We merely conclude from the available evidence (as opposed to those non-quantifiable "what ifs") that it is NOT the greatest threat facing the US, and it should not be the number one priority for this country. Terrorism should, of course, be considered in our military and domestic planning- but the number one priority? Difficult to justify that logically. (If you use fear and "what ifs" you can justify anything, so best not to go that route.)
..reacting to threats based on a metric of liklihood [sic] of occurrence, number of casualties, and rationality of response.
Since I think that a lot of the available evidence is secret, I seriously doubt that you have any earthly idea what the phrase "available evidence" as used in your post means. Nevertheless, since you claim knowledge concerning the extent of the "available evidence," I suppose you wouldn't mind stating the facts (not suppositions, intuitive feelings, etc.) on which you base the contention that terrorism should not be our first national priority.
Do you have any idea what the likelihood of occurrence of a catastrophic terror act might be at this point in time? If so, on what do you base such an idea?
Since you don't think that terrorism should be our foremost priority, it follows that present funding for anti-terrorist efforts should be reduced. Which policies being pursued now by the Administration would you discard as being useless? To which would you reduce funding? Here's a list, but feel free to add to it as you deem appropriate [I assume you know the amount of the funding for each item, though I doubt that you have any inkling of the actual sums]:
1.- airport and airline security;
2.- CIA and other intelligence agency funding to the extent it deals with terrorism;
3.- efforts to track down and eliminate proven terrorists such as Bin Laden;
4.- port security, including efforts to inspect and determine the contents of shipping containers;
5.- increased funding of Special Forces;
6.- efforts to track down nuclear proliferators;
7.- tracking of terrorist funds.
My point is that all you are doing, though you don't seem to know it, is clothing your dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration in language that on closer inspection is logically unsound. I personally consider it ludicrous.
Many of the things that are subject of the war on terror are unknown by people like you and me. The "available evidence" to us is probably like a grain in a sandbox. And this, for obvious reasons, is how it should be.
You do not seem to understand that at a very elemental level, the matter is one of trust. If you don't trust the administrative and management skills of the Bush Administration, say so. It's OK, and it would be fair commentary. Moreover, it would be a lot more intellectually honest than suggesting that you have some special insight (factually based on "available evidence") into whether the war on terror should or should not be our first national priority. |
