Risk of Death by Islamic Fundamentalist
An unfortunate group of very loud Americans have started to describe themselves as “tough-minded” in explaining why they wish to engage in some dangerous and un-American policies. Banning Muslim refugees and immigrants; putting refugees into religious sorting centers; and sending troops abroad are all defended as necessary for a tough-minded war against the real threat of Islamic Fundamentalism.
The typical defender of this aggressive, militarized nationalist response will say “hey, I’m sorry it’s not the most politically correct thing to do, but I’ve got to put safety first.” They are not fascists, you see, nor are they racists — they’re just realists. As recently stated by the so-called “American Freedom Defense Initiative” (which endorses Ted Cruz), “It’s Not Islamophobia, It’s Islamorealism.”
Islamorealism: How Great Is The Risk Of Islamic Terror In America?
American today has over 300 million people. The CDC tracks annual death rates. Heart disease claims over 720 thousand per year; cancer, 500 thousand; strokes, 140 thousand; and lung disease, pneumonia, the flu, liver disease, and diabetes together take another 250 thousand. Unintentional injuries, such as deaths by motor vehicle, take another 90 thousand American lives per year.
The Economist Magazine helpfully provided a graph, to the left, showing your risk of dying in America. Heart disease and accidents top the list.
Walking is pretty dangerous too — it gives you a 1 in 50 thousand chance of death.
Suicide claims almost 30,000 American lives per year — or about 1 in 10,000 Americans.
So, how does that compare with Islamic terror in America?
Over a dozen Americans were killed in this recent mass shooting, and those were tragic deaths, as were the four American deaths in Benghazi.
But to keep things in perspective, let’s imagine that Islamic terrorism were to increase in severity and consistency. None of us want this, and of course we should do all we can to stop that, but let’s assume that it happens — and that Islamic terrorists kill as many as 30 Americans per year. That, in turn, would represent 1 in 10 million Americans per year. That means that Islamic terrorism would be significantly less of a threat than dying from falling out of bed, or drowning in a bath tub, or falling off a ladder. Indeed, the average US citizen would still be a THOUSAND TIMES MORE LIKELY TO TAKE THEIR OWN LIFE BY SUICIDE than to be killed by an Islamic fundamentalist. Or, as another researcher explained, “you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist.”
Of course, mass shootings are especially scary. It may not matter to the person who’s been killed whether they died individually or in a mass shooting, but media hype makes mass shootings feel somehow uniquely uncontrollable. So, what are the risks of a mass shooting, and how do those risks vary by Islamic fundamentalist vs. others? The chart below, from Adam Khan, gives a great visual sense:
OK, maybe the threat has been exaggerated — so what?
So what are the costs to America for violent overreaction to a very specific and small threat from terrorism? We already saw from our overwhelming intervention in Iraq that we will spend trillions of dollars that could have been alternatively spent on other, more-effective investments, ranging from domestic infrastructure investments here in the USA, to better scientific research, to foreign aid to preserve US influence and soft power overseas, to military investments designed to counter rising China. We also know from Iraq that we will lose the lives of many brave American soldiers. We also know that attacking a religious and ethnic minority is against the best ideals of our country. But will we be more safe?
No. We will be less safe. Sealing our borders to Muslims and launching military adventures overseas will hand a huge propaganda victory to those who hate us, making it much easier for them to recruit armies of attackers. Such an approach will catastrophically weaken America’s overseas “soft power,” our diplomatic strength that allows us to coordinate with other nations to protect American interests. We will also lose all of the future patriots represented by refugee families trying to come here and become hardworking and productive Americans.
The instinct to fight back, hard, against an unfamiliar and deadly threat is a powerful one. As described by Carl Sagan, this instinct is rooted deep in our emotional makeup, based upon how our species evolved in the plains of Africa. But it is grounded in emotion, not rationality. In this case, isolationist immigration policies combined wtih a heavy military response would dramatically weaken American security.
