Matt Johnson

*This article was originally published in The Topeka Capital-Journal, May 28, 2016. 

If you’re having a conversation about the past 15 years of U.S. foreign policy, here’s one of the most sophisticated-sounding things you can say: “On average, more Americans are killed every year by lightning strikes … ” There are plenty of variations you can use — instead of “lightning strikes,” try “bathtub mishaps,” “toddlers with guns” or “falling furniture.” Anything will work, as long as it makes terrorism sound laughably trivial.

These aren’t arbitrary examples — they were recently used in Foreign Policy Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post.

Why are so many writers and analysts enthralled with this sneering, dismissive argument? It’s true that our bulbous homeland security apparatus is grossly inefficient, our efforts to eradicate global terrorism appear to be failing and evidence of effective terror-prevention is generally unavailable. But these aren’t reasons to treat terrorism like a negligible problem — especially with empty jeers like the ones above. Acts of terror may not typically cause cataclysmic damage, but their consequences extend far beyond the death toll.

Read the full article in The Topeka Capital-Journal.