My concerns with neo-conservative policies have always been more academic and strategic than political and idealistic (although, to be sure, my politics and ideals have not at all detracted from my views). So, throughout the past years, I've attempted to develop the most logical, realistic evaluation of neo-conservative policies that I can muster. Finally, a year ago, my views crystallized in an argument I had with my law professor and mentor - quite possibly the only neo-con for whom I have any respect. And, in a breathtakingly nerdy fashion, I've managed to reduce my argument to simple algebra. By such a dispassionate analysis, I don't mean to lend neo-conservative policies any credibility, so much as to clarify and rebut the ostensible calculus that the White House has put forward.
Premises:
- the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack is a function of (P), the number of people with the will to commit a terrorist attack, and (R) the risk that a person can commit such an attack without detection.
- terrorism is not an ideology, and terrorists aren't a united front. Rather, terrorism is a method, nothing more.
- sacrificing civil liberties, privacy, resources, international standing, and lives, and pursuing warfare, torture, and racial profiling COULD decrease (R) , the risk that a person can commit a terrorist attack undetected, by a factor (X).
- terrorism is easy; there are so many manifold, emerging, and cheap methods to cause great destruction, that its impossible to eliminate the threat completely. (Thus, R > 0)
- It doesn't take special access, knowledge, or resources to commit a terrorist act, but only the will to do it. (thus the neo-conservative policies in #3 cannot decrease P)
- The polices in #3 cause blowback, by destabilizing the countries attacked, galvanizing persons with a worldview supporting terrorist methods, and making life so manifestly cheap to persons vulnerable to such a worldview, that they increase P, by a factor (Y).
FACTORS:
R - risk that a person can commit a terrorist attack undetected.
X - factor by which neo-conservative policies reduce R
P - number of people with the will to commit a terrorist attack
Y - factor by which neo-conservative policies increase P
L - likelihood of a successful terrorist attack.
EQUATIONS:
without neo-conservative policies: L = R x P
with neo-conservative policies: L = (R x X) x (P x Y)
the neo-conservatives argument: R X P > (R x X) x (P x Y), thus the neo-conservative policies decrease the risk of terrorism.
my argument: (R x X) x (P x Y) > R x P, so that the neo-conservative policies are counterproductive and increase the risk of terrorism.
All empirical evidence points to the conclusion that, as a strategic matter, we're right, and the neo-cons are wrong - with one glaring exception, which the neo-cons are very quick to mention: there hasn't been another terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9-11. So, empirically, I must reluctantly note that its still an open question.
But even if neo-con policies did reduce the risk, I would still argue that its not worth the loss of our way of life. That, of course, is another discussion, one grounded in values, politics, and ideals, rather than in strategy and math, and one that we have all engaged in for years. Its perhaps the more important fight. But here, I've tried to elucidate our strategic argument.
Well, this was certainly the dryest thing I've ever written. If you've made it this far, congratulations. Methinks I should've been a political scientist.