Getting Our Money's Worth

In today's LA Times there's an analysis of the War on Terror. Judging by the authors' affiliations, I wouldn't say that it's an unbiased appraisal of the war. I'm not accusing them of being liars. Rather, someone with a more conservative bent would probably choose to highlight other numbers.

The most telling numbers havde to do with terror-related convictions. There have been several high-profile terrorist arrests (see Detroit and Lodi), and the government doesn't have a real good conviction rate in them. However, here's where the Times article is biased. It says that only two people have been convicted of terrorist related activity in the US while having international connections (note how overly specific the authors are). But, their data cutoff date is over a year ago, so it wouldn't include the guy in Lodi. One could also argue that the goal is convict people of some sort of conspiracy before they blow something up.

The greater message of the data is what have we gained in terms of security from rounding all of these people up and spending $413 billion? The numbers presented look rather bleak. But, how do they compare to conviction rates for other complicated conspiracies (e.g., gang or mafia activity)?

And, what are we to make of the human sacrifices for the war? My sense is that a majority of the 3,867 U.S. soldiers were committed to their task and mission. But, what of the estimated 80,000 Iraqis? Sure, some of them were probably killed while trying to kill their countrymen for no other reason that they type of Islam they practiced. What would the rest say about their sacrifice for the US to remake their country? Perhaps that question will be better answered in the future. Right now, it seems like an awful waste.