 9/11, this security goes beyond the statistics and numbers. The numbers presented do demonstrate how a person is more likely to die by bathtub incident than by terrorist attack, however, a bathtub does not emotionally cripple people in the way a terrorist attack does. If someone were to die a tragic bathtub-related death, their friends and family are likely going to use more cation around their own bathtubs, but are probably not going to intrinsically fear their bathtub. After a terrorist attack, however, people seem to fear for their lives as there is not much the average citizen can do to stop a terrorist from carrying out their horrific plan.
While the United State’s spending following 9/11 was certainly excessive in a strictly analytical sense, it did serve to buffer the sense of security held by the nation. It can be easy to see terrorism strictly as the act of terror itself, however, one of the main goals of such acts is to strike fear into the targets and allow the repercussions of the destructive acts to cripple those surviving. The post-9/11 spending mentioned in the article was not the only course of action that could have been taken, however, it was able to bring a sense of comfort and security to those citizens alive and living in the United States.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:26 pm
  
  I agree with the sense that the post 9/11 spending was necessary. In hindsight there were probably other options, but none that would have guaranteed U.S. security.
Sophia Bruce says:

January 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm

I find it difficult to find a balance between numbers and emotions. When we take a step back and look at the numbers that show that home accidents or automobiles kill more people than terrorism, it’s easy to argue that more money should be put to helping those casualties instead of towards terror. But without defining the unity of the country and fighting back against terror, we are subsequently saying that the actions of terror are acceptable, or at least not showing that it will not be damaging our unity. And so how can we find a balance between the two? It is essential to have an anti-terrorism effort in order to make it clear that terror is not going to split the country, but when it is statistically unlikely for more than one in a million people to be killed through terrorism, how can we fund efforts to lessen automobile deaths while at the same time vocalizing that terrorism is not allowable?

I felt conflicted after reading both of these articles; I wanted to agree with patriotism but also realize that in order to be patriotic, we need to protect all people in America, not simply those who are being killed to create fear. And if 9/11 had not been declared tragedy, I wondered if we would then be able to fight back with violence, and if we should have responded with violence instead of unity against those creating the fear. It found it card to put my feelings into thoughts and words after reading these articles, as both ideas of protecting the country through fighting back and also protecting our people from dangers in our country are very conflicting.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:28 pm
  
  I think that the conflict of patriotism and not wanting to defy ones country is a problem that many people battle with. It can be difficult to argue the less popular argument, especially when it does not align with the current policy of the country.
Michael Paul says:

January 18, 2017 at 1:41 pm

The idea of terrorism is used to intimidate and scare citizens, so I agree with your point that Hogan’s article in Scientific America is a little misleading; however, I don’t think this is what needs to be focused on. It is clear that a large death toll is not the point of terrorism, but spending the time, money, and effort that we are to stop terrorism is clearly unreasonable. There is no significant evidence that what we are doing now, as a nation, to prevent terrorism is even working. There have still been terrorist attacks after 9/11 that were not prevented, and terrorist have accomplished their job all the same with instilling fear into society, as it is higher than ever. Living in fear is better than not living at all, but that appears to be contradictory to what many Americans believe since many want more efforts to go towards preventing terrorism instead of other harmful parts of society, such as cancer. In the end, many more lives can be saved through transferring efforts into more useful areas.

So if that is the case, then why do we, as Americans, feel the need to protect ourselves from a threat that is barely even there? The Global War on Terrorism answers that question beginning with what caused these scares. After 9/11, the Bush administration made it a point to focus on the “War on Terror,” which at the time was widely accepted by the public. This significant point in American history changed the way we view terrorism. Before then, there had been other terrorist attacks, even on the twin towers! Yet nothing was done about it on the scale that it is now because there was no political motive. Don’t get me wrong, I believe terrorism is a serious issue, but the policies set in place during a time of American “weakness” has, in turn, hurt our country more than it has helped. By “hyping up” terrorism to the way it is now, terrorist have successfully completed their task. In other words, America trying to be strong by combating terrorism has actually worked negatively for the country. I believe that by lowering the policies towards terrorism, America will thrive in the end.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:31 pm
  
  I agree that people should not get hung up in the fear of terrorism, but I also think that it is important to fight for the American ways of life. If terrorism groups are attacking American democracy and the privileges that come with it, America should stand up for itself.
Helen Spiller says:

January 18, 2017 at 5:02 pm

In my opinion, I don’t blame the people of the United States or the government for the way they reacted to the 9/11 attacks. From what I’ve heard from books, stories, and documentaries 9/11 was one of the scariest days in the history of the United States. If I was an adult or working for the government I would have been scared out of my mind and would want anything and everything to be done to stop another attack from happening. Sure, like the article said 1 trillion dollars is a lot to spend on something that is potentially less life threatening than taking a bath, but for some reason terrorism is way scarier. My reaction to this piece was shocked that the U.S. reacted so extremely, but then remembering how scary terrorism is on the surface and how, if you don’t think much into it, our government does make me feel pretty safe.
Secondly, I didn’t like the article titled the Global War on Terrorism as much because it made me realize how much George Bush lied and manipulated the American people. One quote in that piece is, “Bush generally disregarded public opposition to the war.” It is disheartening and scary that our president wanted to go to war so he lied and manipulated and ignored others on his way to war. Finally, I really enjoyed reading all the small speeches from various people about their feelings about the war. I especially enjoyed Barack Obama’s piece saying, “What I’m opposed to is a dumb war.” Overall, I found Bush’s actions regarding the war in the middle east as depressing and disheartening about the leadership of our country. I find it scary how easily manipulated the american people can be by their president and how much power he truly has.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  January 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm
  
  I also find the fact that Bush disregarded the general American opposition from the war. However, the great thing about America is, is that we have the privilege to voice your opinions through free and fair elections. The American people did this. They voted for Obama who ran on a platform that promised a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
  1. Helen Spiller says:
    
    January 24, 2017 at 9:47 pm
    
    True. It is a pretty amazing thing in America that we can just turn around and change our country. It gives faith to the everyday citizen that you can have a change in that and elect a new leader to change the path of our country somewhat.

Comments are closed.