Global Literacy or Idiocy?

Newsweek must have spun their non-news wheel again and landed on that trustworthy holier-than-thou wedge that suggests yet another story about what people think they know, but get wrong. The funny thing this time is not that more people can name Jordin Sparks than John Roberts, but that some of their own questions are iffy, belying their own focus on the popular rather than the substantive.

First, their question about how many countries have nukes was an adventure in patriots vs. realists, and fear-mongers vs. skeptics. The first seven are pathetically easy: US, Russia, England, France, China, Pakistan, and India. None of them deny, all have done obviously successful tests. Next there's Israel, which, please remember, officially has nothing. Does acknowledging that they do make one as dangerous to the state of Israel as Mordechi Vanunu? (Aside: Isn't it interesting that when Vanunu tells the truth about his government's activities, it lands him in jail, but when Libby lies about his, he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card . . . ) And then there's North Korea, which should really just be awarded the Participation Ribbon of nuclear proliferation. Their one test threw off some radiation, but most analysts say that the bomb test was a bomb (in the it-didn't-really-work sense). So is it really fair to add them to the list when they probably couldn't hit a internet cafe in Seoul with what they've got?

And then, in the most bizarre question of any You-are-Dumb test I've ever seen, they ask if we're winning the fight against Al Qaeda. Here's how they summarize the results: "roughly half the poll's respondents (52 percent) think that the United States is losing the fight against (bin Laden's) terror group, Al Qaeda, despite no military defeats or recent terrorist attacks to suggest as much."

What an interesting thing to say when Al Qaeda is floating around all over the place, and has successfully executed or planned attacks on our allies on a regular basis. The idea that we must be winning because there hasn't been an attack in the U.S. is preposterous (Napoleon to troops: We must be winning the invasion of Russia! How do I know this? Not a single Russian attack has been made on Paris!) The funniest part is that as I'm typing this very post, the top story on the Newsweek website is "The Return of Al Qaeda: A New National Intelligence Estimate Raises Concerns that the Terrorist Group is Growing Stronger." That raises a fascinating possibility:
Newsweek's editors think that we're winning, but implying that we may be losing sells more magazines (and they wonder why 52% think that's true).

But, of course, that question relies on a belief that I just don't share: that you can really tell who's winning or losing a struggle with terrorists when you're stuck right in the middle of it. Sometimes you can't even tell for sure when it's over. So, who's winning: ETA or the Spanish Government? Who won: the British Parliament or the IRA? Even before the first NATO soldier arrived in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had a nearly decade-long history of attacking intermittently with long stretches between operations. It is far too easy to mistake a tactical decision on their side for a success on ours. And with an ever-expanding list of affiliated organizations we could destroy Al Qaeda only to find ourselves deep in the muck with it's varied brethren. It seems to me that when you have doctors signing on for terrorist operations, you can't plausibly say the movement is on the outs. Declaring victory against Al Qaeda is a bit like declaring victory against the water in my basement: every time it rains and the floor stays dry, I'm a bit more confident, but it'll take a lot of rainstorms before I can be sure.