The State Department has just released a report on Nigeria. The section outlining US interest in Nigeria is very interesting as it provides insight into the way the State Department thinks about framing US national security. It states, in part:

Government neglect is provoking disaffection that, if left unchecked, could lead to the growth of insurgency or even terrorism. Increased desertification in the North and a growing population mean increased competition for already scant land and water resources. In the South, where unemployment among youths is wide spread, vandalism against infrastructure such as pipelines is almost a way of life. Newly armed groups of youths readily join in the sabotage activities and kidnappings, upping the stakes for control of the energy resources of this area.  Nigeria is also haunted by ethnic and political conflicts that have erupted in violence on multiple occasions in recent years.

The key word in the paragraph is could, not terrorism. Sure, terrorism could rise because of the issues the paragraph highlights. Or it might not. Who knows? But you can never be too sure, so let’s assume that there will be terrorism and act preemptively to fight it. This sounds reasonable, does it not?

No, it’s not reasonable at all. The problem is that if the government defines terrorism as the problem and commits to throwing lots of money at that problem, we provide an incentive for people working in all sorts of areas to say their work is critical to fighting terrorism, thus reinforcing the myth of how big of a problem it is, even if, in reality, its not much of a problem for us at all.

Josh Rogin at the Cable and Patrick Barry at Democracy Arsenal have more.