Nearly lost in the domestic news of last week were several foreign affairs stories that should have received greater attention. There were significant terrorist attacks in France, Tunisia, and Kuwait on a company, tourists, and a Shi’ite mosque, respectively. Patrick Bahzad provides an excellent outline and analysis of the attack in France, better than anything I’ve read in the professional media:
At approximately 10 a.m. this morning, a van entered an chemical production site in the suburbs of Lyons, in south-eastern France. Contrary to what was said in previous reports, the van didn’t crash the security gate, but had proper clearance to enter the premises, a facility registered on the so-called “Seveso List” (a list of sites producing hazardous dioxin-like compounds).
Are the connecting links among these attacks? They all appear to have been perpetrated by Sunni Muslim radicals. The French and Tunisian attacks were not only calculated to maximize terror but to attack the economic life of the countries as well.
Perhaps the message in these three attacks is that an organized mass attack is not necessary to create havoc. It doesn’t take the Third Reich or the Imperial Japanese Army any more. All it takes is a few highly motivated individuals with guns, knives, and trucks. I doubt that efforts at banning guns, knives, and trucks will prove successful.
“Perhaps the message in these three attacks is that an organized mass attack is not necessary to create havoc.”
This is the point I’ve repeatedly made, and has repeatedly been downplayed, about threats here. The line is that, say, ISIS or whatever name is a “nuisance,” just because they can’t launch a nuclear warhead at us. Not just a nuisance if they start coming over a porous southern border in small groups and shooting up or blowing themselves up in malls, schools, restaurants, sporting events or pour something in the reservoirs of upper Weschester County, NY. No mass casualties needed to draw down economic activity significantly. That, it seems to me, is the very definition of “terror.” Torching or drowning your victims on a video anyone?
My repeated point is that one size does not fit all in threat mitigation. Indeed, I’m skeptical that, for example, re-invading Iraq would be an effective (in any sense) way of mitigating the threat the DAESH poses to the U. S. I can think of a dozen more effective strategies.
Have to agree that invading Iraq again is unlikely to do anything about terrorism here. Also, I don’t really understand the sole concern about the southern border. If some terrorist wants to come here they could also cross the northern border. Or come across the water. Terrorism remains an uncommon event here. People being killed by hitting deer, or killed in accidental gun shootings are much more common.
Why even discuss this? Didn’t you hear? Gay marriage is going to defeat ISIS and Islamic terror.
I take this to mean that the gays & trannies (next up in the diversity grievance queue) are going to join forces with the neocons and declare that the entire MENA region should be nuked from space. Just to be sure. Perhaps they mean something else, though….
I must be missing something. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians do not like deadbeats who are living on the government dole. They want people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and show some initiative.
Most Arabs are worthless, but ISIS is the exact type of people the Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians want. They are not making excuses because they lack government handouts. They are entrepreneurs. They are modifying their business model as needed for the changing conditions.
If you do not want Iran to get nukes, these are the guys you want as partners. They can make things happen. No need for long drawn out negotiations and legal agreements. You can count on them to hold up their end of the bargain.
The Obama Administration, too, since they’re supplying them, er, I mean supplying the moderate opposition in Syria.
I assumed that was a gag. Or sarcasm at the least.
I think the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell will have some effects on the propaganda war but probably not the sort its advocates would want.
Not that I advocate strenuous measures but the rareness of the eventuality is not the only criterion by which risk is evaluated. I assume it’s the same in the practice of medicine. A one in ten chance that a drug will give you a rash is a bit different from one in which there’s a one in ten chance it will kill you.
I assumed that was a gag. Or sarcasm at the least.
It was in Foreign Policy. I couldn’t read the whole thing because it kept spamming my phone. But, hey, I’m sure there must be something to it. I mean, it can’t simply be that the American Establishment is simply beyond any form of parody known to man, right?
(Maybe that’s why there are so many trannies all of a sudden. Men, knowing that there are forms of parody that will be denied them solely due to their maleness are now switching sides, just for the gags?)
At least, the Republicans et al. have their story straight. I may disagree with them, but they are consistent. I am still not convinced that President Obama has any plan other than getting out of office before everything blows up.
A wrong plan can be used as the guide when fixing the problems it caused. No plan means there is no way to know what the hell was broken, where it was broken, and what other problems it caused. A bad plan is better than no plan.
That’s why I’ve been driven to the hypothesis that the president has no objectives other than domestic political ones. The best you can say, I think, is that the means are not particularly well-suited to the ends.
Dave- Yes, but I am not advocating zero spending or attention to terrorism. I just think we spend out of proportion to its risk. The problem with terrorism is that some people do get terrified.
Steve
@Dave Schuler
That’s why I’ve been driven to the hypothesis that the president has no objectives other than domestic political ones. …
It still looks like a plan to me. I get the feeling that they are like a two year old who flits from one thing to another, and everything is the same because they cannot conceive of the vastness and variety of the world.
If it does fit into 144 characters or less, it does not exist. (Who needs your stinking primary source – Wikipedia rules. Anything worth knowing has been tweeted and retweeted. #wearetheworldandyouareanoldfartloser)
The southern border is not quite as open as it seems. There is a filter in place that keeps the border porous to latin Americans and non-porous to most others. I will really only start to worry if/when Latin America develops its own community of violent Islamic radicals.
Southern border, northern…..hell, they can burrow up from China for all I care. The point is that the borders are porous for political reasons. It can be improved.
The argument that terrorist events are rare is specious. So was 9/11 before 9/11. Do we accept 9/11s? In fact, the dismal response to the first WTC bombing ultimately led to 9/11. I’m just not that fatalistic to believe we cannot do better.
Steve weighs in with cost benefit. Pardon me if I scoff at selective argumentation. Cost benefit on Obamacare anyone?
Dave will, in a subsequent post, cite the folly of the NSA. I think he’s 100% correct. It’s government after all. But it’s not an argument for not taking some actions wrt border control.
I’m sure ISIS (L) DAESH whatever has an ordering protocol. But they could be here in a nanosecond. Don’t kid yourselves.
I wouldn’t spend a second trying to deal with ISIS one on one. I’d have a quiet but brutal conversation with their state sponsors. I’d tell them if ISIS strikes the US doesn’t have a problem, they have a problem. A big one and now. Something tells me they wouldn’t take the current occupant of the White House seriously. Didn’t he just give up inspections re: Iran? Harvey Milktoast.