The Cost of Fighting Terrorism

Dipak K. Gupta

Often there seems to be an utter disconnect between actual threats of terrorism and the state response. In terms of cold numbers, the comparison between the probabilities of death from international terrorism, where the attackers come from outside of the country, with other real dangers seems almost absurd. In the past 38 years, the MIPT RAND Corporation database records on the average 375 deaths per year worldwide. This compares with roughly the same number of people who drown in bathtubs in the US alone (about 320). Even when we add the total fatalities during the past ten years resulting from both international and domestic terrorism, the number rises to nearly 32,700, which is less than the automobile related deaths for a single year in the United States. By comparing the number of terrorism killings with those from natural disasters like the recent tsunami in the South Asia and earthquake deaths in Pakistan, the national obsession with terrorism may indeed seem Kafa-esque.
Terrorism, by its very nature, is a mixture of violence and theater. It accomplishes its immediate goal by setting a time-honored trap. This trap is for an organized society to over react. The government of the target state responds predictably, particularly when it comes to international terrorism. Facing unexpected death and destruction perpetrated by foreign nationals -- however small compared to other calamities of life -- nations all over the world experience something akin to a collective post-traumatic stress syndrome. The made-for-television violence, magnified by the media deepens our collective sense of insecurity. In this condition of national paranoia, politicians vie for being the most hawkish against the threat. In the face of such a threat no price seems high enough. Although the costs of counter-terrorism varies from the moral consideration of killing innocent civilians as a part of collateral damage to the suspension of some of the most cherished rights of the individual, even the financial costs of overreaction from a strictly economic perspective seem overwhelming.
Facing an external threat, nations have always behaved in predictable ways. The assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke by a Serbian terrorist plunged the entire world into a catastrophic war just the same way the attacks of 9/11 have created a global crisis, when the US invaded Iraq as a part of a “broader war on terror.” Similarly, responding to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers by Hizbollah, Israel’s war in Lebanon seems to spiral out uncontrollably. The implications of these actions are yet to be fully realized or even understood.
Any action to counter the threat of terrorism carries its own cost. Let us look only at the monetary price of our involvement in Iraq.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks the sole superpower quickly decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq attempting to punish the guilty and protecting the American public from future attacks. In the process the costs of these and other counter-terrorism endeavor have piled up to an unprecedented level. According to the Congressional Research Service, the war effort itself has had a price tag of $409 billion dollars so far. To this astronomical sum, we must add the costs of homeland security undertaken not only by the federal government by also various state governments and even local governments. For instance, New York City, the prime target of the attacks has developed its own security force at cost of millions of dollars.
However, these costs are just the beginning. The heightened sense of insecurity in the US is spilling over on its borders on both sides of the country. Increased restrictions at the borders are costing billions in trade with Mexico and Canada, the biggest trade partner of the US. The fear of illegal immigrants is currently sweeping the country. Many are claiming that a secured border is essential as a safeguard against international terrorism, although there has not been a single reported case in North America or Europe, where illegal immigrants have taken part in terrorist attacks. Yet, this fear is propelling the US to embark on the construction of a wall sealing its border with Mexico. When asked about the price of this monumental project, an influential lawmaker commented, “Whatever it costs.”
If increased poverty and indignation make a volatile mix, our overreaction all over the world can only make us less secured in the long run. Indeed the cost of overreaction is adding up much more than is commonly understood. The possibility of disruption in oil supply is contributing to its rise in price. It is not only impacting those who can least afford it, but by transferring money to the most volatile regions of the world, where much of the oil is produced, it is propping up corrupt dictators, demagogues, and some of the most ardent benefactors of international terrorism.
These costs, however arduous, are not one-time expenditures. As governments attempt to punish the perpetrators they bring death and misery to the population, these, in turn, spawn more acts of terrorism. Thus, Sean MacStiofane, the former Provisional IRA;s Chief of Staff cynically noted: “… most revolutions are not caused by revolutionaries in the first place, but by the stupidity and brutality of governments.” Indeed the cycle of violence produces its own costs, tangible and intangible, for generations to come.
This is not to say that the threats of terrorism to global security are not real. The problem is that facing horrific acts of violence, we often lose our perspective and become eager to assume any cost, any consequence of our impulsive actions.
In a recent speech, Stephen Hawking, one of the most noted physicists of our time warned that the survival of our specie rests with our ability to manage violence in the next 100 years so that humankind can ultimately leave this planet and colonize other worlds. Given human nature and the consequent political, and economic realities, Hawking’s hope does indeed seem like a pie in the sky.