Johnson seems to be saying the former, but provides no proof, and he acknowledges that there are "problems with the statistics." What problems? Problems caused by a new method that simply counts more events as "terrorist attacks?" To me that would justify the State Department keeping arm's length. He characterizes the move as "cowardice" but one might also call it justifiable prudence, depending on just how bad the "data problems" really are. It would be rather foolish to legitimate an increase in the enemy's activity in an official report, if that's not actually what's happening. I also get the impression that Johnson is arguing that there's a coverup, but from what I can tell the statistics are still available, through the National Counter-Terrorism Center. No one will be hiding them. So what is being suppressed, exactly?
The bottom line, I think, is that even though Johnson calls this an "update" it adds nothing new to the debate. He's just saying the same stuff he said before, in a different way, and neither providing any new information, nor even clarifying his earlier statement. Were the 2004 statistics based on a new data gathering method, or a new definition of a "terrorist attack," or not? How hard can it be to make that clear?
Update: Though it may not be apparent to everyone, and Johnson certainly hasn't made it very clear, there are two issues at stake in this sort of data problem: continuity and accuracy. The shift to a new method of accounting that tends to count more events as terrorist attacks may be entirely justified on accuracy grounds, but may make it very difficult to track trends. The conventional way to handle this, for any data instrument that improves method in order to improve accuracy, is to publish figures based on both methods for at least a few years, long enough to build up a trend line based on the new method. That way you don't sacrifice your ability to make sense of trends, for the sake of the admitted benefits of greater accuracy.
So, just why would the State Department be in the dark about the numbers, just because they no longer publish a glossy book that contains them? Has this guy never heard of the internet? Google? What's more, using compiled numbers is a lot easier if the data are in electronic form, so the utility of posting them inside a think binding just escapse me completely. Honestly, why are people this dumb getting publishing space? [That was uncalled for, wasn't it? -ed Well, now that you mention it, yeah.]
Update 3: I was unaware that Larry was in the neighborhood, so I'm willing to concede that perhaps it's I that's stupid. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this in the comments section. It wouldn't be the first time the thread got away from me.
1
Good call. The problem with saying there was MORE terrorism than last year may just be an artifact of the methodology.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 21, 2005 11:44 AM (JQjhA)
2
To clarify. In my first posting on 14 April I was trying to give Condi Rice the benefit of the doubt. Since then friends inside the intel community have alerted me to the fact that Rice and company tried to get the NCTC to change the methodology to produce a smaller number of attacks. This is more than mere squabbling over a methodology. The NCTC is still using the same definition of a significant terrorist incident (i.e., someone is killed, wounded, kidnapped, or there is property damage in excess of $10,000). The fact that State Department, who does have the lead and still maintains the responsibility for international terrorism, decided to cease publishing an annual PUBLIC report that provided both summary and analysis about the state of international terrorist activity is cowardice. You are free to believe otherwise, but friends on the inside tell me this was pure political cover their ass punting.
Posted by: Larry Johnson at April 21, 2005 12:00 PM (glxut)
3
Larry:
Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier. I'm, frankly, a bit mystified by what the issue is supposed to be. If, as you say, the number of attacks really
is up then I guess the State Department can be faulted for something, but I'm not sure what. Having egg on their face, maybe? Basically what the State Department brings to the table is the legitimacy afforded an "official" report, though to tell the truth that legitimacy has relatively little impact on me or those like me, who are inclined to distrust the State Department anyway.
Do I want the State Department in the lead on counterterrorism? Well actually, no I don't. I don't trust them. Given their historical preference (or should I say "addiction") for stability I just don't think they're the right department for he job.
But even if they were, they may not be the right department to publish this report, and certainly the fact that the NCTC keeps the data, doesn't mean it's unavailable to the State Department.
Now, if you're saying that they intend to willfully ignore empirical data in the formulation of policy that's something else. Par for the course for the State Department, but very atypical of Condi Rice.
I'm pretty skeptical of that assertion, though I can be convinced.
Posted by: Demosophist at April 21, 2005 04:19 PM (d0CtA)
4
OK, down on all fours...
This is more than mere squabbling over a methodology. The NCTC is still using the same definition of a significant terrorist incident (i.e., someone is killed, wounded, kidnapped, or there is property damage in excess of $10,000).
The term "mere" suggests that methodological issues aren't substantive, which suggests to me that you don't quite grasp what those issues are about. Now, you seem to be saying that the method hasn't changed... and if that's the case then you've got a point (though I'm still not clear about the implications of it). But I'm sure you know that there's more to defining terrorism than the level of harm, whether of persons or property. And the troublesome part of any definition will be how you specify intent, because merely defining it by harm will include lots of criminal acts that have to political intent at all.
Again, I don't want to be a pill, but I'm rather impatient at all the stuff that's apparently missing from this discussion.
Is the definition of a terrorist exactly the same as it was in 1993? That would appear to be the only decent starting point for an informed discussion.
Posted by: Demosophist at April 21, 2005 04:35 PM (d0CtA)
5
Don't understand the big deal here. If more attacks, we need to hit them harder. No big deal. That is what our military is trained to do. Where we fail is in police work.
Believe politicians, or Government career employees? Nobody is that stupid.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2005 05:40 PM (CBNGy)
6
My friend Greyrooster,
Striking out in anger will produce more grievances and promote the unholy cycle of violence.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 21, 2005 11:02 PM (FV4oJ)
7
Striking out in anger will produce more grievances and promote the unholy cycle of violence.
You've a fundamental misunderstanding. Terrorism isn't a method of expressing grievance and its objective isn't violence, it's control... of you.
And for greyrooster, I agree that we should increase the pressure, but we still need to know whether the attacks are actually increasing in order to make those decisions. Larry seems to say that the method hasn't changed, which may be true (though I need some proof). But the apparent number of attacks could also increase because people are reporting more events in terms that meet the criteria. In other words, people are more aware of the phenomenon of terrorism and are therefore reporting more events that fit the description. This is an old problem in following crime trends.
Finally, the number of terrorist events would increase as people become more politically free, because the old methods of social control through state terror no longer work. And in addition, totalitarian governments are usually pretty effective at controlling both crime and rival totalitarian gangs. What we're seeing, at least to some extent, could easily be greater competition among totalitarian movements for the opportunity to control compliant populations. And in that sense what's happening in Iraq (and to a lesser extent in Palestine) is critical... because they represent populations that are unwilling to comply with totalitarian prescriptions any longer.
Posted by: Demosophist at April 22, 2005 10:33 AM (d0CtA)
8
Let me take another shot at clarification. On 13 April I learned that unclassified data on the NCTC website showed that the number of significant incidents of international terrorism had soared to 655 in 2004. Initially I did not know whether this was a result of a change in methodology or not. As I said, I wanted to give Rice the benefit of the doubt. I have now learned that State Department did not want to go public with the statistics because the numbers are up dramatically. Consider for example that the number of international terrorist attacks in Iraq alone in 2004 were 191. Remember that in 2003 there were 175 attacks worldwide.
From a policy perspective this means that the "progress" in the war on terrorism may not be progress at all. In my initial analysis I pointed out that the scope of extremist Islamic activity may be on the wane. Compared to 2003 I believe (but have not seen the firm data yet) that fewer countries experienced significant attacks in 2004 from groups tied to Al Qaeda. Nonetheless, when you add up several terrorist attacks in Russia (the bombing of two planes for example), the 3/11 attack in Spain, hotel bombings in Egypt and Indonesia, and the fatalities in India and Iraq we are likely to see a death toll that could approach 2000. The numbers are going in the wrong way.
I think you are misinformed on what State Department's role is. I know of several cases over the last four years where State Department recommended military action and the Department of Defense vetoed the idea. Methinks you watch too much of Fox News.
Best
LJ
Posted by: Larry Johnson at April 22, 2005 11:43 AM (glxut)
9
Larry, it stretches credulity to argue that State is on the front lines of fighting terrorism. Their intelligence reports have consistently been more skeptical than those of the CIA. Their diplomats have worked actively to counteract the impact of the GWOT on the states they live in. (In Pakistan, the Ambassador refused to hand out flyers seeking bin Laden, for example.) You may be able to find isolated examples where State is arguably more aggressive than DoD, but the pattern is clearly one of appeasement.
Please don't insult our intelligence. We may not have your contacts, but we're perhaps a bit more skeptical of their motives than you.
Posted by: antimedia at April 23, 2005 12:09 PM (haXeH)
10
Larry:
Let me take another shot at clarification. On 13 April I learned that unclassified data on the NCTC website showed that the number of significant incidents of international terrorism had soared to 655 in 2004. Initially I did not know whether this was a result of a change in methodology or not.
As you know, it's entirely possible that there could be other explanations for a false accounting of an increase in terrorist attacks. There might, for instance, be a reason why more attacks are reported relative to the total. Better reporting isn't a change in method. In addition, if the original method were mis-specified and included a subset of events that were not terrorist in nature it's possible that an expansion in the number of non-terrorist events might be falsely interpreted as an expansion of terrorist attacks, even without a change in method.
Not that any of this has happened. As you point out, it's reasonable to think that a jump in terrorist attacks in Kashmir might be connected to an internal conflict within Pakistani Intelligence. But does the decision not to publish the report automatically mean that State has decided to keep itself in the dark? If you can figure that dynamic out, so can they.
And, as I said in another post above, it may simply be that State doesn't want to handle a report that is so closely associated with advocacy rather than policy. They may simply regard it as an unnecessary and counterproductive distraction.
From a policy perspective this means that the "progress" in the war on terrorism may not be progress at all.
It's not clear to me that there's anything like a direct correlation between the number of attacks, and the success of the strategy, at least in the short run. Indeed, Victor Davis Hanson has
an excellent piece that argues just the opposite, and that's not only empirical but logical... from one of the great military historians of the present age. By your logic, fighting a bully is a mistake because he's likely to hit you more often for opposing him. It would also suggest that U.S. Grant ought to have turned north after the Battle of the Wilderness, instead of pursuing Lee to Appomattox.
But I agree that the embedded information might be very important to policy formulation, and that it oughtn't to be ignored.
I think you are misinformed on what State Department's role is. I know of several cases over the last four years where State Department recommended military action and the Department of Defense vetoed the idea. Methinks you watch too much of Fox News.
Fox News is tedious. I only watch it because it's an ideological balance to the unrelenting bias of the rest of MSM news, but balance isn't accuracy. If you're correct about State's recommendations then I'd like to see examples, not so much to challenge your thesis as to incorporate some of those "embedded truths" in the data into my analysis. It's the details that matter. As a general rule, though, State has been committed to "RealPolitik," and I'm in a book club with a number of friends from State who, although smart as hell, consistently express that bias. So it's not so much FOX as my own experience, which of course could also misinform me.
The bottom line, though, is that I don't think it's necessarily alarming or even a matter of concern that State is no longer publishing this report. That case hasn't been made convincingly.
Posted by: Demosophist at April 23, 2005 04:47 PM (d0CtA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
