Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management

Crisis and Emergency Management

Newsletter Website
return to mainpage

October 2004                                                                            Volume 7 - Number 1

Related Sites:

Perspectives...

Perception of Risk of Terrorism
by WAMIZ SAMEEN

An overwhelming majority believes that there is a significant likelihood of further terrorist attacks on US soil and expresses concern and worry about the prospect. About half worry that a close friend or relative will be a victim of an attack, but only a minority are concerned that it would happen in their community. The onset of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to notable changes in these attitudes. Though traditional attacks, such as truck bombs, are seen as the most likely terrorist threat, the majority believes that - terrorists have access to weapons of mass destruction and are likely to use them at some point. Of these weapons, chemical and biological agents are seen as a greater danger than nuclear arms, and concern about a chemical or biological attack has grown. Americans have been fairly pessimistic about the prospect of eliminating terrorist attacks for some time.

When we talk about "next phases" in the war on terrorism, we also need to consider that the United States may have entered one simply by taking such a strong stand in backing Israel on terrorism. One obvious impact is that the United States is now even more identified as a supporter of Israel, which has hardened Arab and Islamic hostility and resentment. In addition, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Holy War) may become more willing to attack U.S. targets.

These are the lessons that have emerged so far from the war on terrorism: the United States is involved in a far more complex set of challenges than simply the one presented by al Qaeda and bin Laden; much of this struggle can escalate in ways the United States cannot control; the war on terrorism has no clear end; and it is a "war" in which political, economic, and diplomatic means are likely to be more important than military means. The war on terror would not over until we deal with the political issues which give rise to such extreme militants like the one in Kashmir (India/Pakistan). We are dealing with it superficially but we need to consider the core issues.

The question is how the United States can shape a broader global strategy-particularly one that also addresses the mid- to long-term risk posed by proliferation and that looks at states rather than just terrorist groups. The differences between terrorist groups are bad enough, but the differences between nations as diverse as China, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria, are not only sharper but involve far more serious risks if the United States does not choose the right approach.

The world is just beginning to understand the broader economic impact of terrorism and the war on terrorism. In the past, the seriousness of terrorism has been measured almost solely by the number killed or wounded. The economic costs have received little attention.

It is clear, however, that the economic costs of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon have helped worsen a global recession in ways that not only have had a major impact on the U.S. economy, but also have hurt the world. Investment and trade have been cut sharply in China. Oil revenues will fall precipitously in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other oil exporters. Pakistan's textile industry has suffered badly. Similar problems have emerged all over the world. The economic costs of the anthrax attacks have been far greater than the cost in terms of direct human casualties. An attack that probably was financed with well under $100,000 has cost billions of dollars-and the end is scarcely in sight.

So far, President Bush and the Congress have not been able to agree on how to react to U.S. economic problems, much less the global economic impact of terrorism. It is clear, however, that the United States-and its friends and allies-now need to plan how to use government spending and economic tools, as well as public information campaigns, to address the economic dimensions of the war on terrorism. It is equally clear that such plans need to be made now because the future may hold a wide range of different types of major terrorist attacks.