Rumsfeld is mostly Correct

This is one of those DailyKos moments that makes me shake my head. I'm referring to this quote by Donald Rumsfeld, and the subsequent outrage:

This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.  And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...

So let's just parse this for a second:

1. The perception of a terrorist threat is low.

Check. Americans think that just because there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 2001, we're somehow safer. We're not. The world is more dangerous, and the threat has increased.

2. "The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack."

Check. If we were attacked, people's perceptions would be corrected. This isn't advocating or wishing for an attack -- it's just a reality.

3. If we were attacked, people would get energized.

Check. Just as there was a wave of energy after hurricane Katrina, there would be a similar wave of energy after any disaster, man made or otherwise.

Everything Rumsfeld said is basically true. But to suggest that he's somehow advocating this scenario as a political strategy is just ridiculous.

Let's spin it around a bit. Let's imagine that Al Gore said the following:

"We haven't had a deadly hurricane in a couple of years now. The perception of the threat of global warming is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is another hurricane like Katrina, or a similar natural disaster caused by global warming. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats..."

If Al Gore had said that, would everyone be jumping up and down and screaming about it?

•  I agree with your sentiment in part...

  but it's what's behind Rumsfeld's statement that angers people, and his assertion that we need another attack to further their "political agenda."  

  That political agenda includes mountains of giveaways to defense companies, wasting valuable resources and hamstringing the government's ability to do much for its citizens at home.  

  That's why people are pissed, I think.  

  by Indecent on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:17:03 AM PDT

  •  Ver;y much so.

    The actions that Rumsfeld wants us to take will make us even more vulnerable, so regardless of the details, Rumsfeld is wrong.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:24 AM PDT

•  Zack, put a tip jar.

  I think you comments are right on.  I can't stand Rumsfeld, but that doesn't mean he isn't correct in the statement.

  by coloradocomet on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:17:50 AM PDT

•  Wrong at first premise

  Check. Americans think that just because there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 2001, we're somehow safer. We're not. The world is more dangerous, and the threat has increased.

  This is objectively wrong.  It's not an opinion that I (or someone else) disagrees with.  It is a factual assertion which is not true.

  A team of scholars at the University of Maryland has been tracking deaths caused by organized violence. Their data show that wars of all kinds have been declining since the mid-1980s and that we are now at the lowest levels of global violence since the 1950s. Deaths from terrorism are reported to have risen in recent years. But on closer examination, 80 percent of those casualties come from Afghanistan and Iraq, which are really war zones with ongoing insurgencies—and the overall numbers remain small. Looking at the evidence, Harvard's polymath professor Steven Pinker has ventured to speculate that we are probably living "in the most peaceful time of our species' existence."

  That's from Fareed Zakaria's new book, The Post-American World (2008).  He continues:

  Why does it not feel that way? Why do we think we live in scary times? Part of the problem is that as violence has been ebbing, information has been exploding. The last 20 years have produced an information revolution that brings us news and, most crucially, images from around the world all the time. The immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hype. Every weather disturbance is the "storm of the decade." Every bomb that explodes is BREAKING NEWS. Because the information revolution is so new, we—reporters, writers, readers, viewers—are all just now figuring out how to put everything in context.

  It's a dynamic as old as William Randolph Hearst, who once opined "Allow me to print the graphic details of any three common crimes, and I will convince readers they are living in a crime wave."

  The world simply is not as dangerous as Rumsfeld - or you - believe.  Don't buy into the politics of fear.

  by NCrissieB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:20:18 AM PDT

  •  I wish I could rec you twice n/t

    by ZAP210 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM PDT

  •  So...

    You're saying that Bush has made the world safer?

    by Zackpunk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:35 AM PDT

    •  No. Read NCrissies's quote.

      Their data show that wars of all kinds have been declining since the mid-1980s

      W has not been President since the mid-1980's, and no claim about any President causing the drop is being made, here.

      and that we are now at the lowest levels of global violence since the 1950s. Deaths from terrorism are reported to have risen in recent years. But on closer examination, 80 percent of those casualties come from Afghanistan and Iraq . . .

      The increase in deaths recently is confined to exactly the countries Bush has invaded.  So, Bush has made Iraq and Afghanistan, anyway, less safe than they used to be, but his actions have apparently had no affect one way or the other on the safety of Americans living in America.

      But actually I would make a completely different.  I realize Rumsfeld wants to say that Americans a weak and lazy and forget "the threat".  He thinks that anyone who wants to leave Iraq doesn't see a threat.  But I think that's wrong.  I think Americans are perfectly aware that there is a terrorist threat, and would not be as shocked as they were on 9/11 if we were attacked again.

      The thing that Rumsfeld is lamenting is that Americans don't want to support his war policies as a result of that threat, anymore.  That's all.  It is just playing into his hands to accept his conclusion that OF COURSE Americans have gotten complacent.  No.  We just don't want to take care of it in Bush and Rumsfeld's way.

      Americans might, for example, want to see a trial of an actual 9/11 conspirator.  They might want to see Osama bin Laden on trial in an American or international court.  I know that I would like that.  I would also like to see Rumsfeld in such a court.  Both of these things would actually address the threat that we all perceive.

      by LithiumCola on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:45:13 AM PDT

    •  More like

      despite President Bush's lack of attention to U.S. security needs - ports, nuke facilities, etc - most Americans don't feel the need to hide under our beds, quaking, like the fearmongers would have us do.

      by PBen on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

      •  Bingo!

        Rumsfeld, et. al. desperately want Americans to believe we are under seige, that the world is more dangerous now than ever before, that if we don't stand up and fight now, the barbarians will soon be flooding through our cities, raping our women, and carrying our children off to slavery.

        Objectively, that simply is not true.

        At its apex (just before 9/11), Al Qaeda numbered at most 7500 strong.  In terms of foreign-capable special forces operators - those with the language, cultural, military and administrative skills to blend into and attack from within Western nations - Al Qaeda were never more than 750 strong, and most of the better estimates I've seen say Al Qaeda had no more than 100-200.

        Foreign-capable special forces operators are always a very rare breed.  Most of our own special forces operators aren't "foreign-capable" in the sense of blending into and attacking from within a non-Western population.  While it's easier to achieve that for a multi-cultural target nation like the U.S., it's only marginally easier.  It's just hard to live among a people whom you plan to kill, without either losing your motivation or saying or doing something to give yourself away.

        Al Qaeda's leadership recognized that fact, by the late 1990s, and set about planning the sort of "big operation" that, they hoped, U.S. political leaders could not ignore.  The kind of "big operation" that would bait the U.S. into sending troops into Arab lands, where Al Qaeda would not have to rely on a tiny cadre of foreign-capable operators, but would have instead the "home field advantage."

        And Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. took the bait ... hook, line, and sinker.  We served up the U.S. military - our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters - on a big, perfect, sand-speckled plate.

        That's what a seige mentality does.  Fear causes fundamental errors of judgment.  Then you pay, and pay, and pay.

        by NCrissieB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM PDT

•  Yeah, O.K. you're right . . .

  but A.G. is SUPERCOOL and Rummy's a dick.

  by ZAP210 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:22:03 AM PDT

•  I think the threat was always exaggerated

  ... especially in the aftermath of nineleven. There's plenty of evidence that this particular disaster need not have happened if the people running the government were competent at using the tools and authorities already at their disposal.

  It's ultimately unanswerable since we can't run a controlled experiment to see what would have happened without the wars and violations of law that the Bush regime has perpetrated.

  by Demi Moaned on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:10 AM PDT

  •  The real problem with 911 is that we have no

    good alternative to passenger air traffic.

    I would like to see someone hijack a  high speed train and take down the Empire State Building.

    by penguinsong on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:34:48 AM PDT

    •  Actually the era of air hijacking is over.

      Armored, locked cockpit doors.  Armed pilots (most of whom are former military anyway).  If you can't get at the pilots, you can't take over the aircraft.

      Problem solved.

      by NCrissieB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:34:45 AM PDT

•  We have had several terror attacks

  There was the sniper.

  There was the shooting at VA Tech.

  There are terror shootings almost every other day.

  by penguinsong on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:31:34 AM PDT

  •  But you don't understand ...

    ... if you're killed by a fellow American, you're not as dead as if you'd been killed by a terrorist.

    Admittedly, you're still more dead than if you'd been killed in a traffic accident, or died of some illness because you couldn't afford health care, or such ... but you're not as dead as if you'd been killed by a terrorist.

    Call it the How Dead Are You school of budgetary management.

    by NCrissieB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:38:09 AM PDT

•  An attack..

  What Rumsfeld means is:

  "An attack would boost the value of Republican fear-mongering, energize the party politically and move the contry further to the right."  

  He's not talking about security, he's talking about winning elections.

  by altoid on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM PDT

•  The difference...

  ... between Al Gore's hypothetical comments and Rumsfeld's is the goal of the speaker. Rumsfeld's goal should be preventing terrorist attacks and saying that another terrorist attack would prevent future terrorist attacks makes me really question whether his intentions are pure. Al Gore's goal is to raise awareness of an issue that has ramifications far beyond any specific natural disaster, and furthermore, we know absolutely that there is no possible way for him to orchestrate/comply with/play any part in a natural disaster, so that question doesn't even come into the picture.

  by triptych on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:51:22 AM PDT

•  Rumsfeld never correct, ever.

  All this rests on fallacy and the human bias to exaggerate certain types of threat.

  I'll make up numbers here, only to give an example of the magnitude.

  Say that prior to September 11th, the chance of terrorism was only 0.001%. Since then, the number goes up to 0.00103%. Therefor, while complacency is not the answer to future security, we are largely safe as we have always been largely safe.

  Though the threat hasn't change but a little upward, and people are wrong on correctly assessing it, they're mostly right in the conclusion, at least toward the general magnitude.

  This means a correction is mostly unnecessary. Moreso, even if it were, you don't make corrections by murdering people, or allowing them to be murdered. As a politician, one has a responsibility to step up and be a man for once, and stop sniveling like some little wormy weasel hoping a bomb goes off so people will act the way you want.

  Do a study, get real numbers, tell the public. If need be, do not allow them to ignore you. Fuck, these shitstains have a DOD propaganda program in place, and yet the only way they can alert the public is allow an event to panic them?

  Don't fall for Rumsfeld's bullshit. Every democrat that does, every democrat that repeats it... turns off the few reasonable independents out there. The more they hear of this, the more they become (rightly) convinced that both parties are morally and intellectually bankrupt and undeserving of votes.

  by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

•  Why I think Rumsfeld is wrong.

  1.  America has the maturity to deal with it, it's just the sense of futility with the manner it is dealt with.  So far, most of Bush's dealing with terrorists is of little value.

  a. Invade Iraq - A country that had little to no connection to terrorists.  In fact, Sadam despised terrorists b/c they are Islamic fundamentalists who would be opposed to the largely secular way he ran the country.  Add on the fact that it has been a terrorist recruitment and training tool, as well as an opportunity to kill Americans, and it becomes a complete debacle.

  2.  Failure to succeed in Afghanistan - If you want to fight terrorism, this was the place.  Diversion of money and resources have scuttled our chances to do so unfortunately.

  3.  Attempts to have our ports controlled by a Middle Eastern corporation, backed by the White House.  I think this is self explanatory.

  4.  Airline security.  Almost seven years after the attacks, and agents are still able to sneak weapons and bomb parts past security on test runs.

  5.  Cargo not being checked.  We have mountains of cargo and containers coming into our ports, and we have not stepped up our ability to check it.  Nor any plans to do so.

  6.  Guantanamo - Prisoner mistreatment, holding people indefinitely without a trial, kangaroo courts and trials - is there a bigger terrorist recruitment tool?

  7.  Lack of focus on Bin Laden.  He is the mastermind and figurehead.  He recruits, he plots, every day he is at large is a boost for terror groups, and he has access to large reserves of moeny.  He is still at large, and Bush says he doesn't even think about him, the focus is not on him, and the CIA group which worked specifically on Bin Laden has been disbanded.

  While there have been some marked improvements in interagency sharing of intelligence, and the focus on following the money which funds terrorism, what we have gotten mostly is color coded danger warnings to look for "suspicious activities.."  What the Hell does that mean?

  I think my counter would have been that it is the administration that lacks the maturity, as they are doing all sorts of things which are either ineffective, having nothing to do with terrorism, are draining valuable resources which could be used against terrorism, and failing to address real problems like ports and airline safety.  The lack of terror attacks has more to do with free targets in Iraq than an unwillingness to strike here, as Spain and Great Britain can testify that terror networks are still determined to carry out civil violence.

  I don't think it is a lack of concern in the public.  Hell, we gave Bush another 4 years just based on that concern.  Rather, it is an apathy about "What in the Hell can we do?"  Sit on the porch with a shotgun looking for terrorists?  Empty retirement account to pay for training of airport screening employees.  No, all we can do is vote, and I think that is why you are seeing more Dems now than Republicans.

  by MrWinky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM PDT

•  Al Gore isn't

  hoping for another Hurricane to further his political agenda. That is the difference here. Rumsfeld wishes and prays for more attacks so he can continue to make billions of dollars for his buddies by raping the treasury. Al Gore...not so much.

  by pathman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:09:17 AM PDT

•  Rumsfeld is mostly Correct

  Unfortunately the people, like Rumsfeld, who think in this manner are the ones who are causing terrorism.  We have to understand that the reason why foreigners don't like America is because American government wants to conquer or as they say now, spread democracy, and invade the country or the political or the economical scene of nations.  People are only defending themselves.  We must shift our foreign policies towards a more harmonious and peaceful objective. We must invite all countries in the world to join us to better the planet we live in before we destroy it.

  by naturalized citizen on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:49:10 AM PDT