Actually, Obama’s right — we can ‘absorb a terrorist attack’

Many conservatives are reacting pretty strongly to Barack Obama’s line to Bob Woodward that “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever … we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

For instance, Mark Thiessen writes for the American Enterprise Institute this critique:

These are stunningly complacent words from the man responsible for stopping such a terrorist attack. Obama uttered them last July, after America suffered two near-misses—the failed attacks on Christmas Day and in Times Square. Rather than serving as a wake-up call and giving the president a sense of urgency, these attacks seem to have given the president a sense of resignation. He is effectively saying: an attack is inevitable, we’ll do our best to prevent it, but if we get hit again—even on the scale of 9/11—it’s really no big deal.

I don’t often defend the President, but I do try to interpret his words charitably. I don’t see Obama as “complacent,” but rather, realistic.

I might put his “absorb” statement this way: We don’t have a zero crime rate. As a culture, we wouldn’t accept the measures it would take to achieve a zero crime rate. Why should we demand a zero terrorism rate by any means necessary?

I thought about this after the Christmas Day undie-bomber attempt, about which Peter King said: “This could have been devastating.”

What does that mean? It resembles the talk, post 9/11, of Islamic terrorism as posing an “existential threat” to the U.S. Does anyone really think the terrorists could possibly eliminate us from this Earth.

Matt Yglesias, with whom I rarely agree on policy, and whose online rudeness makes me hesitant to cite him, had a good response to King’s statement:

The United States could not, of course, be “devastated” by anything resembling this scheme. We ought to be clear on that fact. We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.

Understanding that one terrorist attack is a horrible thing, and for the victims and their families, it is life-shattering doesn’t mean that you have to agree our government should take every step to prevent such an attack. Curfews and total surveillance of everyone all the time would do the trick, but would it be worth it?

We often make cost-benefit analyses that weigh potential deaths against other factors, like freedom, convenience, and cost. It sounds awful, but it’s real.

Sure, the President shouldn’t have said this to a reporter, but that doesn’t mean he was wrong.

Barack ObamaBeltway ConfidentialTerrorismUS

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Organizer Jas Florentino, left, explains the figures which represent 350 kidnapped Africans first sold as slaves in the United States in 1619 in sculptor Dana King’s “Monumental Reckoning.” The installation is in the space of the former Francis Scott Key monument in Golden Gate Park. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
What a reparations program would look like in The City

‘If there’s any place we can do it, it’s San Francisco’

Officer Joel Babbs at a protest outside the Hall of Justice in 2017 (Bay City News file photo)
The strange and troubling story of Joel Babbs: What it tells us about the SFPD

The bizarre and troubling career of a whistle-blowing San Francisco police officer… Continue reading

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a COVID-19 update at the City College of San Francisco mass vaccination site in April. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
Gavin Newsom under COVID: The governor dishes on his pandemic life

By Emily Hoeven CalMatters It was strange, after 15 months of watching… Continue reading

People fish at a dock at Islais Creek Park on Thursday, June 10, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
What Islais Creek tells us about rising sea levels in San Francisco

Islais Creek is an unassuming waterway along San Francisco’s eastern industrial shoreline,… Continue reading

Deputy public defender Chris Garcia outside the Hall of Justice on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
As pandemic wanes, SF public defender hopes clients will get ‘their day in court’

Like other attorneys in San Francisco, Deputy Public Defender Chris Garcia has… Continue reading

Most Read