I am a huge fan of the libertarian thinktank Cato, and and even bigger fan of its in-house foreign policy guru Chris Preble (who happens to be a friend). But Chris is just plain wrong on this one. In his post today, Chris cites a New York Times article by Eric Schmidt that basically made the case that the FBI has gone overboard in its approach to counter-terrorism, and that the 5000 people it has working on the issue have done very little over the years except contribute to a "federalization" of what appears to Preble (at least in my estimation) to be a law-enforcement problem. This of course raises the traditional libertarian bogeyman of overbearing government, in this case, national government. Read it all if you have a chance.
Preble does a pretty good job of trying to anticipate the criticisms of his criticism, but I think he misses an important point in his accountant's view of the war on terror. Drilling down into the numbers reveals that 5000 people have raised 5500 leads, only a handful of which resulted in prosecutions, with no terror plots broken up. Or as Preble puts it, "none – zero, zip, nada – foiled a specific terrorist plot."
This would be a persuasive--no, damning--fact, were this the only thrust in the nation's anti-terror effort. Were that the case, one could wonder aloud whether 1) there was even a threat at all or 2) whether lots of money were being wasted. I don't think I hear Preble dismissing the threat, though I do hear him raising the resource issue.
Government--federal, state, and local--responded in the wake of 9-11. In some cases, excessively (exhibit A--airport security). But it responded over the years in a way in which burdens were shared across a panoply of agencies and organizations, each presumably with a different mission and a different focus. Perhaps I give government too much credit on this front, but the strategy of creating doubt in the minds of terrorists as to whether their actions will succeed by erecting a multi-layered, intramural effort seems to be working. Yes--out of context, the FBI's 5000 people appear to be wasting their time. In context? Surely not. The web of efforts continues to frustrate, deter, and dissuade would-be terrorists who Preble and I both know have not decided that the US is a better country now, and that they should just leave us alone.
I wonder just how many terror plots would have to be broken up in order to provide Preble with sufficient justification for the FBI's level of effort? Dick Cheney got this one right, right from the beginning. Chris Preble would like to measure the success of an individual part of a systemic approach by one metric--number of plots foiled. I'll see his one metric and raise him one--no attacks on US soil.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I reprint for readers here (with Chris Preble's permission) his email response to me on this post:
Bryan,
Well fought, sir. I would add only three points. One niggling, two substantive.
Your title is misleading. Cato doesn't get terrorism wrong or right. I do (or don't). There is a big difference. The Cato Institute doesn't take positions; Cato scholars do.
On the substantive points.
1. You write: "The web of efforts continues to frustrate, deter, and dissuade would-be terrorists who Preble and I both know have not decided that the US is a better country now, and that they should just leave us alone." It has nothing to do with the US being a better place. And you know I don't believe that. My point is that most of these guys are clowns (ref a guy, a blowtorch, and a Brooklyn Bridge) and one must take into account not merely their intent to do us harm, but also their ability to do so. That doesn't mean the threat is zero, but who ever said that government could make us 100 percent safe and secure? From auto accidents? From diabetes caused by obesity? From guys with guns...at a major state university...who ended up killing 32 people? (ref. Seung Hui Cho at Va Tech)
Actually, government could make us safe from all of those things by 1. banning automobiles, 2. banning transfats and sugar, 3. banning handguns. We obviously don't want or expect them to do those things. The point is that we strike a balance between liberty and security every day, and we err as a society when we claim that security is all that matters.
2. You close: "Preble would like to measure the success of an individual part of a systemic approach by one metric--number of plots foiled. I'll see his one metric and raise him one--no attacks on US soil." You don't need to know Latin to know the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. C'mon Brian! Saying that there have been no attacks since 9/11 because of any one policy, or entire set of policies, is akin to noting that the Baltimore Orioles haven't won a World Series title since 1983 and then attributing this fact to the firing of Joe Altobelli, or Jim Palmer's retirement, or Peter Angelos buying the team -- or ANY one thing that has occured since 1983. I might happen to believe that Angelos has been a factor in their (and my) long period of suffering, but you actually have to show causation -- not merely correlation -- when crafting or critiquing public policy.
And, while I'm at it, how do you know which policy mattered and which didn't (why are airport regs stupid? Maybe they have stopped attacks. Do you hate them because they inconvenience you, but chasing down 5,500 false leads don't? How do you know that particular expenditure of resources doesn't harm you? Maybe the FBI agent assigned to following up on an anonymous terrorism tip would have otherwise been tracking the carjacker who (will) steal your car next month.)
It all comes down to opportunity costs. A dollar spent on an FBI agent is a dollar not spent on a cop, or a sailor, or a firefighter -- or a dollar of my taxes with which I could have purchased half a Starbucks today. If that makes me an accountant, so be it.
The worst, and I mean the WORST (in the truest spirit of friendship) kind of error in policy analysis is to fall victim to the post hoc fallacy. Don't do it, sir. The editors of the WSJ might like it (except when someone says the economy has clearly gotten better because of the stimulus package), but you are better than that.
As I said at the outset, well fought. Keep it up.
V/R
Chris
I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat with Chris on this matter because, as you can plainly see, I'd get slaughtered.
I will only make a weak defense of the "post hoc" statement. What I was trying to do (unsuccessfully) was to raise the notion that "no attacks had been committed since 9-11 as being attributable to the 5000 FBI agents" as being as unsupportable as I thought his point that because no plots had been foiled, the resources and effort of the FBI were being misapplied. In-artfully done on my part. I definitely do not adhere to the view that this program of the FBI's has created the no attack situation.
Post a Comment