I don't think it's binary choice. The statistics call into question if we should ever decide to launch a full scale invasion due to the threat of terrorism, but

I don't think it's binary choice. The statistics call into question if we should ever decide to launch a full scale invasion due to the threat of terrorism, but isn't arguing against ending safety measures currently in place. 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.