Anthrax, Fear and the Public

The anthrax killer, whether it was Army scientist Bruce Ivins or somebody else, has the deaths of innocent postal workers and elderly women on his hands. But what else is he responsible for?

Terrorism is war on public opinion, whether it's conducted by governments, political groups or lone nuts. Even if Ivans did it and his motives were mostly criminal – some reports say his goal might have been to promote his anthrax vaccine, which sounds like something from an episode of "Law and Order" – the target was the same.

And on this level, the anthrax attacks succeeded. Surveys show the public's fear that they or someone they love would be a victim of terrorism, reached its height in October 2001. Six in 10 were at least "somewhat" worried at that point, although only a quarter were very worried. But the anthrax attacks failed to cause a panic. Few people actually acted on their fear – polls at the time showed anywhere from 2 to 6 percent of the public admitting they stockpiled antibiotics or bought a gas mask. Of course, even that small segment of the population would be enough to clog the nation's pharmacies. And four in 10 said they were "exercising caution" in opening their mail.

But if terrorism is about public opinion, then public opinion is about context. People's attitudes are formed by the climate around them. The 9/11 attacks were one of the most traumatic events in U.S. history. An almost unheard-of 99 percent of those surveyed the week of the attacks told the ABC News/Washington Post poll that they watched or listened to news reports. Nine in ten Americans said they prayed for the victims during the day, 41 percent said they left work early, and 28 percent said they checked on relatives. For all that, the 9/11 attacks turned out to be a one-off. There was no immediate followup from al Qaeda, at least not on American soil.

The anthrax attacks, however, built the impression of a nation under siege, with Congressional office buildings closed and even the junk mail coming into your home as a potential danger. Whoever was responsible, a Newsweek poll at the time showed 63 percent believed Osama bin Laden was behind the anthrax.

Perhaps events would have unfolded the same way without the anthrax attacks. The war in Afghanistan would certainly have gone forward. Perhaps we would have still had a Guantanamo prison and a Patriot Act. Perhaps the decisions on Iraq would also have unfolded the same way. After all, the intelligence data or lack thereof was the same, and so was the mindset of the decision makers. The personal fear of terrorism was fairly high in the run-up to the Iraq war, but had bounced up and down since 2001. And single attacks certainly have lasting consequences. Every time I have to put my shoes through the airport scanner, I curse Richard Reid.

All we can say for sure is that critical decisions were made in a climate of fear heightened by the anthrax attacks. Some people do their best thinking under pressure, but the public as a whole rarely does. The public, collectively, needs time to process things and to make their best decisions, and in the fall of 2001 they didn't get it. We're still living with those decisions today, and likely, for years to come.