QUESTION: Mr. Black, the Kerry Campaign is critical of you today, I mean of the report process, and at least a couple of members of the House Democrats are critical. They see a pattern, not just here but elsewhere. The Terrorism Office has been looked at pretty much as a politically neutral, you know, people who are serious about analysis.
Wasn’t it a mistake as you look back just a couple of months for administration officials – wasn’t it poor form for administration officials to be using analytical material as examples of the President’s success in a political – in a politically charged campaign to say that this shows that he’s doing a great job? Was that right? Didn’t you sort of bring this on yourself – not you necessarily, but by being a little exuberant? The man who was most exuberant [Armitage] is on vacation now so we can’t ask him.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, the numbers are developed. TTIC provided those numbers to us and we analyzed those and we have tried to figure out what this meant, what the trends were.
QUESTION: Right.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: And I think as we’ve gone over this today, I guess one of the themes I’m trying to describe to you is the constancy: what was true then, what is true now. And there are a lot of ways to tell a story and I think the bottom line of the story remains constant: There is a global war; the terrorists need to be engaged and they are effectively being engaged; lives are being saved in this process; there has been unacceptably high loss of life and injury.
And as I pointed out, I think it is very important to look at the significant numbers of events, 175. That’s a high. That’s where most of your casualties are. And that is essentially in the realm – if you look down the chart, we have the numbers here – to 168. It’s kind of in that range. Yet if you look at the total events, you know, you can choose and you may have to decide what to weigh.
We, historically, with the patterns, the State Department has put forward, you know, the patterns of terrorism, the overall number, the composite of the Significant and the Non-Significant. I think what we need to do is take this as an opportunity to figure out, you know, what the thrust is. And I think a good argument that can be made is that we should essentially go back to an emphasis of the narrative, and to develop what is a trend that is of use to our customer, to the Secretary of State and to all of you. And if it were me, whereas, you know, we are going to work very hard to get new technology and put enough people on this problem, I think it is the trend that is important, and perhaps get a little bit away from the minutiae of the, you know, determination between a Non-Significant event and something that’s not even counted and stick with the fundamental charts.
<snip>
QUESTION: Going back to your storyline, one of the reasons that this has attracted so much interest, of course, is the trend that was drawn from those earlier remarks. And you had Deputy Secretary Armitage saying, “Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.” And what we’re wondering is whether you would make the same statement today, based on numbers that show that the number of dead has increased from 307 to 625, more than doubled; the injured have gone up from 1,500 to 3,600, almost 150 percent. Secretary Powell said that, well, Rich Armitage was saying something based on a report that was, in fact, wrong.
Now that we know these numbers, would you say that the Bush Administration, in fact, and the report shows and that there is clear evidence that you’re prevailing in the war on terrorism?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, I mean, I think we have to look at the numbers and consider them. I think it is important to emphasize, as you pointed out, the general thrust of the pattern of global terrorism. I mean, just as an aside, you know, the figure that you’re pointing out in terms of injured, too, if you look in 1998, there were 5,952, and that’s larger than the ones up above.
I think the way I would characterize it is that, and as the President has stated, this is a war of uncertain duration. It is global. You have Islamic extremist terrorists, primarily, that are focusing on the United States and leading nations in the global war on terrorism, and that the significant loss of life so far has been non-American. I think the fight is underway and it is the international relationships that we have with foreign countries that will allow us to prevail. We are determined to prevail. And I think as time goes by, we increasingly make improved progress in counterterrorism efficiency.
<snip>
QUESTION: Yes. Ambassador Black, aren’t you even now, with the corrected numbers, understating the problem? You said that terrorism – terrorist incidents are down from where they were in 2001. In fact, if you look at Significant events, which are the ones, by definition, that we care about – this is where there are casualties –
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Have gone up.
QUESTION: – have gone up and are at a 20-year high. Is it not right – they’re at a 20-year high with these new numbers?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: That is correct, in terms of the 175 figure.
QUESTION: A 20-year high. Why didn’t you mention that? I mean, it’s not in the report. You have this – the spin seems to be here that we’re in a situation where, yeah, it’s up a little bit from last year but it’s not as high as it was in 2001. But what matters, the Significant events, a 20-year high. That’s a different story.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: I think you need – well, what I’m trying to get to is, you know, one can emphasize various things. I think in my statement I’ve repeatedly said Significant events, and I pointed out 175, I said it is a high, that is true. You know, it is a high statistically. There are other, you know, there are other – 168 is a reasonably close figure. You know, you can look at this and I guess it’s like a Rorschach test. You know, you can see what you want.
What I’m trying to do is stick with the aspects of counterterrorism. I think this gives an opportunity to make a product, a publication, that is increasingly useful to people. You are – if you’re looking for me to say it – which I have said repeatedly, 175 is a high –
QUESTION: A 20-year high.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: The significance of that, I think, is right there, 175. It is close to 168. And, you know, I think that the significant change is in terms of the casualties in a very small number of attacks. You know, you’ve got basically last year almost 50 percent. You know, it depends. What we’re trying to do is count in a meaningful way, and if you look at last year, 2003, almost 50 percent of the casualties, the killed and wounded, come from 11 attacks. And included – I should get –
QUESTION: This was last year?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah, this was last year. But over – I mean, it is significant. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not arguing. I’m just trying to give some perspective of that. What would be considered as a major attack – and I have to find a piece of paper here just to jog my memory – as an example. This was determined by the interagency panel, but terrorism, whether it’s Significant or Insignificant, is a function of this interagency panel of experts that come together and validate. And as an example of a low-end, what I would consider a low-end incident, would be: In Spain, on 8 September of 2003, Madrid, Spain, authorities safely diffused a partial bomb hidden in a book that was sent to the Greek consulate. According to press reports, authorities suspected an anarchist group is responsible.
Okay. Now that would be carried as an incident. Okay? And what is the – when you weigh these things, what is the value of that incident in terms of the 11 incidents that produce 50 percent of the casualties?
I’m not trying to argue. I’m just trying to say that there is, I think, a better way of looking at this, a lot better way to present it, perhaps, than we have with these kinds of numbers.
QUESTION: But, if I could, let me follow up on that point. Your first report said that the number of terrorist incidents, it didn’t give us Significant or “Insignificant” terrorists incidents, was at a 34-year low.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Correct.
QUESTION: Now this report says “Significant events,” those that we care about, those that cause death, serious injury, and more than $10,000 in damage, are at a 20-year high. Doesn’t that not only mean a difference in the charts here, but also in the first sentence of your conclusion that we have made significant progress in the two and a half years in the global war?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: We have made significant progress. We have presented, historically, the overall total of Significant and Non-Significant combined. And this is what we originally published, the 190, This is what’s been updated and adjudicated, 208. And if you see that, that statistically is true. The 175 is high. You can choose that statistic. You can choose another one, you know. It’s what we’re trying to do is to present, I think, the essence of it.
I think it has significance that the numbers of incidents, you know, the Significant and “Insignificant” were, I think, it was like at a 34-year low. I do think it is also very important, as I have pointed out, the 175 figure, it’s just previously, historically, that’s not what we presented. And, in fact, you know, the presentation of a chronology is also an option that we put in. We, historically, also have not published the Non-Significant events which we have presented to you today.