Terrorism and Indecisiveness

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.

The Legacy of Voltaire

Speech is civilization itself....It is silence which isolates.
             Thomas Mann

This past week, three heavily armed and religiously motivated gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo, a fringe Parisian satirical magazine.  A harder-edged Mad Magazine, it goes after a wide range of targets, including those espousing Islamic fundamentalism.  Twelve were killed, including the editor, many of the staff’s cartoonists and at least one police officer to silence disagreeable ideas.  By Friday of this week, the men responsible were gunned down by French police.  From the shock and outrage of the event, an important cause has re-emerged that has been largely forgotten throughout Europe – the freedom of expression.

Throughout Europe, various countries have eliminated or restricted expression for fear of offending.  Whether it be cartoons or restrictive measures against anything entitled “hate speech”, Europe has tied itself into legislative and linguistic knots to prevent anyone giving offense.  A few years ago, Europe shrank from the violence throughout the Middle East over cartoons…cartoons!  As a result, many European countries have attempted to curb what can and should be said about various groups – be they ethnic or religious. 

In their efforts to eliminate “hate speech”, these democratic countries have taken away the choices and the rights that democratic people have traditionally treasured and enjoyed.  As a history teacher, I’m not blind to the historical context that some of these laws have but ultimately, they are self-defeating.  As Voltaire said, “Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all.”  And in an attempt to ensure that people are capable of going through life without distress, some European countries have sacrificed a fundamental right of a free people.

As the fallout of these deaths is felt, the reaction has been typical from the home of the satirical and philosophical giant, Voltaire.  And in the writer’s spirit, leave it to the obdurate, infuriating French to reassert values that much of Europe has lost track of over the last several decades.  Freedom of expression and speech means nothing if it only applies to that which is acceptable or safe.  Charlie Hebdo has spent the better part of five decades offending and shocking people with its cartoons and articles.  Though the publication may have crossed the line over the years (some regular readers say it happened often), a free society must accept and allow for it. 

Every free society runs risks.  Yes, there is a chance that another attack might occur, particularly because Charlie Hebdo has declared that they will continue.  However, the power to speak one’s mind, even if one is an idiot or a psychopath, must be equally treasured.  If a government can declare one person’s opinions not worthy of airing out, whose opinions will be next? 

So, how does a nation confront such speech – be it from xenophobes or fundamentalists?  More free speech.  Consider Germany.  While saddled with its own misguided speech laws, speech has countered speech.  A group out of Dresden called Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) has attempted to get its point across through protest marches (no doubt they will be emboldened by the events in Paris).  However, Germans who disagree took to the streets in record numbers to counter protest.  Ultimately, hateful speech needs to be aired so that it may be legitimately countered and defeated.  Otherwise, the baleful ideology festers and grows.

It is heartening to see the French fight back with a renewed commitment to freedom of expression – not just journalistic but individualistic as well.  Though the French have their own nationalist groups (Marine Le Pen’s Front National for example), they have answered the terrorist attacks not with hate but with a reassertion of democratic values and principles.  The West is guilty of many things but at our best, democratic principles represent the full-realization of the individual – be we French, American, Egyptian, Iranian, whoever.  Though we do not always get it right, freedom of expression applies to all and it will be our legacy.

Ave Atque Vale

I am not a consensus politician.  I am a conviction politician.
            Margaret Thatcher

This past week, the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died at the age of 87.  From an international perspective, she is most known as Ronald Reagan’s conservative doppelganger but the shopkeeper’s daughter was much more.  Over the course of her career, she defied traditions, conventions and perceptions about politics, women and the role of the latter within the former.  Her time in office, like Ronald Reagan, coincided with economic difficulties and international skirmishes.  She is, therefore, despised in some corners of the kingdom and the world and beloved in others.  However, despite the differences in how people view her achievements, one cannot question her guts and conviction, nor should one question her impact on the 20^th century.   

In parts of Great Britain this past week, there were cheers and chants, parties and pontifications on the death of Mrs. Thatcher but very little understanding of where the country was in the 1970s.  The British government owned a great deal of the industries that employed Britons, from transportation to manufacturing and it faced economic ruin.  Coming from the same class that would later deplore her and celebrate her death, the prime minister challenged the role of government in the economy.  She sought, in her short time in office, to reverse decades of socialist maneuverings and nationalization, understanding that people had the ability to control their own fate and run their own shops.  Private ownership of industry and businesses were needed to reverse Britain’s economic fortune and she withstood the attacks, the vile insults and self-interested posturing.   She said, “I can’t bear Britain in decline.  I just can’t.”  She remembered a different Britain and she battled first the Heath government in opposition and then both Labour and the Tories to drag the island nation from the precipice.  

Internationally, she was just as fierce and her actions based on a pride of what England was and could be again.  Her most controversial move, one that many observers at the time felt would never happen, was her defense of the Falkland Islands.  While she is often criticized for the defense of British sovereignty and its citizens, it was the action of a military Argentinian junta that made this an issue and she, in classic form, finished it.  Her government was a constant target by the Irish Republican Army and though it managed to kill many close friends and colleagues during the Brighton bombing in 1984, she refused to back down.  She reminded her fellow citizens that the Russians were people to observe and combat.  So strident were her attacks on the Soviet government, as part of a larger Cold War democratic sortie, it was an article in a Russian paper that first gave her the sobriquet most associated with her – “the iron lady.”  During Europe’s discussions on the budget for the European Economic Community’s financial affairs, Mrs. Thatcher’s obdurate and fierce nature led French President Francois Mitterrand to declare her has having the lips of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Caligula. 

Economically, she challenged her people to see the long view and tried to teach them the importance of their participation in the economy rather than allowing for government control.  She turned around rampant inflation and labor unrest.  She was an unabashed champion of Victorian values like hard work, self-reliance, patriotism and frugality.  She was a fierce international figure that world leaders ignored or dismissed at their own peril.  However, the most shocking thing about Mrs. Thatcher’s legacy is the fact that American conservatives have not chosen to follow her lead. 

Conservative thinker Bill Kristol mentioned that her greatest achievement was her role in opposition prior to ascending to 10 Downing Street.  She gave a rudderless Tory party direction and cleared a path towards stability and prosperity by first shining a light on the depravity and ultimate failure of statism.  The departure from such governance by former communist eastern European countries validates Mrs. Thatcher’s actions.  Only the United States moves toward it with our new nationalized health care system.  As we distance from the vitriolic and ad hominem attacks of modern European liberals, old unionists and Argentinians, perhaps we can learn the true greatness of Margaret Thatcher.