In the wake of the Paris terrorist murder sprees, a media narrative that the U.S. is somehow less vulnerable to terrorist attacks than countries in Europe has arisen.
The reasons given for this contention would be uproariously funny if the stakes weren't so serious: "Geography and strict travel restrictions." Additionally, according to the report where the meme appears to have originated, there is "one measure" which makes the U.S. "arguably" more vulnerable: guns.
The report in the UK Guardian has been quoted in the kinds of quick-hit news sources low-information news consumer would consult at sites like Yahoo and MSN. The latter has a summary of the Guardian report linking to a related vieo posted in its Pop Culture, Health Watch, Lifestyle and (really) Food and Drink sections. It would be a mistake to underestimate the effectiveness of such "news" dissemination in making less-informed Americans receptive to the outrageous criticisms leveled by President Obama and others at anyone who dares to question the wisdom of plans to accept well over 10,000 Syrian refugees.
Here are excerpts from the original (bolds and numbered tags are mine):
Should Americans fear an attack like those in Paris?
Counter-terrorism experts largely agree that the US doesn’t face the same risks as Europe, though the Paris attack showed the reach of Isis extremists
... Counter-terrorism experts largely agree that the US does not face the same risks as Europe, even though two weeks of international attacks – 129 dead in France, 224 dead on a Russian passenger jet leaving Egypt, 43 dead in Lebanon – have forced intelligence analysts and administration officials to concede that they underestimated the reach of Islamic State extremists.
How is the U.S. different?
Facing the latest incarnation of terrorism, the US has at least two advantages it has counted on for centuries: geography and strict travel restrictions. [1] Travel between the US and the Middle East has always been markedly more difficult than with Europe. Since the early 1900s – then spurred by fears of anarchist terrorism – the US has poured huge amounts of money and policy into screening, security and surveillance.
The US also has a long history of cooperation with Mexican and Canadian border authorities, forcing people to either pass through customs or across terrain so inhospitable it has killed hundreds and pushed thousands into border patrol custody.
“There are oceans between us and Isis,” former (Clinton administration) White House official Heather Hurlburt told the Guardian. “That sounds kind of dumb, but when you’re talking about logistically sophisticated attacks it’s non-trivial.” [2]
“Post-9/11 the US really tried to deal with this problem of coordination,” [3] Hurlburt said. “And as hard as intelligence or police coordination in the US is, you multiply that by the number of entities that you’re dealing with in Europe and it’s that much more difficult.”
Is the US dangerous in some way?
... Arguably by one measure – guns – yes. [4]
... Do refugess play a part?
Not really, for the US at least. The American refugee screening process is a 12- to 18-month slog of bureaucracy, interviews and persistence [5], and the people who make it to the US almost never seek out trouble once they’ve landed. Since 9/11 the US has taken in more than 780,000 refugees, only three of whom have been arrested on terrorism charges, according to the State Department and Migration Policy Institute.
“Refugees don’t get to come directly to the US,” Hurlburt said. “Usually you sit in a UN camp for months or more likely years, because we just don’t take anyone who seems even slightly dodgy.”
Notes:
[1] — Although the writeup mentions the Septebmer 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., it doesn't seem to have penetrated the craniums of anyone involved in this story that almost 3,000 died in those attacks, which are considered the worst ever committed.
[2] — It doesn't just "sound kind of dumb," it is really dumb. "Geography and travel restrictions (cough, cough)" didn't stop 9/11.
[3] — Sadly, as Elise Cooper at American Thinker explained five years ago, much of the law-enforcement wall which enabled the 9/11 attacks to be successful is still there.
[4] — Even the Secretary General of Interpol, a person who might be expected to be in favor of disarming everyday people, has stated that an armed citzenry might be an answer to terrorism, and that "police around the world (should) question their views on gun control."
[5] — That assessment is completely at odds with reality. As an Investor's Business Daily editorial noted on Tuesday:
- "Washington has no role in selecting the thousands of Syrian refugees coming to your hometown. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is really behind the effort."
- "The FBI director and his top counterterrorism aide, as well as the Homeland Security and National Intelligence chiefs, have all testified" that refugess "security screening is a joke."
Finally, none of these "experts" or their media mouthpieces recognize the clinching argument which completely destroys their "the risk isn't as bad" contention, namely that ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups hate the U.S. far more than any nation on earth.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
