Egypt,
Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali.
Terrorists like the Islamic State have been busy over
the last weeks and months. In their wake
is a string of shattered cities and devastated lives. For the western
democracies, it needs to be a time to not just hunker down or lash out but to
re-evaluate. France’s intelligence
network’s failure to pick up on the events that shattered its capital is more
than that – it is a sign that things are evolving and adapting. The West must do the same.
Gandhi
was once asked whether his approach to conflict resolution would have adequately
dealt with Hitler. He said yes but it would
have taken much longer. Europe and the
United States do not have time if recent attacks across three continents in the
last month or so are any indication.
French President Francois Holland is increasing the militarily targeting
of the Islamic State but he is also seeking to change how the French do
business in-country by changing police procedures and tactics against suspected
terrorists.
M.
Holland’s attempt to change the constitution to meet new security needs have
faced opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. However, he clearly sees the need for a
change and he is trying to adapt to a new reality. By all accounts, French intelligence was
taken off guard by the events of 13 November.
Whether the French leader will be able to impose his will or not remains
to be seen but a requirement to be on the qui vive has gripped parts of the
French population.
Regarding
President Obama, he presented the most confounding reaction to the events of
the last month or so. My observations are not unique. Many have been dismayed
over the near blasé approach to the events and how the United States should
respond. The president, who days before
Beirut and Paris, said that the Islamic State was contained, maintained that a change
in philosophy or approach to the terrorists is not required. The present modus operandi was sufficient and
it was important not to over-react. Yes,
an over-reaction would not be prudent but certainly a re-evaluation is
necessary because American intelligence proved to be as unaware as its French
counterparts. His comments from Ankara
would suggest that is also not necessary.
However, there is push back.
Former
deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell suggested
with Charlie Rose that the president’s response needs to be on the same level
as if the target was not Paris but New York City. Combat veteran and Representative Tulsi
Gabbard (D-HA) has criticized the president for failing to grasp the core
element of dealing with the terrorists by refusing to use the word. Last week, when a bi-partisan measure in Congress sought
to make a seemingly common sense improvement in the screening process for
incoming Syrians, the president responded by mocking Congressional
Republicans as being scared of little old ladies and orphans. This was in the face of reports suggesting
that at least one of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as a
refugee.
It
is a nasty world out there and it will not improve any time soon. It is not just international groups like al-Qaeda
or ISIS but also regional groups like the Mourabitounes, the West
African terrorist group that attacked the Radisson hotel in Bamako, Mali. The rise of these groups would be a difficult challenge for any president but our commander in chief needs get into a locked
room with military and terrorist experts and consider a new way of doing
things. The West was surprised by the
Parisian attacks. We need to find out
why and contemplate a new approach. The
enemy already has.
No comments:
Post a Comment