According to Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is a miniscule one in 80,000 — about the same as the same person being killed by a comet.
The Bush administration, desperate for justifications to buy a little more time with the American people for its failed adventure in Iraq, markets the idea that if the United States rapidly withdraws from Iraq, the “terrorists will follow us home.” A closer examination of this assertion — like the rest of the administration’s fear mongering — demonstrates it is baseless.
U.S. State Department statistics show that historically, North America has had the lowest incidence of terrorism worldwide. The American public’s shocked reaction to the catastrophic 9/11 attacks was due, in part, to the infrequency of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. After the unique events of 9/11, terrorism in North America has resumed its historical modest trajectory.
North America has been a relative safe haven from terrorism for several reasons. The United States is far away from the world’s centers of conflict. Although the United States is roundly hated in the world because of its unneeded meddling in faraway conflicts, most anti–U.S. terrorism is perpetrated on U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas — not on the American homeland. Terrorists, like conventional armies, have trouble operating in the United States because it is so far from their normal bases of operations. In addition, the United States does not have many militant foreign populations that could provide sanctuary and support for imported terrorists of the same ilk.
According to Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is a miniscule one in 80,000 — about the same as the same person being killed by a comet. Of course, the chances are even lower if you are an American living in America (instead of overseas) and not residing in New York, Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
But the average American, especially after the luck that the hijackers benefited from on 9/11, should not be blamed for overestimating the danger of terrorism. The U.S. security agencies, to get more funds and authority for their bureaucracies, have constantly used color-coded warnings and other techniques of fear mongering to keep the anxiety generated by 9/11 alive in the public consciousness. The U.S. media, getting high ratings from sensational reporting on terrorism, has been a willing accomplice to the administration effort.
The “Islamo-fascist” scare has worked. The already massive U.S. defense budget has increased by 50% and the budget of the recently created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has doubled. The DHS budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $46.5 billion, much of which goes to fight terrorism. Spending all that money to combat a threat that is as rare as a catastrophic comet hitting the United States makes little sense. If NASA were able to use the same scare tactics as DHS, perhaps the space agency could persuade a reluctant Congress to give it the paltry $1 billion (by comparison) for its equally absurd Spaceguard Survey program, which tracks asteroids and comets that have an equal probability of killing Americans as terrorists do.
If the probability of Americans in the United States being killed by international terrorists remains low even after 9/11, would it increase if U.S. forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq and chaos there turns into bloody mayhem? Most likely not. According to U.S. counterterrorism experts, about 90% of al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters. These experts believe that these fighters emphasize local concerns and would have their hands full fighting the more numerous Shi’a when U.S. forces — one of their current major targets — withdraw.
Instead of being anxious about such Bush administration canards, the American people should worry about things that have a greater chance of killing them — for example, the average American’s lifetime chances of being killed in an auto accident are one in 100. Instead of focusing on potential terrorism in the homeland emanating from a post–U.S. Iraq, Americans who want to have the greatest probability of living longer lives should eat right, exercise, and wear their seat belts, and avoid smoking and excess worry (especially about jihadists following U.S. soldiers home from Iraq).
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland



Wow, what a load of psychobabble! Starting with the idiotic contention of the 1/80000 chance of being killed by a terrorist or a comet. Where did you learn your basic probability theory? It would mean that a fairly large number of Americans are being killed by terrorists or comets every year although less than the number being killed by illegal aliens.
The terrorist support system is already here and if you haven't traveled to northern New Jersey or Michigan take a trip to visit the jihad houses of worship. Once again weak logic placed in a spineless wrapper. I can only hope that in the next attack you or your loved ones are the victim instead of people aware of the threat and with the will to defend themselves.
Comment by Mickey G | March 23, 2007
Weak logic placed in a spineless wrappr? Oh Mickey, you're so fine!
I never understood the "terrorists will follow us home" illogic. I'm not sure if it's genuine paranoia or an idiotic gimmic. I guess it all depends on one perspective. According to Mickey, we have "jihad houses of worship" in New Jersey and Michigan. Those terrorists apparently followed us here after the last gulf war?
Comment by GreginNY | March 23, 2007
Wait a minute, I thought the people of Iraq hated the U.S. for interfering in their peaceful and harmonious lives, and that U.S. interventionism was the root cause of 9/11 and the continued hate of the entire world? If terrorists came to America to perpetrate 9/11 because the United States has bad foreign policy, then why would they not be equally upset after a "failed experiment" in "interventionism" in Iraq? Circular logic is so much fun!
Makes you wonder, if there is no terrorist structure in America, how a relatively small number (19) of people 6 years ago managed to down 3 planes, destroy 2 buildings, damage another, and kill thousands of people. I guess they must have borrowed the cash from their rich uncle Ahkmed and planned the whole thing in their parents' garage. Darn little hoodlums. They're dead now though, so I guess we have nothing to worry about anymore.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 24, 2007
Earth’s population 07/01/07: 6,605,046,992
Chances of being hit by a comet: 1 in 80,000
Ergo, 82,563 people here hit last year by comets.
I’ve got to get a bigger umbrella. It’s raining cats, dogs and comets, and nobody’s told me!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 24, 2007
What were the odds of an American being killed by another Japanese attack after Dec. 7, 1941?
Comment by sedonaman | March 26, 2007
Phil:
While I think Eland’s thesis is ridiculous, I don't see how a 1/80,000 lifetime chance of being hit by a comet translates into 82,253 people being hit in any one year.
Also, Eland doesn’t discuss the economic loss of 9/11. Had no one been killed in that attack (hypothetically speaking), our response should have been the same.
Comment by sedonaman | March 26, 2007
Sedonaman:
You've stumbled upon the very fact that steered me away from pursuing a career in mathematics and statistics. Point taken.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 26, 2007