Most of the editors of The Economist’s remarks about the terror attacks in Brussels are pablum but this:
The best protection would be peace in the Middle East—a distant dream, alas. The coalition has made progress against IS in its caliphate, which is shrinking and losing people. But eradicating it needs Iraqi troops (as yet unprepared) and ground forces in Syria (as yet non-existent). Meanwhile, IS’s ability to command and inspire terrorists will persist and, anyway, the West has its own, self-radicalised jihadists to deal with.
is painfully detached from reality. I guess it depends on your operational definition of “peace” and “Middle East”. If by “peace” you mean a new Ottoman who ruthlessly subdues the fractious sectarian and tribal factions that prevent the countries of the Middle East from being modern states let alone at peace and by “Middle East” you mean everywhere that Muslims live, I guess it’s tautologically correct if unhelpful.
I think that what we’re seeing is the gauzy imaginings of the Europeans of a world pacified by law, good will, and the common recognition of our shared humanity disappear in a haze of blood. Law did not produce the peace that has prevailed in Europe over the period of the last 80 years. Leviathan did.
