**December 27, 2005 FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project
Activity Report**

\(1\) DHS/FEMA RELATED EDITORIALS:

Palm Beach Post (Editorial). \"Get FEMA Untangled.\" December 27, 2005.

Accessed at:

<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/12/27/a8a_femabill_edit_1227.html>

Washington Post (Editorial)/ \"Saga of Incompetence.\" December 26,
2005. Accessed at:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500458_pf.html>

\(2\) KATRINA RELATED ARTICLES:

Warner, Coleman. \"Many Made Fatal Choice To Stay Behind.\" New Orleans
Times-Picayune, December 27, 2005. Accessed at:

<http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/11356667648850.xml>

\(3\) TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY:

The journal \"Terrorism and Political Violence\" (Vol. 17, Autumn 2005,
No. 4) is out. Starts with an interesting and provocative article by
John Mueller, Department of Political Science, Ohio State University,
followed by three commentaries and his response. Dr. Mueller\'s article
is entitled \"Six Rather Unusual Propositions About Terrorism\" (pp.

487-505).

Abstract of Mueller\'s article: \"The costs of terrorism very often come
mostly from the fear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) it
characteristically inspires (qualities stocked by the terrorism industry
\[described on pp. 492-493 as \'various risk entrepreneurs and
bureaucrats\...most of the media and nearly all politicians.\'\], not
from its direct effects which are usually comparatively limited.
Therefore, policies designed to deal with terrorism should focus more on
reducing fear and anxiety as inexpensively as possible than on
objectively reducing the rather limited dangers terrorism is likely
actually to pose. Doing nothing (or at least refraining from
overreactioning) after a terrorist attack is not necessarily
unacceptable\....\"

Richard K. Betts, Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia
University, provides the first commentary, entitled \"Maybe I\'ll Stop
Driving\" (pp. 507-510). In it he states \"You won\'t get me to ridicule
the argument Mueller makes here because it is in large part persuasive.

He points out clear irrationalities in how the risks of some lethal
events are judged and in what people choose to fear (p. 507).\"

\"Mueller\'s main points are that events like September 11 are extreme
and rare; that more destructive attacks by weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) are even more improbable; and that even if September 11-scale
disasters occur periodically, their material costs will remain lower
than the casualty rates from other activities such as driving that we
blithely accept as the cost of doing business\" P. 508). \"In deriding
concern about terrorist use of WMD Mueller is in peculiarly good
company. Some of the best terrorism experts, such as David C. Rapoport,
Paul Pillar, and Bruce Hoffman have adamantly opposed focusing on this
threat\" (p.508). \"But they miss the main point.\"

The 2nd commentary is that of Daniel Byman, Center for Peace and
Security Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Washington,
DC, entitled \"A Corrective That Goes Too Far?\" (pp. 511-516). From his

abstract: \"John Mueller\'s six propositions are a welcome corrective to
many of the exaggerated, even breathless, declarations about the threat
of terrorism today. It is hard to fault Mueller\'s general theme about
the \'false sense of insecurity\' that many Americans
have\....Mueller\'s propositions, however, have two limits. First, they
skewer the fears of \'housewives in Iowa\' but, as a result, neglect
some of the very real dangers that terrorism can pose. Al Qaeda in
particular has conducted attacks that have \'strategic\' effects and,
staying with Mueller\'s actuarial approach, have contributed to the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by creating and sustaining
insurgencies. Second, Mueller exaggerates the ability of policy makers
to \'manage\' public opinion on terrorism\...\" (p. 511).

The 3rd commentary is by Martha Crenshaw, Wesleyan University, entitled
\"A Welcome Antidote\" (pp. 517-521). Dr. Crenshaw begins with \"John
Mueller\'s observations\...are\...a welcome antidote to the seemingly
endless speculative scenarios with which we have been regaled since
September 11\... However, experience indicates that such efforts to put
the threat of terrorism in perspective are unlikely to have much
political impact. Mueller\'s conclusion that the war on terrorism is
\'nearly over\' is also open to question\" (p. 517).

Amongst the other articles in this edition:

Max Abrams, \"Al Qaeda\'s Miscommunication War: The Terrorism Paradox,\"

(pp. 529-549).

Also not the book review section, and the review by Christopher Harmon
(Marine Corps University, Quantico), of Stephen Flynn\'s book \"America
the Vulnerable: How Our Government is Failing to Protect Us from
Terrorism.\" (pp. 641-645).

To subscribe to \"Terrorism and Political Violence,\" in North America,
contact Taylor & Francis Inc., 215-625-8900.

\(4\) WHAT SHOULD WE CALL WHAT WE DO?:

See, \"By Any Other Name\...Continued,\" letter to the editor in
\"Continuity Insights, Vol. 3, No. 6, November/December 2005m pp. 12-13.

B.Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., CEM

Higher Education Project Manager

Emergency Management Institute

National Emergency Training Center

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Department of Homeland Security

16825 S. Seton, N-430

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

\(301\) 447-1262, voice

\(301\) 447-1598, fax

wayne.blanchard@dhs.gov

[[http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu]{.underline}](http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu)

"Please note: Some of the Web sites linked to in this document are not
federal government Web sites, and may not necessarily operate under the
same laws, regulations, and policies as federal Web sites."