This article was published online at TheWeek.com on September 11, 2013.

1

As we mark the 12th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, and honor the memory of the nearly 3,000 people who died that day, I think of the debate we’ve had this year on our security, and just how much privacy we have given up over the years to be (or at least feel) safer.

2

More than a decade after the towers fell, the Pentagon burned, and a Pennsylvania field was scarred, we still don’t feel all that much safer. A Gallup survey taken in April said 40 percent of Americans are either “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about terrorism. Just 10 days after the 2001 attacks? 49 percent.

Page 717

3

This makes no sense when you consider how few people have actually died on U.S. soil from terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. First, let’s define “terrorism.” The federal government’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) calls it “premeditated, politically motivated violence, perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” Using this benchmark, I argue that the number is 35:

Again, in 12 years, only 35 deaths from terrorist acts. That’s less than three a year.

4

Now, I’m not including such horrors as the 2002 sniper shootings in the Washington area (10 killed) or last December’s elementary school massacre in Connecticut (27, not counting the killer). These incidents certainly terrorized their respective communities and instilled fear—but we’re using the NCTC’s narrower definition of “politically motivated violence” here.

5

Now let’s add the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks abroad. The NCTC has been collecting this data since 2005, and says between then and 2011, 158 U.S. lives were lost—with the vast majority occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless you plan on traveling to Helmand province in the near future, you probably have nothing to worry about.

6

Here’s the bottom line: Your odds of getting killed in a terrorist attack are absurdly low: about one in 20 million. You’re far more likely to meet your demise from a bee sting, gun, car accident—or from behavior that you can control: smoking, sitting on the couch stuffing your face with junk food, not exercising.

7

So why do tens of millions of Americans worry about terrorism? Because humans, flawed creatures that we are, don’t consider probabilities with level-headed analytical reasoning. We do so with our emotions. Terrorism is meant to intimidate us, and for many, that’s exactly what it does.

Page 718

8

But there is less reason to be fearful today, in my view, because we’re doing a much better job of countering the threat. Let’s remember that the 19 hijackers who changed our world a dozen years ago were in many cases living right under our noses. Had we been less complacent about our security and more competent about connecting the dots, it’s entirely possible, if not probable, that the attack never would have happened. As for the tradeoff we have made between civil liberty and national security ever since, I suspect that’s one reason why the death toll from terrorism is so low.

9

Since 2001, some plots—the Times Square bomber, the underwear bomber, and others—came close to succeeding; others were disrupted before they became operational. In 2001, I wondered what more could we have done; now we’re doing it. There are more cameras watching us in public. The government we like to bash is doing a better job of data mining, sharing information, and being more proactive about disrupting possible threats. It has made mistakes and, yes, in some cases it has gone too far and there have been abuses. We live in an imperfect world. We can do better, and I’m confident we will.

10

And this, in the end, is the real tradeoff: What is going too far in the name of security—and what is not far enough?

READING ARGUMENTS

1. Brandus believes that Americans should not fear an imminent terrorist attack. Why then does he include a long list of attacks in his essay? Does this list strengthen or weaken his argument? Explain.

2. In what respects is this essay an evaluation argument? In what respects is it a cause-and-effect argument?

3. In assessing the number of terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, why does Brandus exclude “horrors” such as the 2002 sniper shootings around Washington, D.C., and the 2012 school shootings in Connecticut? Do you agree with his decision?

4. In paragraph 9, Brandus discusses the U.S. government’s anti-terrorism measures, such as public surveillance and data mining. What point is he making here? Explain why you agree or disagree with him.

5. Do you think the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California (which occurred after Brandus wrote this essay), challenges this essay’s thesis? Explain your reasoning.