Are We Spending Entirely Too Much Money on Counter-Terrorism?

lengthy Atlantic article that goes into a similar question. Haven't read it entirely but we definitely wasted quite a bit but it's not like there was nothing to show for it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/are-we-any-safer/492761/

 

Ok ,so let's say we cut spending on counter-terrorism. Let's say we cut it by $1 billion. And let's say the result is it only costs one life.

But, what if you knew that one life lost would be your mother? Would you be in favor of spending cuts on counter-terrorism?

 

Yes but it's one of those things that inherently underlies people's faith in the institution. The populace sleeps better at night knowing we're throwing a lot of money at counter terrorism. All those other things you list are probably better for the long-term future of the country there's definitely something to be said about feeling safe when you put your head down at night.

 

What's the relevance of that line of thinking since that exact situation would never happen?

 

I would be considered a globalist as I would much prefer NATO become our counter-intelligence and offensive arm. I'm not saying we lose all autonomy on intelligence gathering but we shift towards combing aspects with our allies. Even better would the G20, which includes Russia and China, taking on a larger security role. Essentially, I would prefer to pass around the costs between many nations.

I don't see terrorism being defeated at all in our current situation which is more of a decentralized effort.

 

This is a terrible way to look at it. You could easily say what if that $1 billion added to cancer research would save your mother? Neither of those are good ways to decide where to spend the $1 billion.

As for the OP, it's a good question. Part of it, though, goes beyond lives directly saved. What about fear? If an extra plane or two blows up every year but you save a few hundred billion, what else is lost? Do people stop flying out of fear? What are the secondary effects of that on the economy? On trade or business or tourism? How do you quantify the value of feeling safe in terms of quality of life? Beyond that, what are the long-term consequences of letting terror groups get a foothold somewhere? Does it lead to another 9/11? By the $1-billion-per-person measure, that's $3 trillion in value. What if it's a dirty bomb or a nuke somewhere? 20,000 people dead would be $20 trillion in "value", or more than the entire annual US GDP.

There's no doubt there's endless waste in this fight. The goal should be to more efficient so we can redirect resources to the right places. It's not the amount of spending that's really key - it's what it's used for.

 

NATO Nations already share intelligence pretty heavily. No way the US is going to share intel with frenemies like China or Russia - it puts our assets in danger, and we have no idea what China and Russia's real motives are. We can trust that the UK doesn't want the White House getting blown up. Would Russia *really* mind? Are we sure they will always work towards our best interests? Russia already supports lots of terror-supporting actors like Iran and Syria.

 

To elaborate, it should be NATO carrying out the drone strikes, it should be NATO putting boots on the ground, and it should be NATO leading an invasion into a country that supports terrorism too egregiously. Hindsight is 20/20 but it should have been NATO invading Afghanistan and Iraq (if that would have even happened under my alternate reality) and it should have been NATO along the European border maintaining the refugee crisis.

And the US supports terror-supporting actors in the Saudis and UAE. You're not wrong, but it could be a way to bridge our differences while tackling a common enemy and maybe eventually just have cool relations instead of chilly. Obviously with China and Russia, US intelligence sharing would be compartmentalized to where only relevant information is released. Like I said terrorism can't be "defeated" in a decentralized way.

Somewhat off topic, but do you ever envision a scenario where Russia would become part of the EU in some sort of grand bargain/compromise?

 

I don't think so, at least not in their current forms. Russia's values - or at least, that of the government - are very much at odds with those of western Europe. I don't think the two are really compatible in any sort of functional way - the EU would go from operating like NATO (a bunch of relatively aligned nations) to the UN (a bunch of nations with differing interests that can't get much done). I think Putin would have to be gone and you'd need a reset in the entire philosophical approach of Russia. Theoretically doable, but there's an undercurrent of patriotic nationalism there that will be hard to overcome, I would think?

 

Well, um, Major...about that trust thing and Russia...um...nevermind...

 

This is a very easy question that governments and companies deal with everyday. The value of one American life is about $7-9 million. I get what you are saying. But in the real world, this is not a confusing question at all: your mom ain't worth close to a billion dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/business/economy/17regulation.html

 

It's an important question. I think money spent on combating terrorism on airlines and in the ports is worth significant investment as well as big events like the Super Bowl, parades, and festivals. It's the random terrorism like San Bernadino and the like where you pull back resources. Small town police departments don't need counter terrorism training.

 

San Bernardino could be easily classified as just another incident of a US mass shooting. Conservatives would flat ignore this incident if no Muslims were involved since any remedy would become a second amendment issue. If Muslims are involved, conservatives need to feed their War on Islam narrative.

We would all be better served if we were more circumspect in how we view gun violence and how we project "radical Islamism" on domestic terrorist acts. If we really wanted to prevent the San Bernardino or the Orlando night club shooting, we need better gun laws. Clearly people who should not access to guns do.

As long as we purposely misread domestic terrorism incidents, we can not even begin to have a real discussion to how to reduce such incidents. This is not to say that we should ignore radical Islamism as a cause for future domestic terrorist acts. In particular, we should pay close close attention to efforts to radicalized Muslim Americans.

 

Remove the cost of the two wars and we probably do not, or even need to spend more. In particular, we need more spending on infrastructure and cyber defense now.

Overall, we went stupid in our rash and quick reaction to 911 and focused way too much in the wrong areas.

 

I think it's money better spent than on new aircraft carriers, as an example.

Or flying fat ass to and from FL every weekend, as another example.

 

Afghanistan certainly was the right area. Iraq was the wrong area, where we sacrificed the most of the blood and money.

Even though Afghanistan was the right thing to do, the long term prognosis for Afghanistan is not bright. The tribal violence will lead to chaos, once the US leaves the area. Staying longer in Afghanistan will not mitigate this. What Afghanistan needs is a political solution, which may be generations away.

 

Flatly ignore? I disagree. We didn't ignore the South Carolina or multiple Colorado shootings. And those are some pretty big "ifs".

 

I think if we studied and honor Afghan's past and even recent Soviet involvement there... we wouldn't be so rash and quick

 

umm from my recollection from these mass shooting events, liberals are always yelled at for 'politicizing' these events and conservatives always state to let the mourn in peace which is code phrasing for 'ignore this'. I don't see conservatives ever bring up these mass shootings. If it's brought up by lib, they might answer with 'mental health issue' and be done with it.