These attacks are not the first, nor the last, Muslim horror show Europeans must endure. A sane policy would start with border control; after all, Muslims are not native to Europe, and recent refugees were among the attackers. It seems pretty simple to me: no Muslims in your country equals no Muslim extremists killing your people. This group is simply not worth the risk. No more should be brought in, and those already among us should be encouraged to leave. They, quite simply, do not belong.
The bang-for-the-buck of border control is significantly higher than the neoconservatives’ attempts to accomplish something with wars, drones, and never-ending attempts to practice diplomacy and social engineering at gunpoint, as in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.
Indeed, I am not convinced anything the West and its military power can do–short of genocide–will eliminate Muslim extremism. It is simply part of the terrain of the world, like African poverty or North Korean bellicosity. The only thing I believe we can do is create barriers to entry and limit our interactions with this disorderly, hostile part of the world. In other words, we should do the same thing upwardly mobile people do domestically by avoiding the ghetto and ensconcing themselves in safe, gated communities. There, as in the international arena, we don’t expect all crime to disappear. The point is to create a space in which one can live his life among friends, without the undue burden of constant disruption by hostile forces. That is the most basic purpose of countries in general.
Anyway, the attacks were horrible, but they’re not the least bit surprising. We’ve seen previews in the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the killing of Theo van Goth. America can expect something like this again; let’s not forget we’ve already had the 9/11 bombings, the Nidal Hasan shootings, and the Boston Bombings, along with dozens of other lesser attacks. Remember Chatanooga? Arkansas? The shoe bomber? The failed Times Square bombing?
Foreign policy has very little to do with how we can effectively respond to Islamic terrorism. Such terrorism is easily contained and restricted to the Middle East through immigration policy. Islamic terrorists have essentially no means to project power and harm us absent our immigration policies. And it’s not so clear they would be nearly as obsessed with us if were were not also obsessed with them, involved in their wars, and determined to have them live among us. It is ironic that Obama said ISIS was mostly contained on the eve of these attacks. They certainly were not, and their power grows in proportion to the number of Muslims in western countries. Obama is simply engaging in magical thinking here to support his own political prestige.
Each Muslim newcomer is a potential recruit or sympathizer for ISIS, and no such recruits or sympathizers capable of harming the West would exist without ongoing, high-rate Muslim immigration. Obama has done nothing to stop this immigration–indeed, he has been bragging on twitter about increasing the number of Syrian refugees to 100,000–and, indeed, there is little evidence our desultory bombing campaign has accomplished much of note to harm ISIS in a meaningful way. And the focus on ISIS and al Qaeda before it misses something importnat. ISIS is just a manifestation of a larger problem of Islamic extremism, of which al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, al Nusra, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, and a bunch of other groups are a part.
European leaders are similar to the US. They are allowing these immigrants as proof of their multicultural bona fides, as well as a means of propping up the support of Europe’s domestic leftists. A thinking man might notice Israel is not taking in any of these refugees–supposedly the right thing to do–even as it dragoons us into wars against Assad and demands Europe deals with the refugee aftermath of that campaign. You may also notice Assad, whom we have opposed, is fighting ISIS and protecting Christians. So why would Israel, at once, oppose Muslim immigration to itself, support Muslim immigration to Europe and America, and cajole us into fighting Assad, while not fighting him or ISIS directly?
It seems pretty obvious Israel has leveraged their supposed “great friendship” with the US for us to do their dirty work. They’re not as concerned about Islamic terrorism in general, but rather the security of their state, of which they consider hostile state powers like Syria and Iran more relevant than mere terrorists, such as ISIS. After all, Israel originally nurtured Hamas to oppose the PLO.
But the immigration thing is a little puzzling. But here the answer also points to Israel, because, as long as western countries are harassed by and subject to domestic Islamic terrorism, then the more sympathetic we would be with Israel and the more concerned with what is happening in the Middle East. What may otherwise appear as petty squabbles between Israel and its neighbors, now become our problems too, in the age of imported terrorism. In other words, terrorism makes us all “Israelis,” with an Israeli concern with what is going on in the Middle East, the balance of powers, and the like.
In addition, there is a local aspect to support immigration in general by Israel and the Jews for every nation but Israel. Jews in countries other than Israel support diversity, multiculturalism, and other measures that make them just one more group among many in now less coherent ethnostates, rather than a uniquely distinct minority in a sea of Frenchman. The connection of Jews and western immigration policy is well documented.
ISIS’s rise, our failure to support a pro-Christian leader like Assad, and the importation of pro-ISIS immigrants to Europe and America are all a direct result of the stranglehold the Israel lobby has on the US and its foreign policy. Indeed, one may argue that the West being subject to terrorism, which is otherwise unlikely, is a feature and not a bug of this foreign policy. Terrorist incidents serve to keep our troops and our focus on a crummy part of the world that we would otherwise have little to do with.
I have never written this strongly on this subject before, but the awfulness of these attacks, and the continuing lunacy of our policy regarding Assad, compel me to do so. We need to recognize that our foreign and domestic policy ultimately should be subordinate to the interests of our own nation and people. And we should admit that our leaders have done things directly contrary to our interests–assuming that being victimized by mass murder is so–in order to help Israel (or assuage the leftist Holocaust guilt in the case of Europeans) with little identifiable benefit to ourselves. The only thing more unseemly than this betrayal, is the increasing lack of shame about who is pulling the strings.
What makes no sense through the lens of national interest makes perfect sense when viewed through the prism of “Is it good for Israel?” And, thus, what may seem objectively bad from an Israeli standpoint–Americans or Frenchman being slaughtered by Muslim extremists–turns out to be part of a grand plan of securing our continued involvement, solidarity, and commitment to their national project. Would that we were committed as strongly to our own.