[July 16, 2016] I’ll add my two cents worth to the analysis of terrorism in Nice, France. My main point, as stated before, is that the recent surge in Islamic attacks has no single cause and no single person to blame and thus no easy solution. Very few of us are surprised that it occurred, especially in France that has a population that’s 10 percent Islamic. In this case, the unanswered questions are: “was it another radical Islamic attack” and if so “what can be done about it?”
Like any strategy to deal with a horrific, difficult, and complex problem, it will take long-term intense focus on the task to develop methods to stop it. Or, as many have suggested, Islamic terrorism is just the “new normal” and we’ll have to learn to deal with it. Of course, the latter is a fatalistic attitude that only encourages more frequent and more massive future terrorism.
Senior political and military leaders should be discussing openly and very publically some of the options and at least formulate a strategic framework. They’ll be looking for legitimacy in proposed solutions and that is the first test of whether there is a will to actually make progress. Note that it’s not about “doing something” (a politician’s first reaction) but about doing something that works (the professional approach).
The greatest difficulty, as many see it, to stop terrorism of any kind must be a multipronged strategy. And therein lies the problem when extremism involves delivering death and destruction on the innocent, how do you separate the violent from those who are peaceful. This is important because this very issue has frozen the world from taking any meaningful action in the case of Islamic terrorism.
A multipronged approach would mean military action, diplomacy, and economic actions. Diplomacy may be more important in attacking Islamic extremism than military action. Diplomacy would mean attacking the ideology; separating the good from the bad and having the fortitude to clearly identify the enemy (something the U.S. has not done).
“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or against us, or you are with the terrorists.” – U.S. President George W. Bush on September 20, 2001
Many considered his comments as polarizing since the implied message is that the consequence of not joining the effort to prevent terrorism is to be deemed an enemy. Like it or not, that is what it will take. Vacillating over tactics and name calling are for the weak. Weak leaders will face more terrorism, more destruction, and more death upon their population. So far, we have only seen weak political leaders.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]