When "doing something" is worse than "doing nothing", then yes we should do nothing. Off the top of my head, the things we've done because of 9/11:
* Create DHS
* Begin TSA security theater
* Start illegal NSA metadata collection program
* Afghanistan + Iraq ("not related", but had support from misinformed public) wars.
A good thing I can think of: more secure cockpit doors. On balance, yeah, I wish we had done nothing after 9/11. On the other hand it's not impossible for good actions as a result, but we have a pretty bad track record of it.
The importance of putting the _actual_ consequences in perspective is to let you at least consider that maybe we don't have to do anything sometimes. It's like the 80/20 rule or anything with diminishing marginal returns: to actually achieve flat out 100% safety and security is going to be an extremely expensive endeavor both in monetary terms and in how our society and ideals have to change.
Your comment presents a false dichotomy between the particular responses they took and doing nothing.
It ignores the possibilities of other courses of action, by implying that if the particular responses they took were poor then the best option therefore must be to do nothing.
BTW. GP forgot to add - terrorizing Pakistan. US drone strikes themselves killed about as many civilians as 9/11 attacks.
I dispute your claim that every possible option other than doing nothing would be worse than doing nothing. What's your justification for that claim?
Now sure, some people will look at pages of facts and figures about death statistics. But a lot of people will think "I had to wait in line for a long time at the airport while they did security stuff, so I must be safe." And that's the job of government, to deal with problems that are on the minds of citizens.
That's exactly what they're supposed to do, because it is the best course of action against terrorism. Not because "ignoring your enemy" is wise, but because "terrorism" is the name we give to the form of attack that weaponizes you doing something - out of fear or anger. There is no value to the enemy in blowing up a bus. Killing a bunch of civilians is an effort wasted. But, if their deaths can get you to change your policies - start a war, or institute a police state, or something - then the attack has achieved its purpose.
TL;DR: remember that in terrorist attacks, deaths are just collateral damage - means to an end.
Doing nothing would mean leaving the whole country to go down the drain with multiple generations scarred by war, atrocities, tribalism, lawlessness, etc. That's why advanced countries typically go in and try to tamp things out, sometimes the results are less than desirable, but doing nothing surely seals their fate --as it does to many countries in Africa (where international African forces nominally are in charge, but typically do little, are ineffective, corrupt)
If you mean middle eastern terrorism jumping over into the west, I think it's fair to say that if they could, they would strike, but the threat has been managed well with the security precautions in place, but that's not to say they aren't trying to overcome their shortcomings.
Just looking at history, you realize that all these groups labeled as terrorists, and I say labeled because many others go by under the radar, such as the KKK, all spawned from conflicted area where the political powers were sabotaging the stability. Either through corrupt governments or international mingling and occupation.
There is no message and the article never draws any conclusions so it's up to the reader to decide what the data proves. It would be silly to believe that this is somehow trying to excuse terrorism, it's like letting a murderer go because car accidents killed more than he did that year.
Another way to put it is if the threat of terrorism is so low, should we direct investment into terrorism versus other initiatives? If we were a start-up we'd determine the most efficient way to deploy capital to have the maximum lives saved.
Something the article ignores is really taking into account efficiency of preventative measures and money spent on those measures.
Calling terrorists "enemies" is giving them way too much credit. The USSR was an enemy of the USA. Terrorists are a highly vocal criminal nuisance by comparison. Terror only works if you are terrorized.
That seems to be a poor stance to take against one's adversaries. It puts them in a better position over you that improves the likelihood of another attack occurring. The current rate is associated with our current amount of "security". Surely lowering the vigilance and thus lowering the security would just make matters worse!