What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?

[JohnRM]

Like Iraq and Afghanistan you mean? Have you been living under a rock since 2001 or something, we've tried that already, it didn't work.

We've tried bombing, sending in special forces, invading, supporting proxies... none of this stuff works, in fact it contributed to getting us where we are right now.. and people want to do it all over???

Actually, we have not tried that in Iraq. We tried something altogether different in Iraq and the fact is that even that was working and we would have been able to continue to build on that success had we kept forces in the region.

In Afghanistan, on the other hand, we have more or less abandoned any hope of a stable democracy for the immediate future and accepted the fact that we will have to occupy that country for next several decades. As far as I can tell, there are no massive terrorist training camps in Afghanistan anymore. That looks like success, to me.

But, of course, the model that I am referring to is the military occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II, both of which worked splendidly well.

I would also very much disagree that invading Iraq has gotten us to where we are right now. To start, the invasion of Iraq has very little to do with the rise of ISIS in Syria. Second, ISIS would be significantly weaker had American forces remained in the country. But, you will have to ask Barack Obama about that.

 

[red_elk]

1. Censor information about future attacks

While that would be an effective measure against terrorism in general, it is absolutely nonviable in Internet era.

The only possible measure to save secular Syria at this moment, is supporting the remaining anti-extremist forces there. Kurds in the North and Assad/Iran/Russia coalition in the rest of the country. What France and USA can do, is increasing air strikes and coordinating their operations with Russia. Exchange reconnaissance and intelligence info, make agreement about joint search and rescue operations if pilots get shot down, etc. Unfortunately, it most probably won't happen due to political reasons.

 

[AlpsStranger]

1. Censor information about future attacks: Terrorism is about fear and media spreads this fear like a disease. It may sound callous, yet IS would have accomplished a lot less if only the Parisians had known about the attack. It's unlikely to be achieved anytime soon, though the abolition of TV journals and newspapers would render terrorism unviable.

I shudder to think that the abolition of freedom of the press will be accomplished anytime ever.

This strategy has it all. It's both horrifying and impractical.

 

[brennan]

But, of course, the model that I am referring to is the military occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II, both of which worked splendidly well.

Your model for success in occupying countries rife with insurgents is the occupations of two countries with no insurgents? Are you a Republican voter?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

We need to forget about democracy in muslim countries. Democracy there usually lead to fundamentalism for whatever reason. The best solution is to have secular dictators or corrupt monarchies. Openly support such gevernements and there will not need to invade anything.

 

[JohnRM]

Your model for success in occupying countries rife with insurgents is the occupations of two countries with no insurgents? Are you a Republican voter?

Of course, nothing works against insurgents. We may as well surrender, yes?

 

[JohnRM]

We need to forget about democracy in muslim countries. Democracy there usually lead to fundamentalism for whatever reason. The best solution is to have secular dictators or corrupt monarchies. Openly support such gevernements and there will not need to invade anything.

Except that liberals would cry about that too and blame any future mishaps on western interference and installation of said dictatorship vis-a-vis Iran.

 

[EgonSpengler]

We need to forget about democracy in muslim countries. Democracy there usually lead to fundamentalism for whatever reason. The best solution is to have secular dictators or corrupt monarchies. Openly support such gevernements and there will not need to invade anything.

Okay, but (a) the reason fundamentalism took over in Iran was that we deposed a democratically-elected government in favor of a corrupt monarchy, and (b) our open support for Saudi Arabia is one of the primary reasons Al Qaeda came into being, so...

EDIT: Snarky comment unnecessary.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Except that liberals would cry about that too and blame any future mishaps on western interference and installation of said dictatorship vis-a-vis Iran.

We don't need to wait for future mishaps; we have so many contemporary mishaps. I'm glad you mentioned Iran, though.

 

[dutchfire]

I'll take option 8 for 500, Alex.

It'd like to add to that. Although the facts around the latest incident are not fully clear yet, from what I've heard quite a few of these shootings (and shootings in the criminal circuit) are done using military grade weapons from former Yugoslavia. After the collapse of the Yugoslavian army in the 90s, they found their way into western Europe. Tracing the source of the weapons used and cracking down on the criminals involved in the weapons trade could help a lot in reducing gun violence in general.

 

[JohnRM]

So, what have we learned here today? If you want to stop terrorism, go hug a Syrian refugee.

 

[brennan]

Of course, nothing works against insurgents. We may as well surrender, yes?

Don't get huffy, your proposal had a massive, gaping flaw in it, this is not my fault.

And please don't childishly retort that I think we should give up when i've already posted my constructive suggestions and you have already responded to them.

 

[JollyRoger]

So, what have we learned here today? If you want to stop terrorism, go hug a Syrian refugee.

Under your plan, how long are you personally willing to be stationed in an occupied country?

 

[El_Machinae]

"Give them a job" is probably a more effective technique than mere hugging. This could, of course, mean patronizing establishments that are likely to hire them.

 

[warpus]

1. The west abandoning its support for Saudi Arabia
2. An end of Saudi Arabia exporting Wahhabism and fundamentalism
3. An end of Turkey's support for ISIS and their allies
4. A comprehensive external EU border treaty

would be a great start

 

[Senethro]

3. An end of Turkey's support for ISIS and their allies

what?

 

[Smellincoffee]

Pragmatically, western military forces should quit the middle east. Every time we intervene, it's one catastrophe after another. It feels like concession, since that's what ISIS wants us to do, but the more we intervene, the more hospitals and homes go up in smoke and the more Allied forces look like the enemy instead of these ISIS beasts.

 

[Cheetah]

Staying within the realm of reality, these would be my answers. If possible, I would have also wanted to deal with the Sauds and the other elites in the Gulf, but they seem to be to well protected by their friends among the Western elites.

1) Close borders to immigrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East.

Keep what little there are of plans for handling the immigration going. Those in need of refuge should be given refuge. The fact that the size of this problem is monumental is clear, but we should be able to find a solution.

2) Harangue Muslims to "reform Islam"

I'm not sure 'harangue' is a good word, but I do support the work people like Maajid Nawaz, Iyad El-Baghdadi, and others, who try to reform Islam, and I think it is very much needed. I also agree with Nawaz. Harris and others that the regressive left must stop embracing Islamism out of some misguided idea about anti-racism.

Edit: Also, one more thing:

Make an Imam certification, or even better, an education in all Western countries. Make it required to have a valid certificate or a credited education to be allowed to lead Muslim congregations. This would limit one of the sources of radicalization.

The same goes for teachers and administrators in religious private schools, which have also been a huge source of radicalization.

3) Step up military operations against ISIS but not try to occupy territory

4) Full invasion of Syria to destroy ISIS

Military action is not unthinkable, but there needs to be a damn good plan behind it, just throwing around violence won't solve anything.

I'd much rather see that the negotiations for a democratic Syria continue. This will most likely include that Assad gets away with his crimes, but in the interest of resolving this crisis, I think we might have to accept it. An interim government including both Assad's side and the moderate opposition, supported by the United Nations, and with free elections taking place in 18 months time seems like the best solution so far.

5) Increase surveillance and security, including monitoring civilian communications in order to more effectively prevent future attacks

No. Any increase in surveillance will not help unless it curbs our freedoms too much. Tree of liberty with both tyrants and patriots, et al. The attacks that have taken place are tragic, but they pose no real danger to our liberal democracies unless we let them.

6) Increase security measures without infringing on privacy

No idea how this should work out...

7) Expel the Jews and MoriscosMuslims from the West

Yeah, no. That's not how we do things.

8) Nothing much; don't let the terrorists win

Civilian society should continue as before. We should live, play, work, party, trade and participate in existence just as we did before. We must not change just because someone threaten violence on us!

 

[Birdjaguar]

If we want to win, it will be difficult and painful.

1. We need to recognize that what we have been doing hasn't worked and is not likely to work in the future.
2. Go after the means of success used by bad guys: guns, money, and access to world media
3. Understand that when you go to war, you have to fight to win and that will mean innocent people will die.

*Destroy Mideast oil production/infrastructure in Syria and Iraq
*Destroy all the infrastructure that supports communications and movement (power generation, airports, railroads, bridges, etc.)
*Destroy all access to the internet and cellphone communications in the entire region
*Arrest and jail those selling arms and ammunition that might go into the region
*Stop buying Saudi and other Arab oil until they fall into line and actively support peace in the region.

At the end, let the locals sort out the mess and rebuild as they see fit.

 

[Tahuti]

Pragmatically, western military forces should quit the middle east. Every time we intervene, it's one catastrophe after another. It feels like concession, since that's what ISIS wants us to do, but the more we intervene, the more hospitals and homes go up in smoke and the more Allied forces look like the enemy instead of these ISIS beasts.

It would help a lot, though it doesn't address the fact that there are Muslims in Europe whose clerical leadership is imported from the Middle East.

The problem is more that Western nations tend to go against the wrong countries Middle Eastern countries: Usually Iran and Assad gets

I shudder to think that the abolition of freedom of the press will be accomplished anytime ever.

This strategy has it all. It's both horrifying and impractical.

Honestly, press freedom isn't a holy grail. The press generally gives a distorted view of what are our issues. The media has a counterproductive effect whenever they are reporting terrorist attacks because the political fallout of the attacks becomes contagious, exactly the way terrorists like.

Having said that, as I will further elaborate in my response with red_elk, I wouldn't favour direct censorship on websites.

Internet is really a mixed bag. On the bright side, it allows for lively discussions like these. However, one of the worst aspects of internet is the degree of espionage prowess it gives to corporations and allow groups like IS to co-ordinate attacks.

While that would be an effective measure against terrorism in general, it is absolutely nonviable in Internet era.

The only possible measure to save secular Syria at this moment, is supporting the remaining anti-extremist forces there. Kurds in the North and Assad/Iran/Russia coalition in the rest of the country. What France and USA can do, is increasing air strikes and coordinating their operations with Russia. Exchange reconnaissance and intelligence info, make agreement about joint search and rescue operations if pilots get shot down, etc. Unfortunately, it most probably won't happen due to political reasons.

You don't have to directly censor internet websites ala China. You can also deny journalists access to sites of recent terrorist attacks and jam the internet and telecommunications locally on a temporary basis. This also may prevent further attacks at the same spot, since groups like IS rely on the internet for communication too.

Here is a problem: IS and similar groups are literally everywhere. They fight like water. Using intelligence against them will work, as will conventional warfare against countries that are supporting terrorism. Although frankly, nobody has the guts to after the chief benefactors of IS and the Syrian rebels: Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and UAE. Russia knows that if those countries are attacked, the US will come along. What will not work is attempting to engage terrorists directly by conventional means. Something Obama, Assad, Netanyahu, Hollande, Putin and pretty much any world leader hasn't figured out yet.

You can bomb all you want: In the end, it only means more recruits for radical Islamic groups.