Day: September 14, 2007

Chertoff’s Guts and that Sick Feeling of Impending Doom

Buck Banks

Remember at the beginning of summer when Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff ramped the nation up a notch on alert for terrorist attacks based on what he called his “gut feeling?” Well, an economist has actually looked at something called data and determined that it must have been something Chertoff ate because his indigestion sure wasn’t based on hard evidence of a clear and present danger.

We’re using Chertoff’s guts to predict terrorism like we used Grandma’s elbow to predict rain.

Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton who served as the chief economist at the Labor Department from 1994 to 1995, says government officials should avoid making vague statements about terrorism that have little empirical basis. Krueger decided to test Chertoff’s “gut feeling” about seasonal patterns of terrorist activity against data on worldwide terrorist attacks from the National Counterterrorism Center, the federal agency responsible for compiling terrorism statistics. His conclusion might leave you a little queasy: “I wouldn’t draw too strong a gut feeling from this data.”

The economist found that, historically, attacks by al Qaeda and Sunni extremist groups have been no more frequent in the summer months. When all terrorist groups are counted, the number of attacks worldwide has been about 10 percent higher in July and August than in other months, he said. But he characterized this as a small difference, noting that other types of incidents such as boating accidents go up by much more than 10 percent in the summer.

“Would you scare 300 million people on the basis of those tiny blips in those charts?” Krueger asked. “It didn’t seem to me to be constructive.”

But this is the never-ending war on terror, which has nothing to do with “constructive.” Chertoff’s belly bubblings follow a familiar pattern established since 2001 — periodically, citing ever-so-vague reasons, government officials bump us up a color or two on their handy apprehension scale.

Perhaps, since we’re using Chertoff’s guts to predict terrorism like we used Grandma’s elbow to predict rain, we should revert to having soothsayers read the future in intestines — say Chertoff’s or any other official’s who gets his jollies cranking up the national anxiety meter. I bet then we’d see a less somatic, more scientific approach to assessing the terror threat.

Romney Blunders With Obama Jab

Trish

Unaltered image from the Mitt Romney campaign web site page, “Defeating the Jihadists”

New entry to the Mitt Romney is Possibly Even Less Intelligent than the Current Occupant file: Romney, in his mindless rhetoric, again misused a word that arouses strong emotion among followers of Islam.

DOD experts: American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of the groups the United States is fighting

“In my view, the most crucial objective we have in Iraq is to make sure it does not become a safe haven for al-Qaida and other Jihad terrorists,” Romney said.

“Of course, if Barack Obama had had his way and pulled our troops out months ago, that’s exactly what would have happened.”

Let’s ignore for the moment Romney’s idiotic mischaracterization of Obama’s position and focus on his equally dillheaded use of “Jihad.”

As Buck pointed out, even the Department of Defense goes, “Doh!” when American opinion leaders misuse that term.

The two [Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and Army Lt. Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV of the National Defense University in Washington] believe the right words can help fight the global war on terror. “American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of the groups the United States is fighting,” the men wrote in an article titled “Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism.”

Buck went on address usage for “jihad” specifically.

An example is jihadist. Most of us take jihadist or jihadi to mean an Islamic extremist who is fighting a holy war. But Steusand and Tunnell maintain that in Arabic jihad “literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression, Jihad fi sabil illah, striving in the path of God.” Which is considered a good thing for Muslims to do.

A person commenting on Buck’s post, who signed in as Nazim Haqqani, further clarified.

As the two DOD officials correctly state, by falling into the lexicon trap and referring to the those terrorist as jihadis; you are giving them undue legitimacy.

Jihad is akin to the Just war concept in medival Christianity (with its minor differences in normative traditions) and by lumping random acts of violence as jihad; you anger more Muslims, such as myself, and risk radicalizing those who feel their religion is under attack.

Romney has proven repeatedly he is not so sharp. The infamous dog on the car roof episode, the varmint hunting shenanigans, and all the flip-flops on whatever it is the Mormon thinks he thinks all lead to one conclusion: Romney’s a dumbass.

But as Jon once pointed out:

Romney is indeed a dumbass. Fortunately for him, being as stupid as a bag of hammers is no longer a disqualifier for the presidency.

GOP Leader Boehner: U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq Are an ‘Investment’ and a ‘Small Price’ to Pay

Jon Ponder

On CNN Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner told Wolf Blitzer that the loss of U.S. blood and treasure in Iraq is an “investment” and a “small price” to pay if it leads to destroying al Qaeda.

Even the GOP’s sainted Gen. David Petreaus does not believe Bush’s war in Iraq is making America safer. So how can the deaths of U.S. troops be worth it?

Leaving aside the fact that we’d be hearing howls from ideologues like Boehner right now if a Democrat had so casually dismissed the deaths of U.S. troops, the Minority Leader’s statement is all the more nauseating because it is underpinned by a lie: Al Qaeda in Iraq, a force of just a few hundred men, poses no threat to U.S. national security.

And even if we stay there until the last member of al Qaeda in Iraq is dead, it won’t affect the viability of the al Qaeda that attacked us on Sept. 11 at all.

Here’s the transcript of Boehner’s statement (emphasis added):

BLITZER: Mr. Leader, here’s the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

In his testimony this week, even the GOP’s sainted Gen. David Petreaus signaled that he does not believe that Bush’s war in Iraq is making America safer. If the man in charge of the can’t war can’t assure us that American security rests on the outcome of the war, how can the lives of American troops, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the billions of dollars we’re spending be worth it?

And even if it were worth it, how can Boehner get away with saying the deaths of U.S. troops are an investment — and a small price at that?