The Danger of an Over-Emphasis on AQ
Matt Yglesias links to the following piece from Spencer Ackerman:
Analysts Question Al-Qaeda Efforts at Counterterrorism Center « The Washington Independent
Only half of NCTC’s roughly 300 analysts focus directly on al-Qaeda — with some analyzing terror groups that do not threaten the United States, like the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka or the Hamas radicals of the Gaza Strip.
Half of the analysts focus on AQ. Last year there were over 1,500 terrorist attacks by Islamist groups alone. Perhaps a dozen have a direct AQ-central connection. AQ is responsible for about 1/10 of one percent of Islamist attacks. And Islamist attacks make up less than half of all terrorist attacks around the world. Yeah, the Tamils may not be a threat to the U.S. today, but do we really want to wholly ignore violent non-state actors who have engaged in terrorism in the past? I mean, what percentage of our NCTC analysts do you think should actually be focused on AQ given that AQ is responsible for – at most 1/3000th of global terrorist incidents?
I agree that AQ is a serious national security threat. But we need to get out of this crazy “lessons of 9/11” mindset. We cannot allow the actions of 19 thugs with box-cutters taking advantage of lax cockpit security measures to define American national security policy for a generation or more.
Focusing monomaniacally on AQ is one sure way to guarantee that we will be caught unaware by emerging national security challenges. We need a balance. We need to focus on AQ, and yet continue to collect on other threats. We need to “win the wars we’re in” and yet also build a force for the future. Balance is key. And if anything, having half the NCTC focused on AQ is probably too much, not too little.
