The French problem is our problem…
France has declared war on jihadist extremists. The rest of Europe is at war with them too. And we are at war with these radicals. Indeed, the modern world should be at war with them. There’s nothing “modern” about this fanatical thinking, this barbaric insult to true Islam and false ideology. It’s old thinking, a fanatical vision of how much better it would be to return to the simpler days of the early Middle Ages, of Ayatollahs and warrior chieftans, feudal lords and lowly serfs, a social structure built on the primitive foundations of theologically justified despotism. Never mind the ironies—terrorists using the internet and high-powered modern weapons to further their cause while spewing their retrograde ideologies eschewed by good people everywhere, including truly devout Muslims. Terrorist minds are dark, evil minds, living in dark lives and thinking dark, fanatical thoughts.
But France and the rest of the world face a conundrum: how can we preserve the freedoms we enjoy and what many others yearn to enjoy when faced with these practitioners of evil? What is the right balance between a civilized society and thugs who would tear it down? Modern living also breeds frustration, especially among poor and exploited immigrants, and France has perhaps ignored that for too long. Out of frustration and despair with one’s lot in life, some people are bound to lash out—it’s only human nature. When they become violent, they can use any religion or ideology to justify their actions, a dangerous rationalization, a contagious mental virus that could destroy the rest of humanity. How many of our freedoms do we surrender to prevent the spread of this contagion?
The answer to that question is simple: as many as we need to. To surrender to terrorism is unthinkable. I don’t happen to agree with Charlie Hebdo’s satirical lampooning of Islam and other religions—and that’s a valid opinion–but I would have done more to protect those journalists who expressed those opinions. Having only one cop on duty was unconscionable, especially considering the firebombing a few years ago. In the same way, the first attack on the WTC was a warning that we ignored in this country (that’s a part of the Clintons’ legacy). Hindsight is 20-20, but we should be vigilant and not overlook the warnings we receive. Je ne suis pas Charlie…but I’ll defend his right to say what he chooses to say. Still, we can’t expect fanatics to have a sense of humor. The French magazine’s attack on Islam was the red flag to terrorist bulls, but the words and cartoons are hardly comparable to automatic weapons, even though they can eventually be more powerful. We have to protect that freedom of expression.
Given that commitment, how can we put it into practice if we don’t acquire usable intel and put it to use? The former requires surveillance, anathema to the ACLU and many progressives in the U.S. In this country, the irony is that religious conservatives would have tried to put Charlie Hebdo out of business too—not in so violent a fashion—because it satirizes all religions. It’s doubtful it could even have existed as a campus newspaper, especially at places like Bob Jones U. We call it “political correctness” or PC-behavior for short—this attitude that no one can say or write anything that can be construed to be ethnically, racially, sexually, or religiously charged—but it’s hypocritical when you think of the stands many take against ideas in order to push their own, let alone stands against surveillance. If my neighbor is plotting a terrorist attack, I want to know about it. If you’re a terrorist, your rights end when you threaten innocent people—some of those people might be my relatives and friends. Moreover—and here’s the cruncher—if I’m going off the deep end and showing desires to kill someone, I’d like someone to stop me before it’s too late, because there must be something coming unwired in my head.
The two terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo were on our No Fly List. Authorities knew that one brother was trained by Al Qaeda in Yemen. I’m guessing he returned and trained the other one, and maybe the fellow who attacked the kosher market too. This situation isn’t a novel one. The bombers of the Boston Marathon share a similar story. I’ll grant that France and other European countries have too many radicals and sleeper cells—poor immigrants from Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East represent their pool of cheap labor, and some become radicalized. It’s impossible to watch them all. Automated surveillance is required. Everyone traveling to terrorist strongholds should have cell phone conversations and internet communications monitored upon their return. That’s a price we need to pay if we’re going to win this war and defend our remaining freedoms—in particular, the freedom of speech, the right to express our opinions.
France dropped the ball on this one, just as we did for 9/11, the Boston Marathon, and other terrorist attacks, whether home-grown or not. A new bombing in Germany, at a publication that republished some of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, has just occurred. We both have all paid a dear price. Let’s make a New Year’s resolution in 2015 to do a better job. Yes, we should value our freedoms. Having them and enjoying them should motivate us to protect them…at all costs. Going after terrorist strongholds in Yemen would be a start—collaboration, good intel, drones, and Special Forces ops are still our best weapons for that—but an increased vigilance of what’s going on around us and efficient surveillance of recognized radicals is a better long-term policy. Prevention is good medicine. “Wait, see, and strike when necessary” needs to become our battle cry in this war. The survival of civilization is at stake.
And so it goes….
