Interesting how Paul decides and declares that the very real terrorist threat of shutting down computer systems or our grid system cannot destroy us ... just more pandering gibberish.
8
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Professor Krugman's area of expertise: Economics. I'd suggest that he take a look at the history of the IRA and the British response to urban terrorism or at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, before he writes another opinion piece about what terrorism is and what terrorists can and can't do. The modern world changed about 20 years ago, and we've already adjusted to the new normal. I really doubt anybody is terrified by terrorists anymore.
3
The people of Paris appear to be less prone to panic than some of our own news media. One can hope that these events will not seriously accelerate the already growing xenophobic tendencies fueled by the massive emigrations from Syria--but it might happen. Many Europeans are aware that their Schengen policy is problematic. Many Parisians are aware of their past problems with terrorism: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/france/2015-11-14/frances-bloody... .
As for ISIS itself, they are no bloodier than earlier historical counterparts: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/isis-revolutionary-s... . From that piece by Stephen Walt:
"Yet ISIS is hardly the first extremist movement to combine violent tendencies, grandiose ambitions, and territorial control. Its religious dimension notwithstanding, the group is just the latest in a long line of state-building revolutionaries, strikingly similar in many ways to the regimes that emerged during the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Cambodian, and Iranian revolutions. These movements were as hostile to prevailing international norms as ISIS is, and they also used ruthless violence to eliminate or intimidate rivals and demonstrate their power to a wider world."
As for ISIS itself, they are no bloodier than earlier historical counterparts: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/isis-revolutionary-s... . From that piece by Stephen Walt:
"Yet ISIS is hardly the first extremist movement to combine violent tendencies, grandiose ambitions, and territorial control. Its religious dimension notwithstanding, the group is just the latest in a long line of state-building revolutionaries, strikingly similar in many ways to the regimes that emerged during the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Cambodian, and Iranian revolutions. These movements were as hostile to prevailing international norms as ISIS is, and they also used ruthless violence to eliminate or intimidate rivals and demonstrate their power to a wider world."
15
Who remembers December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day? So much for a Day that Will Live in Infamy. Have we forgotten WWII? Hitler really did try to destroy western civilization with a polyglot of master racism, slave labor, theft and a dictator who was spellbinding genius who confused himself with Fredrick the Great and Jesus Christ.
By 1941 Hitler controlled most of Europe with terrorism. Terror bombing was expected to defeat Briton. Towns in France were burnt, I out of 10 were shot. Briton did not yield and there was active French resistance throughout the war.
When FDR said: “All we have to fear is fear itself,” he was talking about the Depression. Today and might have told us that: Although terrorists may strike at us now and then, they cannot destroy us and they know it. They count on our fear and panic to inflict upon ourselves the damage that cannot do with their terrorist attacks.
I am sickened when people say that we are living in a post 9-11 world. All of the damage to America that did not occur on 9/11/01 was inflicted by a president who lost the election and was appointed by the Supreme Court which ordered that Florida stop counting the votes. What was GW Bush’s advice to the American people? Go shopping. Churchill took a different view when his county was attacked.
We don’t live in a post 9-11 world, we live in a post Bush43 world and I think France has the better of it and shall remember the resistance in WWII.
By 1941 Hitler controlled most of Europe with terrorism. Terror bombing was expected to defeat Briton. Towns in France were burnt, I out of 10 were shot. Briton did not yield and there was active French resistance throughout the war.
When FDR said: “All we have to fear is fear itself,” he was talking about the Depression. Today and might have told us that: Although terrorists may strike at us now and then, they cannot destroy us and they know it. They count on our fear and panic to inflict upon ourselves the damage that cannot do with their terrorist attacks.
I am sickened when people say that we are living in a post 9-11 world. All of the damage to America that did not occur on 9/11/01 was inflicted by a president who lost the election and was appointed by the Supreme Court which ordered that Florida stop counting the votes. What was GW Bush’s advice to the American people? Go shopping. Churchill took a different view when his county was attacked.
We don’t live in a post 9-11 world, we live in a post Bush43 world and I think France has the better of it and shall remember the resistance in WWII.
83
Krugman needs to write on a different subject. He has no knowledge about any of this ( Islam, Caliphate, terrorism, military, meteorology, and many others) and should not even comment on his opinions about it in the NYT because it is misleading. After all he is just another liberal professor living in the alternative universe of academia.
14
DO you think Isis call rages well-trained well-equipped soldiers? My gut tells me that people that hide behind a masks, behead innocent sand burn prisoners and rape as a policy are cowards. No match at all for our Marines. And aviators and drones. Paris was aa wake up call.
4
Please lets follow the lead of others and call them Daesh. Time for the Egyptian Goddess, Isis to reclaim her name.
32
Boy the urge to drop some nukes was there again like 9/11. But Krugman, Sanders, and Obama are correct!
15
My God; the first time - EVER - that I've agreed with a Paul Krugman column. Sadly, it possibly invalidates the column's sentiment as it means the world may truly be ending. #Libertarian
1
How can you call it a war when eight people have to sneak around to get inside a country and then blow themselves up?
13
thanks for facing down the mob Paul.
15
"Take, for example, Jeb Bush’s declaration that “this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.” No, it isn’t." On this issue, Prof. Krugman is mistaken. Since he is open to facts and evidence, let me mention a few. First, the ideology that inspires ISIS has destroyed 2000 year old civilizations in the present day (i) middle-east, (ii) Iran, and (iii) Pakistan and Bangladesh. For ISIS and its supporters, it is not a 100 m sprint but a 1000 mile long marathon to Caliphate. Pakistan, the location of Indus valley civilization, has been almost completely purged of Hindus and Sikhs after independence in 1947 and the process continues now in Bangladesh. In India, you will find hundreds of temples razed by Muslim rulers over the centuries [this is not discussed publicly in the interest of social harmony in India]. The goal of ISIS supporters is to keep the idea of a Caliphate alive until an opportune moment, say until they gain access to Pakistani nuclear weapons or dirty-bombs. After that, they will not hesitate to blackmail the big powers, like North Korea does. Nations like Germany with declining populations are using humanitarian intentions as a cover to take refugees to increase their population. Germany would be better off auctioning immigrant visas to hardworking and law abiding Chinese, Indians, and Vietnamese, and use the proceeds to repatriate Syrian refugees in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, etc..
7
When you boil it all down the only reason we are still there is to protect Israel's interests. Are endless terrorist threats and living in a police state worth it? No.
10
Does anyone remember "freedom fries" and the neocons knee-jerk response to events at that time?
29
I, too, fear inappropriate responses to terrorism more than terrorism itself. An iron fist is an especially dangerous kind of response. What nourishes this kind of terrorism is a perception by Muslims of Western injustice. Therefore, the worst kind of response is a Western-led attack on ISIS, particularly an attack that kills innocent Muslim civilians. This will simply swell the number of recruits for ISIS or its successor. I agree that ISIS needs to be destroyed, but it must be Muslim armies that destroy it, with intelligence and perhaps financial support from the West.
Another counterproductive response is to target Muslim communities in Europe. Terrorists emerge from these communities in response to racist hostility from the non-Muslim French, Belgians, or English. Solid police work is needed, and terrorists must be arrested and tried. But vows to "crack down" on radical Muslims or "clean up" Muslim neighborhoods victimize the innocent and push angry young men into the arms of the terrorists. What European societies need instead is to confront their own racism and work harder to remove barriers (to upward mobility, peaceful worship, and social solidarity) that prevent the integration of Muslim communities into European societies.
Another counterproductive response is to target Muslim communities in Europe. Terrorists emerge from these communities in response to racist hostility from the non-Muslim French, Belgians, or English. Solid police work is needed, and terrorists must be arrested and tried. But vows to "crack down" on radical Muslims or "clean up" Muslim neighborhoods victimize the innocent and push angry young men into the arms of the terrorists. What European societies need instead is to confront their own racism and work harder to remove barriers (to upward mobility, peaceful worship, and social solidarity) that prevent the integration of Muslim communities into European societies.
13
I'm surprised that brilliant analyst, Jeb Bush, didn't simply shrug and say, "Hey, stuff happens" again.
22
Cogent, balanced, and adult. Thank you.
19
"...people can and do exploit terrorism for political gain, including using it to justify what they imagine will be a splendid, politically beneficial little war."
Come on, PK, you're an economist. Why leave out the fact that Bush/Cheney also started their little war because there was LOTS of money to be made off the taxpayer?
Come on, PK, you're an economist. Why leave out the fact that Bush/Cheney also started their little war because there was LOTS of money to be made off the taxpayer?
14
Another great idea from Mr. Krugman! Let's cut down on carbon emissions and ignore Isis! Brilliant!
9
For Republicans, this is the gift that keeps on giving, as keeping the electorate frightened gets their candidates elected. They will cynically and shamelessly milk the Paris attacks and somehow make it all the fault of President Obama, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Bush administration lied us into the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein and begat ISIS.
35
Excellent & thoughtful. While I love your columns on economic issues, we need more like this, Paul.
27
Dr. Krugman, well said. The pundits and war hawks have made ISIS fighters ten feet tall. Clearly there are some bad actors there. However, what is needed now, as always, is calm, well thought out strategy and related actions. France has a major problem with disaffected Muslim youth. Arms and aggression alone will not solve that problem. Social and economic issues relating to Muslim youth in France must be addressed. Despair is a strong motivator for violence.
I would also like to see and hear credible Muslim leaders speak out against the false ideology of groups like ISIS. Also, Muslim nations of all stripes in the Middle East must contribute effectively to the strategies against ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Standing by and waiting no longer cuts it.
I would also like to see and hear credible Muslim leaders speak out against the false ideology of groups like ISIS. Also, Muslim nations of all stripes in the Middle East must contribute effectively to the strategies against ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Standing by and waiting no longer cuts it.
9
Paul, I can't take reading your column. Years ago you were a reasonable voice. Now you say things like 9/11 didn't change much and suggest that we just sit around and do nothing. You are locked in your ivory tower. I have come to the conclusion that I must stop reading this column, and probably this newspaper. Your arguments are so pedestrian and predictable. I know what you are going to say before you do.
9
Most level-headed commentators understand, as Paul Krugman does, that the random violence of ISIS must not be allowed to achieve its immediate goal of provoking Western governments to over-react. That being said, however, the tragedy of Paris presents the West an opportunity to become more effective in dealing with ISIS.
Previously, the United States was reluctant to put American boots on the ground in Syria for fear of simply resuming and enlarging the foolish war in Iraq and to avoid giving ISIS a compelling argument with people across the Middle East that the infidel exploiters from Europe and America are the root of all problems.
As a result of our trying to deny jihadists the recruiting pitch of Western imperialism, we limited our military efforts to airstrikes which are not fully effective and which produce unavoidable deaths among Arab civilians. Now, after Paris, the use of Western ground forces in a limited, surgical fashion will be seen as something all Arab people understand: justified revenge.
Coordinated military action with our NATO can hasten the demise of ISIS, if we also can force Saudi Arabia to stop financing the terrorists.
Previously, the United States was reluctant to put American boots on the ground in Syria for fear of simply resuming and enlarging the foolish war in Iraq and to avoid giving ISIS a compelling argument with people across the Middle East that the infidel exploiters from Europe and America are the root of all problems.
As a result of our trying to deny jihadists the recruiting pitch of Western imperialism, we limited our military efforts to airstrikes which are not fully effective and which produce unavoidable deaths among Arab civilians. Now, after Paris, the use of Western ground forces in a limited, surgical fashion will be seen as something all Arab people understand: justified revenge.
Coordinated military action with our NATO can hasten the demise of ISIS, if we also can force Saudi Arabia to stop financing the terrorists.
2
Thank you for briefly for calling attention to Cruz's recommendation for how he would handle the ISIS threat. Wholesale killing is surely a winning strategy against terrorism! Just another example of how Ted Cruz employs a knee jerk reaction to every problem ideological, economic and social problem that comes his way. Certainly makes problem solving quick and painless for him. I don't think the word ramifications is even part of his vocabulary!
2
Terrorism from non-state actors cannot be eliminated. But states that outspokenly wage acts of terror can be. ISIS occupies territory and derives income from the territory. We must deny them their territory and occupy it to insure they don't return. "We" are a coalition of NATO, Russia, Iran... and Saudi Arabia. Not a pretty beast, but the one we've got.
Longer term we need to drain the swamp of Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia foisted upon the world and pay close attention to Pakistan where fundamentalists are a mere half step away from putting their fingers on nuclear buttons.
Some how, some way, we must encourage moderate Muslims, the vast majority of believers, to rise up and demand their religion back.
Longer term we need to drain the swamp of Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia foisted upon the world and pay close attention to Pakistan where fundamentalists are a mere half step away from putting their fingers on nuclear buttons.
Some how, some way, we must encourage moderate Muslims, the vast majority of believers, to rise up and demand their religion back.
2
Predictable reaction: "Let's go bomb somebody!" So France goes and bombs places that maybe has terrorists and certainly civilians who can't escape, and everybody feels better. But the terrorists are in Paris, so why not bomb Paris?
War on terror is absurd. I don't see a solution or an end to it. Terror is become ordinary. c'est la vie
War on terror is absurd. I don't see a solution or an end to it. Terror is become ordinary. c'est la vie
2
I heard at least four CIA types call for the end of encryption apps that came as a result of Edward Snowden's revelations that we were all being spied upon. That's how things will change in America - and Paul, things DID change in America after 9/11. We had the whole world's sympathy and Cheney/Bush took that good will and turned it into their own form of evil - preemptive war, secret renditions, torture, detaining people without charges for 15 years. ISIS arose from the chaos of Iraq.
And now Americans and Brits and the French will be surveiled by Big Brother even more extensively. People scream about their gun rights. I want my privacy rights. And now we will lose those rights in the name of national security.
Yes, things will change. Again.
And now Americans and Brits and the French will be surveiled by Big Brother even more extensively. People scream about their gun rights. I want my privacy rights. And now we will lose those rights in the name of national security.
Yes, things will change. Again.
3
It's worth remembering that people who questioned the post-9/11 jingoism like Bill Maher and Susan Sontag were marginalized, although they turned out to be right. Jeb! is the last person who should be saber rattling. His brother blundered us into a war that contributed to the rise ISIS while shredding civil liberties and an imprisoning people who were picked up more for profit bu bounty hunters than for good reason. They are asking for yet another very expensive, poorly thought through failure.
4
I, also a non-economist (I'm a psychologist), generally anti-war, peacenik, struggle with the meaning of the coordinated attacks on Paris. My reluctant, I hope not emotionally-driven, response is that NATO should join France's President Francois Hollande and declare this "an act of war." Let's be honest; we're, that is, the U.S., France, England and recently Russia, are all already at war with ISIS. But, the nuanced, Obama Administration "incremental" policy of "no boots on the ground" means a long-protracted war with the risk of many more Paris-like attacks in the West while ISIS expands, as it is now doing, into Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and perhaps (our worst nightmare) Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal. My conclusion is: Let's end this now with NATO boots on the ground to take-out ISIS in its home base in Syria, end the Syrian civil war and the refugee crisis it has spawned. It will be, for all the current hand-wringing, much easier now then later when we we'll likely be facing a truly Hydra-headed, multinational ISIS that may have nuclear arms. This, I hope, is not "fearing fear," but honestly assessing the the threat behind the fear and acting prudently to excise this latest fascist-like cancer before it metastasizes.
6
Focus on Paris is a human reaction, but it takes our eyes and hearts off the terrorism that takes place every day in America. In 2015 alone, 290 mass shootings and over 11,000 deaths suggest we might have more to fear than ISIS: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
5
Spot on column,
4
There is a small but deadly flaw in mr Krugman's statement... We as a western society cannot, and should not ignore these attacks... True they are not our main issue, but this has to stop!
The killing in Syria, the idea of the Califat, women and children sold into slavery... The west should not ignore this, should not become fearful... But we should become angry!
The killing in Syria, the idea of the Califat, women and children sold into slavery... The west should not ignore this, should not become fearful... But we should become angry!
6
Pershing solved the problem of Islamic terrorism in the Philippines over 100 hundred years ago. Perhaps we should learn a lesson from his actions. Google "Pershing in the Philippines"
2
Good column Dr. Krugman, now is not more dangerous than Friday morning, silly to panic. Today´s Room for Debate column has Stewart Baker advocating the suggestion of conscripting Syrian migrant men into the military. I think its a great idea, but would include migrant women also. Because this is a cross-border/nation war we need allies among the Islamic non-ISIS, the peace loving Islamics. Also a nice way for them to "earn" refugee status rather than beg and create chaos with the herd arriving in Europe.
1
Wrong again Krugman. You think ISIS doesn't want to make France part of its Caliph? You don't think this is an organized attempt at destroying civilization? This is exactly the problem with the left. The Obama administration and the far left have the blood of tens of thousands of innocent lives on its hands. If only Obama would have left some troops in Iraq this would likely not have happened. Or the Hillary show would have thought strategically about Libya after the Arab spring. When will the left wing wake up and understand that this is the war of our time? These people want to kill us. All of us. The left acts likes a bunch of ostriches with their heads in the sand. How about calling this what it really is for starters? Islamic extremism. Unbelievable! Hopefully the independent voters in the US wake up.
8
Bravo, Dr. Krugman. Bravo.
2
We need to listen to people who have their heads screwed on right. Thank you Dr. Krugmam.
1
"It is, instead, to emphasize that the biggest danger terrorism poses to our society comes not from the direct harm inflicted, but from the wrong-headed responses it can inspire."
You mean responses such as DHS and the TSA. Those were wrong-headed responses to 9/11.
You mean responses such as DHS and the TSA. Those were wrong-headed responses to 9/11.
2
First off; this religion thing is a problem. Make it fundamentalist and boom.
Terrorists don't need to target the United States: we're doing our damnedest (literally) to terrorise ourselves.
1
As a young Army officer in Vietnam, I learned that wishful thinking and self-delusion arte very dangerous things. The West helped to create the seething morass of frustration that breeds Muslim extremists but we certainly had a lot of local help. Unfortunately, as much as we might wish it, there is no quick fix available to us and more boots on the ground will only make things worse. If we want to defeat ISIS, we have to stop recruiting for them and we have to cut off their money.
ISIS funds their operations through the sale of the oil and loot they have stolen. Cut off their ability to fence their spoils and they will begin to wither. That course of action does not generate headlines, it will offend the politically-connected around the world who profit from dealing in ISIS' stolen goods, and it will not provide the instant gratification craved by politicians --- but it will work. Putting more Western boots on the ground will only alienate more Muslims, kill more innocents (along with the guilty). and recruit more Jihadis.
Remember that the Taliban were being defeated by Afghans supported by the CIA until Donald Rumsfeld trashed the whole thing by getting the DoD involved.
ISIS funds their operations through the sale of the oil and loot they have stolen. Cut off their ability to fence their spoils and they will begin to wither. That course of action does not generate headlines, it will offend the politically-connected around the world who profit from dealing in ISIS' stolen goods, and it will not provide the instant gratification craved by politicians --- but it will work. Putting more Western boots on the ground will only alienate more Muslims, kill more innocents (along with the guilty). and recruit more Jihadis.
Remember that the Taliban were being defeated by Afghans supported by the CIA until Donald Rumsfeld trashed the whole thing by getting the DoD involved.
3
We are also afraid of ourselves.
Thanks, Mr. Krugman, for your article!
2
Mr. Krugman writes that Mr. Bush's statement to the horrific attacks in Paris helps the Jidahist's cause.
Mr Krugman is exploiting the heart breaking tragedy of Paris to smear a domestic opponent.
The dead deserve better.
Mr Krugman is exploiting the heart breaking tragedy of Paris to smear a domestic opponent.
The dead deserve better.
4
Let's hope that we don't let fear convince us to give in to poorly planned kneejerk responses liek we did in 2001-2003.
2
It is true that the attacks show the weakness of radical armed organizations like ISIS. They are an army that cannot march; their triumphs in Syria and Iraq were in territory of failed states with preoccupied or corrupt armies; they are unable to overcome a real state such as Jordan, Israel, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia -- much less a Western country such as France. They are nothing like the Islamic armies of the early Middle Ages, which were conventional for their time and overcame the best-armed opponents. All they can do is create mischief -- horrible mischief to be sure, but not of strategic significance. It is Quixotic. And the horror can provoke responses that make the perpetrators even weaker, which is what happened to Al Qaeda. Their worst damage is against innocent Muslims in the Near East, and the good name of modern Islam, which will take generations to recover from these perversions and travesties of that faith.
5
For once Mr. Krugman has it right. Even 100,000 armed and dangerous ISIS jihadists could not destroy Western Civilization in Europe. Unfortunately, the real threat to Western Civilization is not the violent intrusion of jihad into the EU, but rather the unarmed migratory insinuation of Islam along with its core beliefs that are misogynistic, intolerant, anti-intellectual, anti-free speech, anti-democracy, and, in brief, that are unforgivingly and relentlessly anti-Western. How many more millions of peaceful Muslim immigrants will it take to turn Europe into the newest Caliphate? That is the experiment now in progress in Europe. Let’s recognize that this experiment is taking place in real life and in real time…not some isolated laboratory. The results of this experiment will not be reversible. Shouldn’t we therefore be asking our leaders why the heck they’re conducting this experiment in the first place?
4
I'd feel much better if our leaders were as focused on the role of Saudi Arabia as that of ISIS, Iran and lone wolves. We do not have a clear, honest view of what we are facing. Foreign policy is subject to extreme special interest like every other aspect of our government policies.
2
Too bad the people elected as our leaders cannot have this rational a view point.
1
ISIS kills Muslims, rapes girls, and steals property in the name of its bogus religion. It is not a religion but an international criminal syndicate. They hide behind the vision and name of Allah but they do not practice the Koran. They recruit criminals and con others to join their ranks. They preach fear.
The Syrian refugees are running from ISIS not joining them. They need at the very least temporary refuge with the possible hope to return home to Syria at some point. But we should not put them into ghettos or enclaves. That creates a petrie dish of terrorist behaviors.
Many of us spent too much time under our classroom desks hiding from the atom bomb to want to return to that posture.
Onwards but with caution, not fear.
The Syrian refugees are running from ISIS not joining them. They need at the very least temporary refuge with the possible hope to return home to Syria at some point. But we should not put them into ghettos or enclaves. That creates a petrie dish of terrorist behaviors.
Many of us spent too much time under our classroom desks hiding from the atom bomb to want to return to that posture.
Onwards but with caution, not fear.
5
Fearing the Liberals inclination to treat all human beings 'fairly' even the 'occasional' terrorist in the midst of working age refugees.
If a group on people want to visit your home and one of those people is an axe murderer, wouldn't you disallow the entire group?! Most would and most should.
If a group on people want to visit your home and one of those people is an axe murderer, wouldn't you disallow the entire group?! Most would and most should.
3
Thank you, Dr. Krugman. We should react, but not over-react.
2
"…. there are indeed some people determined to believe that Western imperialism is the root of all evil, and all would be well if we stopped meddling." No, I don't think Western imperialism is the root of terrorism in Paris and I don't think all would be well if we stopped meddling. But I do think Islamists attack us because we don't believe right, they attack us because we are infidels. How can I be so sure? Because Muslims tell us so. And if we meddled less i the Middle East they could have their terrorism for themselves there and we in the West could focus on defending our democracy and our faith or non-faith here. There is plenty of ground in the Middle East for the IS to spread their Califat across and there are plenty of Muslims there who wish to have nothing do do with it; let them stem the tide if they are serious about it. Western involvement on the ground is only a challenge, seen as a cause for revenge. Because we are of the wrong faith, of the wrong faith, of the wrong faith, …..
3
An excellent, nuanced article.
2
Dr. Krugman omits the worst of all the uninformed opportunism on display from GOP presidential candidates: Ben Carson's suggestion to "eliminate them before they eliminate us."
Seriously, Dr. Carson? You consider them capable of eliminating us? I think you give too much credence to your fellow travelers' advice: be afraid, very afraid.
Seriously, Dr. Carson? You consider them capable of eliminating us? I think you give too much credence to your fellow travelers' advice: be afraid, very afraid.
1
Thank you, Dr. Krugman. The first sensible response I've read.
1
There is one way to deal with ISIS in order to be spared their attacks. Pay them off.
As wikileaks has revealed, the State Department and all the other governments now taking action against ISIS are well aware of how much of the money supporting them and groups like Al Qaida is money coming out of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf petro states. It's how the oligarchs of those countries buy themselves peace at home in exchange for funding massacres elsewhere.
And our oligarchs ignore that in exchange for oil they sell us and the money they invest in our economies, the weapons they buy from us, and the 'support' they give us.
And if the fear of terrorists is a tool our oligarchs use to keep us in line while they play their games of power and wealth, well that's just the way it works.
If we let them get away with it.
As wikileaks has revealed, the State Department and all the other governments now taking action against ISIS are well aware of how much of the money supporting them and groups like Al Qaida is money coming out of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf petro states. It's how the oligarchs of those countries buy themselves peace at home in exchange for funding massacres elsewhere.
And our oligarchs ignore that in exchange for oil they sell us and the money they invest in our economies, the weapons they buy from us, and the 'support' they give us.
And if the fear of terrorists is a tool our oligarchs use to keep us in line while they play their games of power and wealth, well that's just the way it works.
If we let them get away with it.
2
Oops! I forgot to give the figures (again, according to the CIA World Factbook):
France GDP (PPP, 2014 est.): $2.581 trillion
(official exchange rates, est.): $2.847
Syria GDP (PPP, 2011 est.): $107.6 billion
(official exchange rates, est.) $64.73
France
France GDP (PPP, 2014 est.): $2.581 trillion
(official exchange rates, est.): $2.847
Syria GDP (PPP, 2011 est.): $107.6 billion
(official exchange rates, est.) $64.73
France
1
Thank you, Mr. Krugman.
At times like this I recall FDR's statement that, "the only thing we have to fear is ..... fear itself".
And, Yes, Virginia, there are those that do exploit such as the team of architects who designed an excellent adventure in Iraq.
At times like this I recall FDR's statement that, "the only thing we have to fear is ..... fear itself".
And, Yes, Virginia, there are those that do exploit such as the team of architects who designed an excellent adventure in Iraq.
1
The Atlantic has a detailed argument that counters Prof. Krugman's argument. ISIS is not Al Queda. It is a doomsday cult of zealots and they are absolutely taking apocalyptic scriptures quite literally.
Prof. Krugman seems to believe we are dealing with rational actors who are thinking realistically. We are not.
Prof. Krugman seems to believe we are dealing with rational actors who are thinking realistically. We are not.
4
I am stunned to read that the governor of Michigan is banning (Can he do that?) the settlement of Syrian refugees is this state. Will we now have checkpoints on the interstate highways? Picture guardhouses manned by state troopers. How about a wall? Is this the first thought that occurred to this brave Republican gentleman? Keep out the victims of the upheaval in the Middle East caused to a significant degree by the Iraq adventure engaged in by the leaders of his party in response to terrorism.
2
The Republicans make me sick. Sen. McCain? Please. While I honor his service, he has become a doddering old fool incapable of admitting the blunder that he and his ilk created in the invasion of Iraq and the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He and Bush/Cheney created and armed Isis and now seek to lay blame entirely at the feet of the President.
Sen. Graham is another one. He claims he can be a great leader of warriors because he was a lawyer in the Air Force. Again, he and his ilk created and armed ISIS yet refuse to take responsibility. He would place "boots on the ground" and "rip the caliphate out by its roots." The problem is that American soldiers, sailors and airmen are wearing those boots, will be killed and maimed in a fight that should be borne by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt. Additionally, Sen. Graham hasn't hinted at how he would pay for a protracted war in the Middle East.
Jeb Bush speaking of a "destruction of western civilization" is laughable. ISIS. with 30K to 40K fighters may send suicide bombers to blow themselves up and kill some people in the west, a horror I do not underestimate, but they do not have the capacity to wage war and destroy our civilization. That is crazy talk.
It is time that Jeb and the rest of the lunatics in the GOP campaign, together with Sen. McCain begin to moderate their language and accept responsibility for what their patty's foreign policies have done.
Sen. Graham is another one. He claims he can be a great leader of warriors because he was a lawyer in the Air Force. Again, he and his ilk created and armed ISIS yet refuse to take responsibility. He would place "boots on the ground" and "rip the caliphate out by its roots." The problem is that American soldiers, sailors and airmen are wearing those boots, will be killed and maimed in a fight that should be borne by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt. Additionally, Sen. Graham hasn't hinted at how he would pay for a protracted war in the Middle East.
Jeb Bush speaking of a "destruction of western civilization" is laughable. ISIS. with 30K to 40K fighters may send suicide bombers to blow themselves up and kill some people in the west, a horror I do not underestimate, but they do not have the capacity to wage war and destroy our civilization. That is crazy talk.
It is time that Jeb and the rest of the lunatics in the GOP campaign, together with Sen. McCain begin to moderate their language and accept responsibility for what their patty's foreign policies have done.
6
One of the hallmarks of the right wing is to react with hysteria in regard to foreign policy and defense issues (and many other issues actually). Remember the outcry about the Roosevelt "sellout" at Yalta, General Marshall and President Truman "losing" China, McCarthy and the "Red Scare" and "Homosexual scare" about possible subversives in government, the House Un-American activities committee, and so forth up to the present day. The response of the right wing is to shoot and bomb first then think later. Let me take that back because many of the warmongers prefer willful ignorance and don't do a lot of thinking anytime. If they get us into a war and it doesn't work out, they will just blame the Democrats and say that it would have worked if we had fought longer and bombed harder. Remember Vietnam and second Iraq war
Of course, when you start shooting and bombing (particularly if you have men on the ground) then you are in a war and it is hard to get out. I am sure that ISIS would love for us to be tied down in a ground war in the middle east. They would probably fight like the Taliban. In Afghanistan, when the Taliban start losing they melt away into the mountains of Pakistan. Then when they get a chance they come back.
Of course, when you start shooting and bombing (particularly if you have men on the ground) then you are in a war and it is hard to get out. I am sure that ISIS would love for us to be tied down in a ground war in the middle east. They would probably fight like the Taliban. In Afghanistan, when the Taliban start losing they melt away into the mountains of Pakistan. Then when they get a chance they come back.
2
Thank you Mr. Krugman for saying what needs to be said. One can take it one step farther. Do we really want people who make panicked comments like Jeb Bush to be our President during a crisis. Or like Marco Rubio who now is so afraid that he wants to slam the door shut on Syrian refugees who have lived through far worse that the Paris attacks. I wonder what his parents would have done if we said we should not take any Cuban refugees because some of them might be Communist infiltrators. Why do we have so many cowards who want to be our next President?
3
Thank you for putting this attack in its proper context, and for reminding everyone to maintain calm and poise.
We all needed these words.
We all needed these words.
Terrorists like ISIS aren't just trying to drive the US and Europe out of the Middle East. They're trying to provoke us into doing things that will turn more of the Muslim world against us. We need to recognize this, but so does the rest of the Muslim world. I would like to see Muslims across the world *of every sect of Islam* pulling together to fight what they ought to recognize as an existential threat to their religion. I'm struggling to see that.
4
Bravo. "Fear Itself" a la Roosevelt. Appropriate and timely.
1
Back in 1943, the British team of Powell and Pressburger, a director and producer, released a film entitled "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." I saw it when I was an adolescent, and it should be required viewing now. The thesis was succinct: when a country abandons its principles to win a war, it loses that war to its enemy.
This is especially so in a world where everyday language has been perverted to its antonym by politicians. Since 1980, the word "conservative" has been perverted to mean authoritarian anarchist, "religious liberty" to mean "Worship and believe as I do or shut up and suck it up!" and economic consolidation and a disparity is somehow legitimized as "freedom," while a woman's control of her body is delegitimized as "license."
We've seen a war based on lies, lies woven by a shadow government (Project for the New American Century--"PNAC"--whose members included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and John Bolton) which became the active members of the George W. Bush administration in 2001--a war whose purpose was the greater profits of Halliburton, in which Cheney owns stock as former CEO and whose indept management of Iraq gave rise to Al Quaeda in Iraq and ISIS.
Choose more of the same? We'd be worse than idiots!
This is especially so in a world where everyday language has been perverted to its antonym by politicians. Since 1980, the word "conservative" has been perverted to mean authoritarian anarchist, "religious liberty" to mean "Worship and believe as I do or shut up and suck it up!" and economic consolidation and a disparity is somehow legitimized as "freedom," while a woman's control of her body is delegitimized as "license."
We've seen a war based on lies, lies woven by a shadow government (Project for the New American Century--"PNAC"--whose members included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and John Bolton) which became the active members of the George W. Bush administration in 2001--a war whose purpose was the greater profits of Halliburton, in which Cheney owns stock as former CEO and whose indept management of Iraq gave rise to Al Quaeda in Iraq and ISIS.
Choose more of the same? We'd be worse than idiots!
8
All of the drum beaters and chest thumpers should read Olivier Roy's editorial, conveniently located in today's NYTtimes. Unfortunately those calling for a worldwide coalition to defeat ISIS also need to read it. It's the most sobering, realistic reflection of what we're dealing with here.
1
No, western imperialism isn't the ROOT of this particular evil, that would be the poisonous mix of tribalism and sectarian enmity that has always roiled the middle east, but it was western imperialism that stirred the pot, creating a HUGE problem for the middle easterners and a significant one for itself.
Other than Israel, there are no "countries" in the middle east, there are only metastasizing coalitions of warring tribes and sects. "Iraq" and "Syria" have taken a thousand forms since those names were first coined, but they have always been, either independently or as provinces of a greater power, tyrannies in which the tribe or sect with the most strength dominated all the others.
Can we "fix" them? Probably not. But if we are going to have any chance at all it is going to have to be by improving their economics, by somehow showing that WE, unlike Daesh or Persia or the Saudis, will bring prosperity and security to EVERY tribe and sect.
So far we have only looked after the welfare of American corporations. We've made a few bucks, but the costs have outweighed the profits (and been born by people who had no share of those profits). It is time for us to try sowing something other than mayhem.
Other than Israel, there are no "countries" in the middle east, there are only metastasizing coalitions of warring tribes and sects. "Iraq" and "Syria" have taken a thousand forms since those names were first coined, but they have always been, either independently or as provinces of a greater power, tyrannies in which the tribe or sect with the most strength dominated all the others.
Can we "fix" them? Probably not. But if we are going to have any chance at all it is going to have to be by improving their economics, by somehow showing that WE, unlike Daesh or Persia or the Saudis, will bring prosperity and security to EVERY tribe and sect.
So far we have only looked after the welfare of American corporations. We've made a few bucks, but the costs have outweighed the profits (and been born by people who had no share of those profits). It is time for us to try sowing something other than mayhem.
3
What everyone fears is if one of these simple jihadists obtains a real WMD. Then what? I'm sick and tired of giving up my liberties and freedoms because of religions. Yes all religions.
4
When words are used loosely, discussion becomes difficult--and lawyers get more work. Terror isn't necessarily terrorism--is the boogey-man a terrorist? Even governments have used terror in the course of war, as Germany did on its bloody passage through Belgium in 1914. According to the Clausewitz school, terrorizing the civilian population may cause them to pressure their leaders to end resistance.
One bad way we're hung up on words is that we accept the word of ISIS for what ISIS is. They claim to be a "state" and we concede. Let's judge them for what they do. They are murdering, raping, razing, vile creatures. We must explore and expose their claim to be religious. Are they religious in the sense that Crusaders and 17th century European princes were? Or are they religious in any kind of spiritual way? Obviously not the latter.
Bombing may be good, but we also need to word-bomb them. All hands on deck!
One bad way we're hung up on words is that we accept the word of ISIS for what ISIS is. They claim to be a "state" and we concede. Let's judge them for what they do. They are murdering, raping, razing, vile creatures. We must explore and expose their claim to be religious. Are they religious in the sense that Crusaders and 17th century European princes were? Or are they religious in any kind of spiritual way? Obviously not the latter.
Bombing may be good, but we also need to word-bomb them. All hands on deck!
After Paris, we are going to be seeing more reaction against Muslims in Europe, more Jews leaving Europe, more moves by Putin and the Ayatollah to push their weight around in the Middle East and more bloodshed and
refugees in Syria. Terror may lose in the end, but for now it is winning.
refugees in Syria. Terror may lose in the end, but for now it is winning.
2
Paul, I usually agree with you but not this time. Since the late 1970s there has been a long string of violent acts of terror intent on destroying our way of life and it is working. All of us feel more fearful and traumatized by these frequent relentless attacks. All of us have to undress at airport security lines and have our bags checked before entering schools or museums. We all know someone who has lost life from radical Islamic terrorism. Mumbai, Madrid, London, Sydney, Beirut, Toulouse, Moscow. The long list goes on and on and on. My office was blocks away from the WTC on 9/11. My in-laws live around the corner from the places attacked in Paris on 11/13, spots i frequented just a few months ago. It is all way too close. You should heed the pontiff's words. This is WW III. We need to battle it as such and win.
2
"Reach out and bomb someone". Apparently, in the minds of Ted Cruz and others, this simple sentiment will solve the ISIS problem. "Accept the collateral damage". Another pearl of wisdom from the gang who haven't done anything more dangerous than hold a knife and a fork at the same time.
"Boots on the ground". I heard this plenty on the Sunday morning interview shows. Funny thing - after 14 years of boots on the ground in Afghanistan and 12+ in Iraq, what have we accomplished. A full and lasting peace? The gratitude of the citizens of two nations whose lives are demonstrably better?
I'm no fan of ISIS. They are a dangerous stateless gang of thugs masquerading as religious movement. The sooner they are all dead or in hiding the better. Invading Syria, no matter how attractive it seems right now to the Republican candidates, is another dead-end, just like Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. We have already said our goal is to remove Assad from power but there is no popular figure to replace him that has the backing of the major players. So we wind up with another Iraq with local factions fighting for power and the U.S. (and whatever allies we can dragoon into another coalition) playing the money in the middle. Three times a charm? Not hardly.
"Boots on the ground". I heard this plenty on the Sunday morning interview shows. Funny thing - after 14 years of boots on the ground in Afghanistan and 12+ in Iraq, what have we accomplished. A full and lasting peace? The gratitude of the citizens of two nations whose lives are demonstrably better?
I'm no fan of ISIS. They are a dangerous stateless gang of thugs masquerading as religious movement. The sooner they are all dead or in hiding the better. Invading Syria, no matter how attractive it seems right now to the Republican candidates, is another dead-end, just like Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. We have already said our goal is to remove Assad from power but there is no popular figure to replace him that has the backing of the major players. So we wind up with another Iraq with local factions fighting for power and the U.S. (and whatever allies we can dragoon into another coalition) playing the money in the middle. Three times a charm? Not hardly.
4
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." FDR
1
Its a bit like some diseases that kill you, not because they are inherently deadly, but because they prompt a dramatic over reaction from your immune system.
2
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for keeping your eye on the most important ball. Fear.
Many people, especially men - macho or would-be macho me, use anger as a defense against fear. It is better we acknowledge our vulnerability and fears, dealing with them, than fall prey to anger, which all too often prevents clear thinking.
ISIS recruits through an extensive use of propaganda. And attacks, like those in Paris are part of its propaganda. So, as the professor rightly notes, to fall prey to fear (or anger) proves to jihadist recruits that their cause is "working." And since their cause uses suicide as a weapon, ISIS fighters will not "learn a lesson" from retaliatory bombing.
Defense industries are like the gun industry. Propaganda on the basis of fear sells weapons. So war-mangers play into the hands of both the terrorists and the corporate defense industries.
I'd rather fall into the hands of the professor and other wise leaders!
Many people, especially men - macho or would-be macho me, use anger as a defense against fear. It is better we acknowledge our vulnerability and fears, dealing with them, than fall prey to anger, which all too often prevents clear thinking.
ISIS recruits through an extensive use of propaganda. And attacks, like those in Paris are part of its propaganda. So, as the professor rightly notes, to fall prey to fear (or anger) proves to jihadist recruits that their cause is "working." And since their cause uses suicide as a weapon, ISIS fighters will not "learn a lesson" from retaliatory bombing.
Defense industries are like the gun industry. Propaganda on the basis of fear sells weapons. So war-mangers play into the hands of both the terrorists and the corporate defense industries.
I'd rather fall into the hands of the professor and other wise leaders!
3
My mistake - I meant Mr. Krugman, of course.
Krugman says invading Iraq was a mistake but I'm pretty certain he'll be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016. That is what I call cowardly appeasement.
1
Excellent article. However, I would quibble with Dr. Krugman's unsupported assertion that the terror attacks were "an organized effort to sow panic". First, I suspect that Jeb Bush may be somewhat right in that the ISIS leadership may exist in their own reality bubble. It is possible that they believe they can establish a world caliphate. If so, as Krugman points out they will be very unpleasantly surprised over the long run. However, another possible hypothesis is that ISIS desperately needs a continuous supply of new recruits from across the world. Their actions in the Middle East haven't exactly produced a flood of local support.
1
Are you absolutely sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to stop meddling? Seems to me that the non-meddling non-Muslim countries are not being targeted. This kind of thing isn't happening in Sao Paolo or Shanghai or Mexico City. What would happen if we redirected a big chunk of our war budget toward becoming 100% energy independent as urgently as if our lives depended on it (which they do) -- even if that meant subsidizing the bleep out of the renewable energy development necessary to make this possible? It's not just that we would no longer need to buy Mideast oil. It's also that we would no longer need to ally ourselves with one side in conflicts in the Arab/Muslim realm.
Yes, I know what the remaining fly in the ointment is. Israel. The reality is that Israel has the ability to defend itself. It sits surrounded by varying levels of hell, but there is nothing we can actually do about that unless we intend to wage a WW2-size war and invade the surrounding Mideast like it is Normandy -- and then rule as an iron-fisted occupying power for a couple generations.
Yes, I know what the remaining fly in the ointment is. Israel. The reality is that Israel has the ability to defend itself. It sits surrounded by varying levels of hell, but there is nothing we can actually do about that unless we intend to wage a WW2-size war and invade the surrounding Mideast like it is Normandy -- and then rule as an iron-fisted occupying power for a couple generations.
4
I beg to differ. Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare. ISIS is waring against how we live and who we are. They are not trying to capture our territory as an invader would do in a conventional war. The West is not part of their ancient holy lands that they want to capture for their caliphate. They are trying to change the way we live. They want us all to convert to their brand of Islam. ISIS is an idea, a way of life that they wish to spread all over the globe.
Terrorism is a means to accomplish that goal, or so they believe. It will not. Terrorism never accomplishes anything. A huge component of terrorism is the desire to die. ISIS is a death cult that values death over life, especially their own lives.
We must war against this death cult. So long as the death cult exists, the fear it spreads will exist. We must war against its beliefs as well as its combatants. We don't have choice. We can redirect our fear into resolve. We can turn it into anger and hate. But we will never get rid of it until the death cult is eliminated.
Terrorism is a means to accomplish that goal, or so they believe. It will not. Terrorism never accomplishes anything. A huge component of terrorism is the desire to die. ISIS is a death cult that values death over life, especially their own lives.
We must war against this death cult. So long as the death cult exists, the fear it spreads will exist. We must war against its beliefs as well as its combatants. We don't have choice. We can redirect our fear into resolve. We can turn it into anger and hate. But we will never get rid of it until the death cult is eliminated.
34
Dropping bombs indiscriminately from the air is an awful lot like killing innocent people at a theatre. It's lazy, provocative, self-serving and feel-good in the short term and a sign of weakness.
4
kindly show this article to the families who have lost loved ones.
The heart of civilisation bleeds with fear,intimidation of this type will eventually create a wasteland of ideas & innovations for which France and western civilisation is renowned for,akin to what is Middle East a vast desert of hate & anger.
West will lose a decade in innovation,equivalent to the lost economic decade of Japan.
Unless people are safe & feel safe,no worthwhile initiative & investment will be forthcoming,after all we are dealing with human beings & not economist.
West needs to shed aside its self created moral high grounds & face the reality of an enemy who has nothing to lose.
Tough times need tough response,the world is watching for an response.
The heart of civilisation bleeds with fear,intimidation of this type will eventually create a wasteland of ideas & innovations for which France and western civilisation is renowned for,akin to what is Middle East a vast desert of hate & anger.
West will lose a decade in innovation,equivalent to the lost economic decade of Japan.
Unless people are safe & feel safe,no worthwhile initiative & investment will be forthcoming,after all we are dealing with human beings & not economist.
West needs to shed aside its self created moral high grounds & face the reality of an enemy who has nothing to lose.
Tough times need tough response,the world is watching for an response.
1
I'm a 52 year old guy. I scared to death of having a heart attack. Cancer terrifies me. The thought of having a stroke or dementia feels me with dread. I'm about as scared of ISIS as I am of getting struck by lightning. What happened in New York, Madrid, London and Paris makes me sad. I feel for the families and friends of those unlucky victims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we allow these kinds of murderous attacks to do things these blood thirsty fanatics would love us to do like send another army to The Middle East or disparage the Islamic Religion and those who follow it, round up and jail innocent Muslims or worse start putting these war refugees in concentration camps, then lets call this war what it is: World War III. When we over react we play right into the hands of these terrorists. Why not do the unexpected? Instead of sending in soldiers, we send in doctors, nurses, teachers, build water wells, show them how to farm and raise livestock and help them rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed by invading Iraq in the first place. Our vision of the world is so much better than theirs, so lets us it to beat down the hate and sow seeds not bullets, turn guns into plows and tanks into tractors. That is the way to stop the rise of this death cult we call ISIS.
4
An over reaction would surely result in collateral damage, but the worst collateral damage is not the innocents that may be killed, as horrible as that would be. It's the creation of even more terrorists. The West's interventionist meddling is ISIS's ace-in-the-hole recruitment tool. And we provide it free of charge. The terrorists are like mogwai. Every one you kill spawns a dozen who are even worse.
1
Creating fear and selling weapons. That is the name of the game. Now we all fall back into the fear trap again. Gullibility and ignorance are the real tools of war.
4
I add my thanks for the first thoughtful and reasoned commentary I've read on this matter. I watched Morning Joe today, and their hair-on-fire take (mostly Scarborough's) is that ISIS is now the second coming of the Nazi Wermacht, combined with the Red Army. It's not. The average person living in a Western society faces a far greater risk from texting teenaged drivers than they do from Syrian jihadis.
ISIS will be contained and eventually defeated. Its (or its' successors') suicide cult cells will continue to exist. Reducing entire countries to ashes won't change that, and thankfully we've got a mature commander in chief who realizes it.
ISIS will be contained and eventually defeated. Its (or its' successors') suicide cult cells will continue to exist. Reducing entire countries to ashes won't change that, and thankfully we've got a mature commander in chief who realizes it.
3
I was just reading a post elsewhere by a father whose son was shot at Bacalan. He was not angry at the shooters who he felt were misled youths fed wild hysterical junk by greedy power hungry individuals elsewhere. The power hungry in ISIL and other such individuals, mini men in militias or behind doors in states or neighborhoods or Internet digital realms, deserve his and out anger but not overriding panic or fear. And take note, how different is this from U.S. school shootings and random street violence as jlalbrecht points out in his post to this article.
"But real-world examples of mainstream politicians, let alone governments, knuckling under to terrorist demands are hard to find"
Not so hard; after the terrorist attacks in 2004 in Spain, the newly elected government of Zapatero immediately caved in to the terrorist demands that they leave Iraq.
Not so hard; after the terrorist attacks in 2004 in Spain, the newly elected government of Zapatero immediately caved in to the terrorist demands that they leave Iraq.
3
Yes, Mr. Krugman, you are spot on, and those of us who are old enough remember FDR's memorable first inaugural address "Only thing we have to fear but fear inself."
1
Unfortunately, terrible events of this and other analogous sorts inevitably bring out the hawks, commonly in an evident state of panic, mouths flapping, minds on hold, and politics/ideology at the fore (e.g. think back on post-WWII history; think back to Iraq). Of course the terrorists must be taken care of -- absolutely -- but they are NOT going to bring down either France or Western Civilization, now or in an election year.
2
On cue, Mr. Krugman once again genuflects in order to spin a barbarian massacre into his tired assessment of the conservative political dolts he feels superior to. Mr. Krugman: everyone is entitled their own form of fear. But none of those fears approximate the murderous behavior exhibited by the Islamic terrorists last weekend in Paris.
3
Lord help me. I actually agree with Paul Krugman today. A wise man said this to America on September 12, 2001:
"I've heard a number of media people throughout the course of the past day, the past 24 hours, refer to the possibility that we may have to tighten down some of our freedoms, that the age of innocence that is America is over and that we all now may have to join in some sort of sacrifice of our liberties and freedom in order to protect ourselves in the future. And I'm here to tell you right now that if anybody thinks that, I don't care if you're in the news media, I don't care if you're a member of the general population, you are missing the whole point of what being an American is. You do not understand it.
You're missing the whole point of the Constitution. You're missing the whole point of the reason for the founding of this country, the reason for this nation's existence. If you think that the proper response to 9/11 is to ratchet down freedom because of this, if you think that it's worth trading a little freedom in order for security, you must work hard to banish that thought. The exact opposite is what needs to take place here. The exact opposite is what needs to be our motivating attitude. The exact opposite is what's necessary. This nation must reaffirm its freedoms. This nation must rebuild itself, expand upon its freedoms. We cannot allow an event like this to cause us to shrink smaller within ourselves, to become fearful." -Rush Limbaugh
"I've heard a number of media people throughout the course of the past day, the past 24 hours, refer to the possibility that we may have to tighten down some of our freedoms, that the age of innocence that is America is over and that we all now may have to join in some sort of sacrifice of our liberties and freedom in order to protect ourselves in the future. And I'm here to tell you right now that if anybody thinks that, I don't care if you're in the news media, I don't care if you're a member of the general population, you are missing the whole point of what being an American is. You do not understand it.
You're missing the whole point of the Constitution. You're missing the whole point of the reason for the founding of this country, the reason for this nation's existence. If you think that the proper response to 9/11 is to ratchet down freedom because of this, if you think that it's worth trading a little freedom in order for security, you must work hard to banish that thought. The exact opposite is what needs to take place here. The exact opposite is what needs to be our motivating attitude. The exact opposite is what's necessary. This nation must reaffirm its freedoms. This nation must rebuild itself, expand upon its freedoms. We cannot allow an event like this to cause us to shrink smaller within ourselves, to become fearful." -Rush Limbaugh
1
Between Jeb? and Cruz, we have the conservatives well represented with respect to how absurd their responses could be if either wins the election.
Jeb Bush: "Let's Focus On Helping The Christian Syrian Refugees, Rather Than The Muslims". Cruz's response has been to not worry about civilian casualties - and it is transparent to all that this is because those casualties would be Muslim.
On top of all this, the GOP is still funding DOD in support of a "state" oriented threat to the US, from Russia or China primarily. The new stealth bomber is a good example of this focus.
I like Sander's response to all this and it seems to be related primarily to the real threat to all, CLIMATE. The response to the immediate threat requires a more surgical response, not another invasion against a state like Iran. A rational response would be to couple this surgical approach to immediate threats with a Marshall like Plan to aid efforts to combat the effects of climate, and to help offset the lack of basics like education.
However, this is rational and evidence based thinking. Fat chance.
Jeb Bush: "Let's Focus On Helping The Christian Syrian Refugees, Rather Than The Muslims". Cruz's response has been to not worry about civilian casualties - and it is transparent to all that this is because those casualties would be Muslim.
On top of all this, the GOP is still funding DOD in support of a "state" oriented threat to the US, from Russia or China primarily. The new stealth bomber is a good example of this focus.
I like Sander's response to all this and it seems to be related primarily to the real threat to all, CLIMATE. The response to the immediate threat requires a more surgical response, not another invasion against a state like Iran. A rational response would be to couple this surgical approach to immediate threats with a Marshall like Plan to aid efforts to combat the effects of climate, and to help offset the lack of basics like education.
However, this is rational and evidence based thinking. Fat chance.
The most recent terrorism in Paris should at least awaken us to examine our involvement and alliances in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, long considered an American ally, is a sponsor of terrorism by financing the spread of the most radical sects of Islam. Their society and laws do not comport with Western values. We need to get serious with pressuring Israel to end its oppression of Palestinians and agree to a 2-state solution NOW, not in another 20 years. We need to rethink who our friends are, who is acting in good faith, and what is not just in our interests, but in the interest of a more peaceful world; we need to develop a long-term strategy to deal with terrorism that flourishes in the Middle East and that means examining all of our allies.
We had to deal with suicide bombers before, in World War II. They were called the kamikazes.
We dealt with them in two ways. First, we made sure that our ships were well protected, with picket destroyers, combat air patrols, and a lot of firepower.
But, as long as the relevant equation to the Japanese generals and admirals was "one plane, one pilot, one ship," that was not enough. We had to raise it to "one plane, one bomb, on city." In short, don't play their game, play ours, and don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
I am not suggesting that we nuke the Mideast or "create a desert and call it a peace" as the Romans did. And, I firmly believe that ISIS is the creation of our own blunders there. But right now ISIS is the clear and present danger, so it is necessary for us to join with everyone in opposition to them, including Russia, Assad, and Iran, for the short term goal of eliminating their home base.
And for those who say we should not align ourselves with the "less bad guys" to get rid of the evil ones, remember that Churchill, a staunch opponent of Communism, backed Stalin in World War II, saying:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
We dealt with them in two ways. First, we made sure that our ships were well protected, with picket destroyers, combat air patrols, and a lot of firepower.
But, as long as the relevant equation to the Japanese generals and admirals was "one plane, one pilot, one ship," that was not enough. We had to raise it to "one plane, one bomb, on city." In short, don't play their game, play ours, and don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
I am not suggesting that we nuke the Mideast or "create a desert and call it a peace" as the Romans did. And, I firmly believe that ISIS is the creation of our own blunders there. But right now ISIS is the clear and present danger, so it is necessary for us to join with everyone in opposition to them, including Russia, Assad, and Iran, for the short term goal of eliminating their home base.
And for those who say we should not align ourselves with the "less bad guys" to get rid of the evil ones, remember that Churchill, a staunch opponent of Communism, backed Stalin in World War II, saying:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
1
What truly terrifies me is the prospect of being in a restaurant when a bunch of good guys with guns start blasting away at some other guy who may or may not be a bad guy, and who may or may not have a gun.
Mr. Krugman is clear-headed as always. Our greatest fear should be fear itself. And the war in Iraq was clearly a bonanza for terrorists. We must keep those facts in mind as we address the details of our reaction to events like the tragedies in Paris.
Ah, so it really was all Bush's fault. Again.
Just once, it would be good if Mr Krugman would advance a potential solution to this sort of intractable issue as opposed to the easy column inches of an other "blame" piece.
Just once, it would be good if Mr Krugman would advance a potential solution to this sort of intractable issue as opposed to the easy column inches of an other "blame" piece.
1
The goal for ISIS in attacking Paris is to incite French, American, British, Australian, and Russian ground forces into an assault on its Caliphate. They know that will draw thousands of new recruits to its cause. They believe it will instill uprisings among the millions (6 million in France alone) of Muslims who live in those countries. Tempting though it may be to see US Marines rolling into Mosul, we have to be very, very careful in our response. We may find it useful to join forces with Iran (imagine that) while firmly twisting the arm of Saudi Arabia, the main financier of ISIS. Unfortunately it will take American troops to win a ground campaign but it cannot be only NATO or American or especially Russian troops that make the difference. Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi forces must be the occupation forces that immediately follow any incursion. And we must leave quickly. Stop the nonsense talk about seizing the oil fields and making that pay for anything. If we can't forge a sensible alliance and a sane military and political strategy, this scourge will remain and I fear we can look forward to the inevitable assault on Times Square.
The Paris attacks will increase international diligence and cooperation in detecting terrorist activities but should be used to justify a larger ground war anywhere. The Bush administration made that mistake by using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq with disastrous long term consequences, including the rise of ISIS. Obama so far has shown far more prudence.
Ultimately the people of the Middle East will have to deal with the radicals in their midst or they may find themselves quarantined by the civilized world. It is clear western civilization and Islamic radicalism cannot coexist.
Ultimately the people of the Middle East will have to deal with the radicals in their midst or they may find themselves quarantined by the civilized world. It is clear western civilization and Islamic radicalism cannot coexist.
Reporters are out interviewing people on the street in Paris. I find it remarkable how many Parisians understand that the objective of the attacks is to inspire fear. It's inspiring how many Parisians are resisting the attacks by refusing to let fear take over their lives. Vive la France!
3
FDR's great speech : So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. Let freedom for all women, children, men regardless of belief, nationality, race, sexuality lead us forward.
1
Dr. Krugman,
Given the focus of your remarks (with which I agree entirely) I can see why you might have thought it would be diversionary to mention Beirut. Nonetheless, I wish you had pointed out the message that is being sent to the world by our reacting to the events of last week as though they had occurred only in Paris.
Given the focus of your remarks (with which I agree entirely) I can see why you might have thought it would be diversionary to mention Beirut. Nonetheless, I wish you had pointed out the message that is being sent to the world by our reacting to the events of last week as though they had occurred only in Paris.
1
Neither ISIS or al Qaeda can project power, and in this case Mr. Krugman is the voice of reason. They can sow panic, and they want to invite a disproportionate reaction in kind, which will edge this conflict over who shall control the distribution of fossil fuel to Europe and Asia from the Middle East, The Sunni Royals or The Shia States, into a Western War upon Islam.
It is simply common sense not to respond to provocation in the way that our enemies want, but in this case, we have an unrecognized adversary hidden at the heart of the American Security State, which uses the crises atmosphere of a terror attack to its own ends, and they want our people to remain in the fight or flight mode to serve their purposes.
They are the people who started this debacle, which has turned the M.E. into a shooting gallery, by disseminating false propaganda slogans like "Saddam...9/11...Never forget," which provoked us into invading Iraq, which was innocent of responsibility for 9/11, but which had pristine oil reserves in abundance, which they covet.
The war profiteers who destroyed Iraq in pursuit of their own ends demand through the agencies of The Security State, which include the consolidate American Media, that Americans be either enraged or panicked as a patriotic duty, and they want us to make bad decisions regarding the state of permanent war just as badly as do ISIS or al Qaeda for as long as it takes to garner a return upon their investment in the Oil Wars.
It is simply common sense not to respond to provocation in the way that our enemies want, but in this case, we have an unrecognized adversary hidden at the heart of the American Security State, which uses the crises atmosphere of a terror attack to its own ends, and they want our people to remain in the fight or flight mode to serve their purposes.
They are the people who started this debacle, which has turned the M.E. into a shooting gallery, by disseminating false propaganda slogans like "Saddam...9/11...Never forget," which provoked us into invading Iraq, which was innocent of responsibility for 9/11, but which had pristine oil reserves in abundance, which they covet.
The war profiteers who destroyed Iraq in pursuit of their own ends demand through the agencies of The Security State, which include the consolidate American Media, that Americans be either enraged or panicked as a patriotic duty, and they want us to make bad decisions regarding the state of permanent war just as badly as do ISIS or al Qaeda for as long as it takes to garner a return upon their investment in the Oil Wars.
Mr. Krugman is in perfect harmony with the nyt's editorial board on downplaying Mr. Sanders, who is the only candidate of either party who speak credibly and directly about the imbecility of the Iraq invasion and Rumsfeld's mentality of "sweeping everything up related or not." This mentality is alive and well in Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson. As for the perennially triangulating Hilary, she supported the Iraq not as a "mistake" but as a calculation that that was where the smart mo dry would go. As always, follow the money! The Clintons have made a fortune from their speaking gigs, and Mr. Krugman has his Park Avenue home. I note that Mr. Sanders has yet to receive significant attention the the nut editorials or in Krugman's columns. Perhaps Mr. Krugman, whom for the most part I respect more than any other commentTor, is looking toward a cabinet post in a Clinton administration.
1
Krugman misses the point when he says, "No, it isn’t [an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization]. It’s an organized attempt to sow panic, which isn’t at all the same thing." What then is the purpose of sowing panic, which Krugman clearly concedes is the result?
We have already materially altered our behavior (which, apparently, Krugman is not willing to concede is a destruction of something) as a result of prior attacks. The examples are numerous: long security lines at airports, sporting events, etc., that never existed previous to 9/11. Also, there was a time when you could enter almost any building in NYC and go to the tenant you were there to see and the first person to stop you was the tenant's receptionist. Now, you cannot even enter many buildings without showing picture identification and having confirmation from the person you came to see that you were expected. And the list is much longer than these few examples.
At what point does the material erosion of our liberties constitute a destruction of something? Western civilization has materially changed already, and it will change even more if these attacks continue. So, we are witnessing its gradual destruction whether or not Krugman is willing to believe that.
We have already materially altered our behavior (which, apparently, Krugman is not willing to concede is a destruction of something) as a result of prior attacks. The examples are numerous: long security lines at airports, sporting events, etc., that never existed previous to 9/11. Also, there was a time when you could enter almost any building in NYC and go to the tenant you were there to see and the first person to stop you was the tenant's receptionist. Now, you cannot even enter many buildings without showing picture identification and having confirmation from the person you came to see that you were expected. And the list is much longer than these few examples.
At what point does the material erosion of our liberties constitute a destruction of something? Western civilization has materially changed already, and it will change even more if these attacks continue. So, we are witnessing its gradual destruction whether or not Krugman is willing to believe that.
2
I begin to sense in the New York Times Opinion Pages a concerted effort to lull people into an "it can't happen here" frame of mind and an equally determined effort to convince people that since Islamic terrorism is all our fault anyway only some unspecified conciliation on our part can stop it. Where, oh where, have we seen all this before?
3
One of the major goals of terrorists is to elicit a draconian response from those attacked. Thus driving the populace from which the terrorist draw their support further away from those who were attacked. "Bombing them back to stone age" will only generate more terrorist and convince the Muslim world that the West is indeed waging a war on Muslims.
While it is natural to focus on terrorism that comes from foreign shores, we must remember that we have a growing assault weapon-loving culture in the USA - fanned by GOP politicians who hope to harness it for personal gain. That gun culture is closely tied to conservative, evangelical cults that teach paranoia and hate wrapped in libertarianism. Many in that segment of America are as capable of becoming armed terrorists as those in the right-wing jihadist cultures in Islam. There isn't any difference between the hatred and fear in the hearts of those who fanatically support ISIS and the rot in the hearts of Americans who wrap their Christianity around their gun cabinets.
4
May what you have written become the guiding thought behind our actions for now and the foreseeable future.
What a pleasure to have someone of your caliber commentating on vitally important issues, be they economic, environmental, or political - including terrorism.
What a pleasure to have someone of your caliber commentating on vitally important issues, be they economic, environmental, or political - including terrorism.
1
Bono said it was "an attack on music" which, coming from a little twit who nances around Europe in a private jet deriving his income from crowds, conveniently neglects to mention that crowds are the perfect terrorist opportunity to cause mayhem and carnage. Football games, rock concerts, and other large gatherings need increased security and the ticket price should include it. But this was never an attack on music....
2
Yes, terrorism is just one of many dangers, but these animals actively search to buy dirty and conventional nuclear weapons and/or poison gas. There is no knowing where they'll stop, and their threats to conquer Rome, Paris, Spain etc. are no jokes. Unlike Al Quaeda they don't just aim to topple buildings or people that represent military and economic might, ISIS goes for innocent people with gusto to create mayhem and fear. Are we going to wait until there will be an event that costs hundred thousand people in the Free World their lives before we take the gloves off and together with Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia and other allies go for their throats? Close the European borders, then destroy their oil fields first, cut off any financial and other material support, tell the people of Raqqa to leave town and then level it. There cannot be a "capital of the caliphate' that remains standing. Sorry, but I do believe that ISIS' ambitions to destroy and create a new world order knows no boundaries. A reporter recently interviewed children and teens from the ME in Holland: They despised their hosts, badmouthed women for their way of dressing, and openly exclaimed that only Sharia law was acceptable to them and that their host country better realize that. One child added:"Or they must die". Very worrisome. Now there are over a million migrants, at least 80% fit young men, marching across Europe. Most of them are not eligible for asylum, even Angela Merkel said. What now?
3
ISIS largely failed in achieving the objectives of its attack - the death of thousands to judge from their choice of weapons and targets. They did not gain access to the stadium. Their second bomb was clearly planned to gain entry after their first wave distracted and drew security.
But, ISIS's greatest objective is world attention and publicity, and because the Republicans and their supporters in the neo-con right have tried to spin this as a great terrorist victory, they have actually been the biggest promoters of ISIS's strategy. They are dupes and border on being traitors. This needs to be pointed out to them, and they need to walk their elephant back in the barn along with their ambitions to use tragedy as a launching platform, before they further soil freedom and democracy with their stupidity and xenophobic hysteria.
France deserves the support of GOP not ISIS, but you would never know it to listen to their statements, especially in the France bashing that occurs on FOX and similar right wing forums. Trump can keep his mouth shut. He sounds like a traitor and a fool, and the rest of the clown car should not follow him off the cliff of stupid, self-serving, statements that support ISIS's public relations objectives. Why hand them victory from their failure?
The attack was actually a sign of desperation. ISIS is feeling the hurt. They are losing the revenue from cannibalizing oil and their extortion racket is losing traction. Only the GOP can save ISIS now.
But, ISIS's greatest objective is world attention and publicity, and because the Republicans and their supporters in the neo-con right have tried to spin this as a great terrorist victory, they have actually been the biggest promoters of ISIS's strategy. They are dupes and border on being traitors. This needs to be pointed out to them, and they need to walk their elephant back in the barn along with their ambitions to use tragedy as a launching platform, before they further soil freedom and democracy with their stupidity and xenophobic hysteria.
France deserves the support of GOP not ISIS, but you would never know it to listen to their statements, especially in the France bashing that occurs on FOX and similar right wing forums. Trump can keep his mouth shut. He sounds like a traitor and a fool, and the rest of the clown car should not follow him off the cliff of stupid, self-serving, statements that support ISIS's public relations objectives. Why hand them victory from their failure?
The attack was actually a sign of desperation. ISIS is feeling the hurt. They are losing the revenue from cannibalizing oil and their extortion racket is losing traction. Only the GOP can save ISIS now.
4
You say we "shouldn't dignify it with the name of war." But France itself dignified it as war, and has now bombed Raqqa, along with the US, Russia, and Syria. Poor civilians.
As Professor Krugman knows, FDR’s “fear itself” speech was given at his First Inaugural in 1933 and was aimed not at Hitler or the Third Reich, but at the Great Depression. Juxtaposing “fear itself” to terrorism is a bit of stretch, since we actually do fear terrorism to such an extent that the fear has created the TSA, and completely changed our unfettered access to airline travel and entertainment venues. As a frequent movie-goer, I will not go to films with large audiences for fear of a lone gunman shooting up the place. But it is not an ISIS terrorist that I fear at the movies. Rather, my fear is an unstable American with easy access to unregulated hand-guns and assault rifles.
2
Just a FYI. In the United States, every couple of days, more Americans are killed by guns than were killed in Paris. Yet nobody runs screaming about it and stands with the victims the way many people seem to be standing with Paris and France. Why is that, I wonder? Are Americans so desensitized to mass murders in their own country that they can only feel empathy when it happens to someone else? Let us be realistic. As Dr. Krugman says, Daesh, and please, use Daesh, because it is definitely not Islamic in any sense of the word, any more than the "Lord's Army" in Uganda is Christian. These are thugs who are using religion to mask that they are out to satisfy their own twisted ideas. Oh, how Al Baghdadi must love all the attention his latest trick garnered. I bet he has a room full of televisions linked to satellites so he can watch it all - and highlights of people declaring war on Daesh .
As to why we should be calling them Daesh, here's the scoop. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, the word can mean "to trample down and crush." But it can also mean "a bigot." ISIS has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone it hears using the term.
"It's a derogatory term and not someting people should use even if you dislike them," said Evan Kohlmann, a national security analyst at Flashpoint and a contributor to NBC News. "It would be like referring to Germans as 'Huns.'"
As to why we should be calling them Daesh, here's the scoop. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, the word can mean "to trample down and crush." But it can also mean "a bigot." ISIS has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone it hears using the term.
"It's a derogatory term and not someting people should use even if you dislike them," said Evan Kohlmann, a national security analyst at Flashpoint and a contributor to NBC News. "It would be like referring to Germans as 'Huns.'"
1
The post attack declaration by France's prime minister that "this is war" almost implies that the West and its allies have been sitting on their hands until the Paris attack came along. More appropriately a "this is war" declaration from the West (primarily the US) would date to August 2014 when the airstrikes against ISIS began. Since that time the US and its coalition partners have launched over 8,000 airstrikes and released about 20,000 munitions. (France's contribution was a few hundred sorties,)
Given the ISIS affection for cruelty, and a certain level of tactical expertise, the Paris horror might be considered the ISIS quid pro quot - Paris because New York is too difficult. I have no doubt that ISIS as a geographical based entity will be destroyed, as it should be. But I don't think its repository of hate, vengeance, and vicious know-how will also be destroyed, especially since this repository exists well outside the ISIS borders, as within.
The West can treat Terrorism as requiring crime prevention and crime prosecution and/or a holy war. Global warming is our biggest survival challenge, and requires a communal spirit among nations to manage equitable outcomes. A holy war will guarantee the opposite.
Given the ISIS affection for cruelty, and a certain level of tactical expertise, the Paris horror might be considered the ISIS quid pro quot - Paris because New York is too difficult. I have no doubt that ISIS as a geographical based entity will be destroyed, as it should be. But I don't think its repository of hate, vengeance, and vicious know-how will also be destroyed, especially since this repository exists well outside the ISIS borders, as within.
The West can treat Terrorism as requiring crime prevention and crime prosecution and/or a holy war. Global warming is our biggest survival challenge, and requires a communal spirit among nations to manage equitable outcomes. A holy war will guarantee the opposite.
1
OK, so France is not going to be conquered by ISIS, now or ever. Neither for that matter will any civilized country. But that's really not the point.
Ok, so Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney used 9/11 to launch their war of ambition into Iraq. History will put their lies and subsequent cost to America in the same category as LBJ and McNamara's failed adventures. That is not the point.
The point is that ISIS, like the nazis, must be exterminated. So too must the ideology that fuels and justifies its barbarity. So too must the people who profit politically from both the ideology and the use of ISIS as a means of their theocratic foreign policy.
That's the point.
Ok, so Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney used 9/11 to launch their war of ambition into Iraq. History will put their lies and subsequent cost to America in the same category as LBJ and McNamara's failed adventures. That is not the point.
The point is that ISIS, like the nazis, must be exterminated. So too must the ideology that fuels and justifies its barbarity. So too must the people who profit politically from both the ideology and the use of ISIS as a means of their theocratic foreign policy.
That's the point.
5
ISIS is a very cruel and aggressive movement, but let's keep perspective on their power. ISIS only has between 30 to 40 thousand troops. Compare that to the Dutch military, with about 49 thousand troops. So, the military of ISIS is very small.
This extremist movement survives only in failed political states, such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. They have some ability to export terror to the Western world, but limited ability to expand.
The war against ISIS requires patience and a steady hand, not hysteria and panic. Those who exploit our fears for political gain should not be allowed to manage this effort.
This extremist movement survives only in failed political states, such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. They have some ability to export terror to the Western world, but limited ability to expand.
The war against ISIS requires patience and a steady hand, not hysteria and panic. Those who exploit our fears for political gain should not be allowed to manage this effort.
2
I almost always agree with you and was pleased as punch when Hillary mentioned you in Saturday's debate [by the way, her comment about Wall Street was not a blunder -- it was correct but misunderstood]. But my gut tells me you're wrong on this. We've sat around, basically twiddling our thumbs , for a long time now. Now we've got millions of refugees hobbling around Europe and one of the great democracies experiencing their own 9/11 [and having grown up in the midwest in the 1950's, yes, things HAVE changed]. I think we need a better plan.
1
By saying that ISIS cannot destroy Western Civilization this article assumes that they are going about doing so by territorial expansion, or military operations. ISIS cannot defeat the West through traditional military means, which is why they are resorting to terrorist tactics and ideological battles. If ISIS manages to stifle our freedom of speech, or scare us into not fighting them then they win, and that is how they will defeat the West, not through might but through fear. These people launch an assault on everything we value in Western Democracy, and must be opposed.
2
9/11 did change everything, Paul. Look at the Manhattan skyline and talk to the thousands more who lost the thousands when the Towers went down. Everytime you walk through a TSA frisking or body-scan, you will be reminded of how it changed us.
It appears that your Rx is to beware of fearing fear. FDR said it much better than you have this morning. He actually had an Rx.
The fact is that if we continue to put up with the terrorists' blood-letting of innocents, we will continue to have more blood-letting. The choice is clear: Either obliterate ISIS or try to conquer your fear the next time you walk down a busy NY avenue wondering if there's a wacko terrorist nearby, ready to shout: "Allah Akbar!" and take you with him to his happy virgins.
It appears that your Rx is to beware of fearing fear. FDR said it much better than you have this morning. He actually had an Rx.
The fact is that if we continue to put up with the terrorists' blood-letting of innocents, we will continue to have more blood-letting. The choice is clear: Either obliterate ISIS or try to conquer your fear the next time you walk down a busy NY avenue wondering if there's a wacko terrorist nearby, ready to shout: "Allah Akbar!" and take you with him to his happy virgins.
1
ISIS comprises terrorists, extortionists, rapists.
It is a criminal enterprise.
Arrests, prosecutions, prison. End of.
Any hack who calls these criminals "soldiers" deserves a rap on the knuckles.
It is a criminal enterprise.
Arrests, prosecutions, prison. End of.
Any hack who calls these criminals "soldiers" deserves a rap on the knuckles.
1
It isn't fear they hope to bring, it is anxiety. You fear death but you may have anxiety over what if anything comes after. France may fear another attack but they become a nation of anxiety over when that may happen or how it may happen, or what the results of an attack may be. They don't know and that destroys tranquility and confidence and creates an atmosphere of anxiety over what may come next.
Appeasement comes in many forms. It may be a statement by our leader that we need to understand ISIS and their issues as we learn about their atrocities and hear about how they are murdering, torturing and enslaving thousand of people. Or it may be a statement by our leader that all we want to do is "contain" ISIS. What does that mean. Leave ISIS holding a large part of Iraq and Syria? Keep their atrocities confined to that areas they now have control of or are active in? The NYT has shown us a map of their involvement in terrorist planning and committing throughout the world. Are those areas part of the containment? We don't know what our leader means by the statement we have contained ISIS, spoken 24 hours before Paris. Liberal or conservative, those words and Paris will create an atmosphere of anxiety in France and here. We just don't know what those words mean or what ISIS has planned for us.
Appeasement comes in many forms. It may be a statement by our leader that we need to understand ISIS and their issues as we learn about their atrocities and hear about how they are murdering, torturing and enslaving thousand of people. Or it may be a statement by our leader that all we want to do is "contain" ISIS. What does that mean. Leave ISIS holding a large part of Iraq and Syria? Keep their atrocities confined to that areas they now have control of or are active in? The NYT has shown us a map of their involvement in terrorist planning and committing throughout the world. Are those areas part of the containment? We don't know what our leader means by the statement we have contained ISIS, spoken 24 hours before Paris. Liberal or conservative, those words and Paris will create an atmosphere of anxiety in France and here. We just don't know what those words mean or what ISIS has planned for us.
The truth is that ISIS is winning, but not because they are destroying us, but because they understand how to promote our own destruction.
47
Thoughtful and humane treatment of the Syrian refugees would go a long way toward attenuating ISIS recruitment.
75
Mr. Krugman is right, we should not panic.
However, we need to make sure that Saudi Arabia knows that we don't really need their oil any more, and if they continue to act like our enemy, we will treat them as one. The radical Islamic fundamentalism (and ISIS) comes from the Wahhabi schools in Saudi Arabia, and it is time for the House of Saud to deal with it.
Impose complete economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia until it has closed all Wahhabi schools. Saudi Arabia is our enemy and we need to start treating them like one.
However, we need to make sure that Saudi Arabia knows that we don't really need their oil any more, and if they continue to act like our enemy, we will treat them as one. The radical Islamic fundamentalism (and ISIS) comes from the Wahhabi schools in Saudi Arabia, and it is time for the House of Saud to deal with it.
Impose complete economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia until it has closed all Wahhabi schools. Saudi Arabia is our enemy and we need to start treating them like one.
6
"Take, for example, Jeb Bush’s declaration that “this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.” No, it isn’t. It’s an organized attempt to sow panic, which isn’t at all the same thing."
No, Paul. It's an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization, not just to sow panic for panic's sake. For a Nobel Prize winner you seem pretty obtuse when it comes to distinguishing between tactics, strategy and ultimate goals. Or was Hitler's organized invasion of Russia for example, not an attempt to destroy Russia but an organized attempt to sow panic, too.
No, Paul. It's an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization, not just to sow panic for panic's sake. For a Nobel Prize winner you seem pretty obtuse when it comes to distinguishing between tactics, strategy and ultimate goals. Or was Hitler's organized invasion of Russia for example, not an attempt to destroy Russia but an organized attempt to sow panic, too.
1
All the civilized nations must form a military coalition to use all their land, sea and air power to completely obliterate ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
2
Yes..but... Can the Kurds give up and go home ?
Too many people in this country (for starters) somehow think the whole "Climate Change is a Security Threat" argument is new. Well, it's not. As far back as 2003, a blue-ribbon panel of current and former US military commanders (that liberal bastion!) released a report entitled, "“National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” - See more at: https://www.ausa.org/NEWS/2013/Pages/MilitaryPanelClimate.aspx#sthash.QJ....
The response of the GWB administration? Suppress it and hope nobody notices, since it didn't fit their narrative at the time for invading a country with no 9/11 perpetrators but plenty of oil under the sand. And of all the present GOP candidates--non of whom would admit that this 2003 report has any merit--Jeb? was indeed the personification of head-in-the-sand inanity when he said during the GOP debate in response to Donald Trump's challenge that his 9/11 response was a disaster, "My brother kept us safe." That statement alone makes Jeb? unfit for the presidency.
The response of the GWB administration? Suppress it and hope nobody notices, since it didn't fit their narrative at the time for invading a country with no 9/11 perpetrators but plenty of oil under the sand. And of all the present GOP candidates--non of whom would admit that this 2003 report has any merit--Jeb? was indeed the personification of head-in-the-sand inanity when he said during the GOP debate in response to Donald Trump's challenge that his 9/11 response was a disaster, "My brother kept us safe." That statement alone makes Jeb? unfit for the presidency.
5
The real enemy of all human race is China,the sales of petrol through Iran,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Egypt,Libya,Algeria,Sudan,Somalia,S.Arabia goes to China,the real finance of terrorist organization began before thirty years or more ,Islamic Conference ,Islamic Invitation Organization,International Africa University Khartoum,other organizations in S.Arabia,Pakistan,Iran,Iraq,Syria,other countries in Asia.
The coming war against China,Iran,Iraq,Syria ,S.Arabia though those attacks targeted mosques in S.Arabia but does not mean the members of those organizations are not involved in the sales of petrol to China
The coming war against China,Iran,Iraq,Syria ,S.Arabia though those attacks targeted mosques in S.Arabia but does not mean the members of those organizations are not involved in the sales of petrol to China
"Refuse to give in to fear" – as in – "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".
Please explain to me why we can't invade Syria and obliterate ISIS.
Thank you for the reminder that it was the GOP that created ISIS.
As the many tribal wars in the Middle East continue... You do remember President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize several years ago! Look at some of the facts, Obama's "red line" speech about Syria, Obama's complete Iraq troop withdrawal, NATO led bombing in Libya, and now we have Obama's drone war in Yemen...great way to bring peace to the Middle East! Oh right I forgot, it's all Bush43's fault?
Thanks, Paul, for injecting a note of sanity into the discussion (as you so often do). Terrorism isn't terrorism if you aren't terrified: that is exactly what they are trying to achieve: frighten the adversary so much it 'does stupd stuff.'
Witness our misguided response to the 9/11 attacks.
Witness our misguided response to the 9/11 attacks.
Thank you. It's a relief to hear a sane voice. ISIS is not an existential threat and we only empower them by treating them as if they were. You are so right that this kind of attack highlights their essential weakness, not strength.
The difference between A-Q and 9/11 versus ISIS and Paris is that ISIS is engaged in mass genocide, rape, and slavery. Before Paris, there was every reason for the world to come together and eliminate this scourge. After Paris, there may be marginally more resolve, but what they did in Paris was less than an average day's work in Iraq and Syria.
Jeb Bush, who is neither smart nor brave, has already been suckered in by ISIS. I imagine the remainder of the knee jerk Republican 'intelligentsia" will soon follow.
4
Did you know that a poll taken in France and reported by Newsweek there (08/26/14) revealed that ISIS had an approval rating in France of 16% almost as high as President Francois Holland at 18%. In the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, support for ISIS jumped to 27%?
Yes after the Paris attacks these numbers will go down. But why were they that high to begin with? France needs to find out what underlies that support and address that right away.
Yes after the Paris attacks these numbers will go down. But why were they that high to begin with? France needs to find out what underlies that support and address that right away.
1
No doubt.
But the fact is that, more than an armed enemy, ISIS is an idea.
You don't fight an idea with bombs; you must fight with another idea, right?
This should have been the big lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq, where so many lives where sacrificed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent... to what avail? these botched wars have completely destabilized the region, sown the seeds of ISIS, and reinforced hatred against the 'West'.
What is more, not only the fight is asymmetric; most of the terrorists involved in the Paris episode probably held French passports.
There is a vast number of unemployed marginalized muslims in France; it's only too easy for ISIS to recruit among them.
France, Europe, the USA are in this for a very long time, and the matter is complex...
But the fact is that, more than an armed enemy, ISIS is an idea.
You don't fight an idea with bombs; you must fight with another idea, right?
This should have been the big lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq, where so many lives where sacrificed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent... to what avail? these botched wars have completely destabilized the region, sown the seeds of ISIS, and reinforced hatred against the 'West'.
What is more, not only the fight is asymmetric; most of the terrorists involved in the Paris episode probably held French passports.
There is a vast number of unemployed marginalized muslims in France; it's only too easy for ISIS to recruit among them.
France, Europe, the USA are in this for a very long time, and the matter is complex...
1
ISIS has now shown itself to be capable of identifying, organizing and directing sophisticated terrorist attacks outside of its borders. As we take precautions to reduce the risk of further serious attacks, we must balance this with what humanity asks that we do for the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees who are trying to escape civil war and ISIS brutality in Syria and Iraq.
1
I heartily agree with Mr. Krugman, especially on two points. Climate change will affect every man, woman, and child on the planet--something ISIS and its ilk can never do.
And it seems to me ISIS probably wanted a military response, as a recruiting tool. They kill French civilians, France retaliates, Syrian civilians die, the survivors join ISIS for revenge, and ISIS gets massive publicity. We need to fight them, but fight in ways that don't advance their agenda.
And it seems to me ISIS probably wanted a military response, as a recruiting tool. They kill French civilians, France retaliates, Syrian civilians die, the survivors join ISIS for revenge, and ISIS gets massive publicity. We need to fight them, but fight in ways that don't advance their agenda.
4
This was a recruiting operation. It counts on a wave of revulsion against all Islam to push young Muslims into the ranks of ISIS. Most Americans have no idea that Kurdish and Shiite Muslims have been fighting and dying for several years in their war against ISIS.
3
Of course Paul is spot on in virtually everything he says. But one sentence is troubling: "And there will have to be a post-mortem on why such an elaborate plot wasn’t spotted." Like every commentator to date, this faults the French for failing to learn of the plot in advance. That's correct. But quite apart from that, why was there no permanent police or military protection at the Bataclan night club? This was a venue that repeatedly gathered hundreds of young Parisians. It had had Jewish ownership and had sponsored events supporting Israel. But nobody, neither the owners nor the government, posted armed guards, even though there was clear intelligence of an impending attack. France has ample troops to ensure that two (plainclothes?) soldiers with guns at ready could be at every such venue or in every susceptible neighborhood, and yet this wasn't done. Donald Trump has said the problem is France's tough gun laws, which is typically Trump-crazy since among other things it would let terrorists bring weapons into anyplace with impunity. This is a police or army responsibility (or at least the responsibility of private guards). That all these were lacking at the Bataclan is the most grievous failure of the French government.
2
One of Krugman's better columns - reasoned and well measured recommendations in the face of the Paris atrocities. Hopefully all of the candidates for President, as well as the Obama Administration, will consider his sound advise.
It would be more helpful if Krugman can suggest some course of action, instead of just warning us what not to do.
1
Thanks for this. I also thought Hollande was wrong to call it war because that term seems to afford a certain dignity to the other side - which, in reality, is populated by ignorant, bestial terrorists. They perpetrated an act of terror. Nothing more nothing less. And to go after them is to not promulgate a war, but bring justice to a demented group of terrorists. Bush was also wrong to call his war a "war on terror". How does one make war on such an abstract concept? Answer: you don't.
3
I agree with you on the objective risks here.
But it is factually incorrect for you to turn this into a "liberal" versus "conservative" domestic issue.
If you look at most of the terrorist, zealot-driven movements in history, it is clear that one of the key ingredients of their rising to power comes from the "liberal", "pacifist", "intellectual", "rational"...sectors of society who suddenly switch to rage, after a period of trying to ignore the angry guy in the brown shirt on the street corner.
Witness the actual public opinion polls in the US pre- and post 9-11. See also the news media of that transition, and the acquiescence of all parties to our new surveillance.
Witness also the number of comments on articles in this newspaper that today exhibit rage or the assumption that this new enemy can and should be destroyed,
I'm totally with you on the objective risk factors.
But trying to use this to badge people as "liberal" or "conservative", and then to define a binary "war v. no war" solution, are simply ineffective comments for the objective reality you define.
Much better to focus on the messy business of living with and reducing the real, and complex risks.
But it is factually incorrect for you to turn this into a "liberal" versus "conservative" domestic issue.
If you look at most of the terrorist, zealot-driven movements in history, it is clear that one of the key ingredients of their rising to power comes from the "liberal", "pacifist", "intellectual", "rational"...sectors of society who suddenly switch to rage, after a period of trying to ignore the angry guy in the brown shirt on the street corner.
Witness the actual public opinion polls in the US pre- and post 9-11. See also the news media of that transition, and the acquiescence of all parties to our new surveillance.
Witness also the number of comments on articles in this newspaper that today exhibit rage or the assumption that this new enemy can and should be destroyed,
I'm totally with you on the objective risk factors.
But trying to use this to badge people as "liberal" or "conservative", and then to define a binary "war v. no war" solution, are simply ineffective comments for the objective reality you define.
Much better to focus on the messy business of living with and reducing the real, and complex risks.
2
I always thought what it would be like to visit the 7th century. It's a bit less fun than I first thought. Isis, by 21st Century standards is little more than a collection of paranoid sadists who do not value life, even their own. Their aim is obviously to bring humanity back to a more primitive time when killing the innocent meant controlling other people who fear the same thing happening to them. In the civilized world we do our killing in a more humane way because our paranoids seem to act alone. Think of the reaction to Sandy Hook. We, civilized folks, refused to do anything about gun control. Why? Well, shucks, I just like having one for the kids to play with. Or, I like killing creatures. And think of the moral outrage over the Paris killings. We, who dropped atomic bombs on two cities, have never seen anything so outrageous. Thank heaven Isis is in the 7th century. If they were in the 21st, they might imitate us. Is there a relationship between terror and driving a car while black? Or, being treated like an inferior because one is a woman? I am fed up with these moralizing pulpit thumpers who are among the hypocrites of the world. Yes, we have terrorists, and yes they ought to be stopped. We have a problem. Nobody knows how to do it and bring peace in the aftermath. Think Iraq! Hawks and Doves need a new vision! The foolish political talk I listen to makes me sad. To change the human heart from hate to love is a high mountain to climb. Let's start.
2
This is exactly what you penned Mr. Krugman. We should not play into the hands of terrorists by overreacting. Terrorism is one of the compelling world's issues that we have to deal with in the 21 century. We need to put this in perspective and seek out long-term, rational solutions.
4
From an old counter terrorism guy, Krugman's column is the best that I have seen on terrorism and its threat to the world and the US. Hysteria and extremism are the reactions desired by terrorists from a successful attack. The best reaction is carry on.
10
How limited and how provincial can a comment on the attack in Paris become, when it views the Islamic terrorism through the prism of the Republican-Democratic rhetoric of the Presidential "aspirantasters".
After the attack of January 7, 2015, Christian Estroisi, Deputy of the French National Assembly and Mayor of Nice, said that France has entered the 3rd World War. He was prematurely right.
When an extreme group derives its inspiration from religion, an inspiration to destroy the culture and mode of life of the Occident, it is no longer a matter of passive defense, but a struggle for survival that calls for a maximum effort to eradicate the inhuman enemy.
After the attack of January 7, 2015, Christian Estroisi, Deputy of the French National Assembly and Mayor of Nice, said that France has entered the 3rd World War. He was prematurely right.
When an extreme group derives its inspiration from religion, an inspiration to destroy the culture and mode of life of the Occident, it is no longer a matter of passive defense, but a struggle for survival that calls for a maximum effort to eradicate the inhuman enemy.
2
Krugman may be correct when he declares, “Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization”. Terrorism has nevertheless grown from a small part of Islamic politics to the face of those who are allowed to advocate the destruction of other civilians, religions and countries. The vast numbers of innocent people who are enslaved have no good way of combating those who claim both religious and political authority from a Supreme Being.
The founders of the U.S. had the good sense to make sure that religious zealots could not use the power of government for their cause. Religion should have no place in the making and enforcement of criminal law and religious leaders should not be exempt from the non-sectarian civil authorities. Crimes committed in the name of religion are still crimes even if the thugs pretend to be part of an army. These disturbed criminals have their counterfeit military courts to declare war and give a fake blessing to suicide attacks.
The methods of traditional war only work against legitimate countries that are capable of reforming their governance. This type of organized crime must be attacked with criminal law and economic divestment of all assets. How they are permitted to sell oil or even control the oil fields is a mystery to me.
The founders of the U.S. had the good sense to make sure that religious zealots could not use the power of government for their cause. Religion should have no place in the making and enforcement of criminal law and religious leaders should not be exempt from the non-sectarian civil authorities. Crimes committed in the name of religion are still crimes even if the thugs pretend to be part of an army. These disturbed criminals have their counterfeit military courts to declare war and give a fake blessing to suicide attacks.
The methods of traditional war only work against legitimate countries that are capable of reforming their governance. This type of organized crime must be attacked with criminal law and economic divestment of all assets. How they are permitted to sell oil or even control the oil fields is a mystery to me.
1
A very good column, Mr. Krugman. Every incident like the Paris attack makes me realize how civilizations in the past have fallen apart and how easily this could happen again. Throw climate change into the mix and it will be hard to imagine the consequences that might follow.
1
Elephants stamping on fiery, biting ants in their own ant colony. Some of them hitch a ride to the pachyderms' stomping grounds, a place where the pacs continue stamping on everything and everyone. Smart pacs know that fire ants are better left on their own, lest they build their subterranean networks right where the jumbos live. But, the big guys get so mad they can't resist smashing everything and the madness spreads so that a lot of donkeys join their herd.
3
Climate change may in fact bea serious challenge but it is likely that with a proper coordination of our collective intelligence it can be addressed effectively. Mr. Krugman might benefit from not underestimating and worse yet misunderstanding the human horror that terrorism is wreaking. And really, does he actually believe 911 did not change everything. I am not sure what reality he resides in.
2
Paul Krugman makes some very good points but I think few Americans are in a state of fear over ISIS. What could be problematic are rash statements and judgements from politicians (or would be politicians) that can make things worse and not better.
I do believe that global warming is the greatest long-term threat we face to our species and innumerable other species. So does the US government as several years ago the CIA listed this threat as real and one would that would lead to global destabilization, wars fought over resources, and mass migrations in the coming decades. Bernie Sanders mentioned this at the debate.
However, the false idea is that we can't address the regional and not-so regional threats posed by ISIS simultaneously with the problem of global warming. The sad fact is, if we cannot find a way to stabilize Syria and defeat ISIS there, when only a handful of countries are required to cooperate, how do you think we will make meaningful change on the global warming front which is vastly more complex and involves an order of magnitude higher level of cooperation?
I do believe that global warming is the greatest long-term threat we face to our species and innumerable other species. So does the US government as several years ago the CIA listed this threat as real and one would that would lead to global destabilization, wars fought over resources, and mass migrations in the coming decades. Bernie Sanders mentioned this at the debate.
However, the false idea is that we can't address the regional and not-so regional threats posed by ISIS simultaneously with the problem of global warming. The sad fact is, if we cannot find a way to stabilize Syria and defeat ISIS there, when only a handful of countries are required to cooperate, how do you think we will make meaningful change on the global warming front which is vastly more complex and involves an order of magnitude higher level of cooperation?
7
35+ years of GOP fear based Dogma, rhetoric, and action has accustomed people to fear based reactions to events which should cause them to pause and think instead.
8
No--this definitely is "war". What we need to do is to understand who are the combatants; and why. Suicide vests and car bombs are just another form of "surgical strikes" and JSOC; Joint Special Operations Command.
It takes amazing hubris and ignorance to think that Western powers can rain destruction on people throughout the world and have no consequences; even after 9-11.
Let us not forget that the names of the Middle Eastern countries, and their borders, have been changing for centuries. It is what people do.
Ironically, the bombers in Paris may have been financed by Saudi oil sheiks bent on destroying Shia power.
The point is not to "knuckle under" but to better understand the needs of the people involved. Much of this problem stems in part from the U.S. leadership deciding Bashar al-Assad has to go. I don't recall a great outcry from U.S. citizens. We have done that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Eygpt. How did all those turn out?
It takes amazing hubris and ignorance to think that Western powers can rain destruction on people throughout the world and have no consequences; even after 9-11.
Let us not forget that the names of the Middle Eastern countries, and their borders, have been changing for centuries. It is what people do.
Ironically, the bombers in Paris may have been financed by Saudi oil sheiks bent on destroying Shia power.
The point is not to "knuckle under" but to better understand the needs of the people involved. Much of this problem stems in part from the U.S. leadership deciding Bashar al-Assad has to go. I don't recall a great outcry from U.S. citizens. We have done that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Eygpt. How did all those turn out?
4
ISIS has 3 strategic goals in this terrorist attack.
1. Use our own fear to disrupt normal life in western countries. They wish to take away that which makes life better for us.
2. Disrupt our economy by causing a diversion of resources to security, slowing down commerce by imposing border controls, and by distracting politicians from the job of managing the economy. (Think GW Bush.)
3. Make westerners fearful of Muslims in general, and Muslims within our country in specific. Once we start fearing our neighbours, we create domestic strife, resentment, and motivate more recruits for global Jihad.
So, we cannot ignore what has happened, but we must make an effort to not let it affect how we go about our daily lives.
1. Use our own fear to disrupt normal life in western countries. They wish to take away that which makes life better for us.
2. Disrupt our economy by causing a diversion of resources to security, slowing down commerce by imposing border controls, and by distracting politicians from the job of managing the economy. (Think GW Bush.)
3. Make westerners fearful of Muslims in general, and Muslims within our country in specific. Once we start fearing our neighbours, we create domestic strife, resentment, and motivate more recruits for global Jihad.
So, we cannot ignore what has happened, but we must make an effort to not let it affect how we go about our daily lives.
113
Terrorists are bullies out to obtain power through violence. A free, modern, democratic society is a vulnerable and fragile creature. There will always be bullies in our midst and they know that average citizens fear and abhor raw, unbridled violence. Bullies always use violence to get their way - it what they do. Terrorists are just bullies with guns
2
A very thoughtful analysis of the Paris terrorist attacks, and a spirited defense of the administration's nonintervention (pacifist?) policies. But, I'm similarly reminded of Professor Krugman's spirited defense of the Affordable Care Act (where premiums are now soaring 36-40%/year!). Professor Krugman is right - things aren't going to change much after the Paris terrorist attacks. Not until 2017.
1
One would hope that France & other Western democracies will take steps to banish the radical instigators operating out of the Mosques & inciting the post-colonial immigrants to violence. Legitimate grievances in those communities will be lost in a sweeping tide of guilt by association as time moves on. As far as the financial enablers of terror are concerned & the complicity of greed & profiteering here in the USA & elsewhere in allowing them to continue, there is little hope of elimination.
1
Indeed, it would be nice if we didn't invade the wrong country this time. And have no plan for what to do with it after the invasion.
2
After an event like this, of course there will be calls for a large military intervention by the USA. The idea is that we can go in, kill all the bad guys, and have the general population greet us with flowers as their saviors. Well, at least, that's what Cheney and Rumsfield told us before we invaded Iraq. So why, exactly, do we think it would be any different now? Hmmm?
A massive military force could overwhelm ISIS...yes. But then what? It's so easy to suggest force to solve a problem, but with no solution for the aftermath, force would have to be applied continuously and in perpetuity. I'm not opposed to the use of military force, but before we put substantially more boots on the ground, I want to know what the plan is for establishing peace afterwards. No viable plan equals no peace....and the terrorists will be back.
A massive military force could overwhelm ISIS...yes. But then what? It's so easy to suggest force to solve a problem, but with no solution for the aftermath, force would have to be applied continuously and in perpetuity. I'm not opposed to the use of military force, but before we put substantially more boots on the ground, I want to know what the plan is for establishing peace afterwards. No viable plan equals no peace....and the terrorists will be back.
2
To bad we do not have a presidential candidate that had the guts to say 'The only thing to fear is fear itself".
But the republicans sow fear and chaos in the hopes the voters not seeing what they really plan on doing wants they get elected. Which is to cut taxes on the rich and bankrupt the country so they do not have to pay the old people their social security.
They would rather dump the money down a black hole in the Middle East.
But the republicans sow fear and chaos in the hopes the voters not seeing what they really plan on doing wants they get elected. Which is to cut taxes on the rich and bankrupt the country so they do not have to pay the old people their social security.
They would rather dump the money down a black hole in the Middle East.
2
As usual, I agree with Mr. Brook's opinion, especially on the limimtations of terror. As a small addition, however, I would point out that France was a thoroughly less-than-benign Colonial power in both Syria and the Lebanon well into my lifetime (OK - I am old) as it was in Vietnam, and hatreds linger and fester. I am NOT blaming France, a country I admire and have enjoyed over the years, but just adding another element to a very confusing glomeration of hatreds.
2
It is too soon to start intellectualizing about fear after the death and maiming of people in Paris.
Sure terrorists want to sow fear - hence the name. But the pain and suffering is real. When you are in the trench, kneeling in an orange jumpsuit, falling from a burning building then we can talk about fear and what to do about it. The real question today is - what to do about what is happening for real - not just in our heads over morning coffee.
Sure terrorists want to sow fear - hence the name. But the pain and suffering is real. When you are in the trench, kneeling in an orange jumpsuit, falling from a burning building then we can talk about fear and what to do about it. The real question today is - what to do about what is happening for real - not just in our heads over morning coffee.
An excellent column. The terrorists only win if we allow them to terrorize us into foolhardy responses. It took eight terrorists acting in concert to kill all of 129 people. That's a kill ratio of about 18:1. Our own homegrown crazies, acting alone, have done worse (Conn; Va Tech), and we didn't reorganize our society to eliminate the threat of another tragedy ever happening. Why? Because it wouldn't work.
There is no way to eliminate every threat to the peace and security and freedom we enjoy without compromising those very things we seek to protect. ISIS can't destroy us. Only we can do that.
There is no way to eliminate every threat to the peace and security and freedom we enjoy without compromising those very things we seek to protect. ISIS can't destroy us. Only we can do that.
2
Excellent points Paul makes, over reactions and misplaced reactions create more not less of the chaos terrorists want. I have heard now some right wing pundits say that we should stop worrying about civilian 'collateral damage,' as they refer to innocent bystanders. People are not objects/ collateral, they are living breathing human beings. Paranoid neo-con fools are actually suggesting we stoop to the level of terrorists ourselves... to rid the world of terrorists, in that process become terrorists ourselves, and thus creating a new batch of enemies. Killing begets more killing. I don't want to try to sing kumbaya around a campfire with stone age thinking jihadi murderers, but it's a war of ideas and deeds, and I don't see how we'll ever win a war of ideas by military means alone.
2
Krugman is right on the money, as usual. Balance and effectiveness while preserving basic American values is the key. Nothing he said implies France could not have a targeted attack on ISIS in response. But don't have entire nations move away from more serious threats, such as global warming, and become captives of fear. That is what the terrorists want. Defeat them by keeping our own sense of American value, purpose, and strength.
2
Actually, "to refuse to give in to fear" is perhaps the second most important thing we can do. The most important thing, stated clearly in your op-ed, is to clarify, affirm and strengthen our democratic ideals and institutions.
2
Good column. Once again, the Republican warmongers have stepped up their rhetoric about the nature of the threat, Obama's fecklessness, and the need to go after the attackers with whatever it takes. I assume this 'whatever' does not include sending their own family members into harm's way. One can only imagine the level of saber rattling if Saturday night's debate had been a Republican one.
3
One reaction we had to terrorism was to divert $60,000,000,000+ per year into Homeland Security. We also decided it would be a good idea to give our local police forces military weapons to combat terrorists. Oh… and of course we needed to gather lots of information on everyone so we expanded NSA's authority to monitor phone calls and emails. We are losing liberty and freedom to "prevent another terrorist attack"… and I find it hard to say that we are defeating terrorism in doing so.
2
Exactly right in every respect, Mr. Krugman.
Thanks!
I would add only that resolve not to succumb to fear and panic is applicable primarily to short-term actions and policies.
Equally important is that we - the civilized and rational world - should not allow senseless barbarisms like the attacks in Paris to distract or deter us from a long-term focus on eliminating the conditions and ways of thinking that give rise to groups like ISIS in the first place.
Discussion of what those strategies should entail, of course, won't fit in a comment or even a dozen columns.
Thanks!
I would add only that resolve not to succumb to fear and panic is applicable primarily to short-term actions and policies.
Equally important is that we - the civilized and rational world - should not allow senseless barbarisms like the attacks in Paris to distract or deter us from a long-term focus on eliminating the conditions and ways of thinking that give rise to groups like ISIS in the first place.
Discussion of what those strategies should entail, of course, won't fit in a comment or even a dozen columns.
1
Excellent column. Reaction ,without thinking through the long term consequences, will prove these criminals with the effect that they are seeking -- emotional responses lead to irrational behavior.
1
The terrorists want not only to inspire terror but also to divide their opposition. They seem to be succeeding. The Republicans have started using the Paris attacks to blame Obama, Clinton and all forces opposed to their own twisted economic and social ideas. Clinton "failed" and Obama continues to "fail" because the terrorists were able to strike Paris. Of course, this is the party that had considerable success in convincing the American people that Bush kept us safe although 9/11 happened 9 months into his administration.
2
I'm not quite sure you're grasping the underlying truth here, Paul. Right-wingers are as anxious to provoke a war with Muslims as Daesh is to provoke a war with the West. They are in complete agreement, except for their definition of who the infidels are. And not only that, a full-blown war would be immensely profitable to the arms industries, in which right-wing elites are heavily invested.
135
Interesting that you admit that the invasion of Iraq was a disaster that created more terrorism, yet you call those who dare to suggest that maybe therefore we should stop attacking things "appeasers".
You should read this piece by Charlie Pierce, one of the only sane takes I've seen on this recent tragedy. We essentially fund and support terrorists by funding and supporting the theocratic Royal Families that use extremist religion as a tool of repression and control (that's essentially what religion is, and always was) and then run around attacking the inevitable outcome of this, rather than dealing with the root cause, and in fact furthering it. Violent extremists likely don't even know how exactly their passions got stirred up, but given that there's an entire society that pushes all of the same extremist views as official policy it's really not much of a mystery.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-...
You should read this piece by Charlie Pierce, one of the only sane takes I've seen on this recent tragedy. We essentially fund and support terrorists by funding and supporting the theocratic Royal Families that use extremist religion as a tool of repression and control (that's essentially what religion is, and always was) and then run around attacking the inevitable outcome of this, rather than dealing with the root cause, and in fact furthering it. Violent extremists likely don't even know how exactly their passions got stirred up, but given that there's an entire society that pushes all of the same extremist views as official policy it's really not much of a mystery.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-...
60
If Millions of Mulims in the Western Diaspora Marched for peace with a Martin Luther King like Mullahs at their lead condemning terrorism and even issuing Fatwas aginst these kinds of attacks that would bring the war to ISIS.
If we could see such demonstrations in Majority Muslim and stable countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and .... oh yes our bleoved friends in Saudia Arabia, that would bring the war to ISIS and Al Queda.
If we could see such demonstrations in Majority Muslim and stable countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and .... oh yes our bleoved friends in Saudia Arabia, that would bring the war to ISIS and Al Queda.
4
Yes, make an informed, not emotional, decision on the appropriate response, but what Krugman is describing is not an informed decision. He is assuming that the goals of ISIS are the same as those of al Qaeda, but they are not: al Qaeda used terrorism to drive us out while ISIS uses terrorism to draw us in. ISIS represents those with an apocalyptic vision of Islam, followed by millions of Muslims, similar to the apocalyptic vision of fundamentalist Christianity. The difference is that the Christian Bible does not condone violence to bring about the apocalypse, whereas the Quran can be and is read that way by millions of fundamentalist Muslims. The other big difference between al Qaeda and ISIS is that the latter is territorial; hence, the caliphate. And the territory, in and around Syria, is believed to be the place for the Second Coming of Jesus (yes, that Jesus) and the End of Days. It may sound crazy, but just last week a former Congresswoman and former candidate for president (and evangelical Christian) predicted that the apocalypse is near. Millions of Christians believe it but fortunately don't resort to violence to bring it about. Millions of fundamentalist Muslims believe it too, but they will and do resort to violence to bring it about. It may be considered impolite to say, but the Quran can be and is read by millions of Muslims to encourage the use of violence (including beheadings and crucifixions) to bring about the apocalypse. We ignore this at our peril.
2
Excellent column, Mr. Krugman, but a small correction is in order: You're wrong about the size of France's economy. It's at least 25 to 44 times bigger than Syria's, according to the CIA World Factbook (available online) and depending upon the figures used (purchasing power parity vs. official exchange rates) and years compared (the most recent numbers for France are for 2014; for Syria, 2011). But today's Syria is in pieces and its GDP is undoubtedly much smaller than it was in 2011, although the figure is probably impossible to calculate, given the country's condition. I wouldn't be surprised if France's economy wasn't 100 to 200 times bigger than Syria's.
4
This column raises a number of questions in my mind. Is there no level of violence that would change the author’s views from ostensibly level-headed tolerance, and just keeping on with a policy that is obviously ineffective, to something like wanting to end the bullying? For pacifists who lost loved ones in this attack, won't some of THEM justifiably have changed their views? Might not even the author do so in their circumstances? Is he saying that we are NOT faced with a foe that has announced its “organized plan to destroy Western civilization," and then provides ample evidence of its attempt to implement that plan? Sure, they’re small now, compared to us. But does he not admit that warnings and actions by groups that started out small have been ignored in the past to our mortal peril—and from far across the seas at that? Ideologies do not need to be homegrown in order to provide a threat, either to France or the USA, as history attests. The stated—erroneous— assumption in the column is that fear is the driver of everyone else’s wrongheaded reaction, when the real error is to wallow in indignation rather than an announced firm commitment by NATO to step up and crush this monster before it grows and strikes again.
4
Osama bin Laden's attack on 9/11 succeeded beyond his wildest dreams; it changed the USA forever—and for the exact reasons Mr. Krugman is pointing out.
12
Follow the simple adage "look before you leap", you know, the one GWB ignored.
10
This is a propaganda war more than anything and I think that's where we are losing. First, I'd stop calling them terrorists because to them that's a badge of honor - they want to sow terror. I'd give them a name having to do with good and evil, like the Hell bound. Why? Because to survive they need to recruit and it's easier to recruit potential terrorists than potential recruits for hell. The exact name can be debated but the term terrorists should be dropped.
Then we have to make more noise about the Shiites that are killed by ISIS. I think there are plenty of Muslims living in western societies who feel marginalized by those societies and are willing to join a group that will feed their egos. But I doubt that most Sunnis living in Paris, London or New York are out to kill Shiites. So the more we focus on those atrocities, the harder it will be for ISIS to gain new recruits.
Then we have to make more noise about the Shiites that are killed by ISIS. I think there are plenty of Muslims living in western societies who feel marginalized by those societies and are willing to join a group that will feed their egos. But I doubt that most Sunnis living in Paris, London or New York are out to kill Shiites. So the more we focus on those atrocities, the harder it will be for ISIS to gain new recruits.
5
One of the things I have read is that a strategy of Al Qaeda, and now Daesh, is to draw the region in to war, to create a vacuum that the fundamentalists in Daesh and Al Qaeda can spread into, to create a perfect Salafist society based on what Islam was like in the time of the Prophet.
We did a pretty good job in Iraq giving them that opening, and the civil war against the Assad regime opened another.
If we learned anything from jumping into war during the Bush years, it should be that we need to be aware of unintended consequences, and we ought to have a specific end game.
Declaring war on Daesh, banging the drum to stir up American voters, constantly pressing for action to "solve" the problems in the Middle East, without having even the least understanding (or respect) of the history, the society, the culture of the region is repeating insanity. That Jeb! is calling for it, makes it even more ironic.
We did a pretty good job in Iraq giving them that opening, and the civil war against the Assad regime opened another.
If we learned anything from jumping into war during the Bush years, it should be that we need to be aware of unintended consequences, and we ought to have a specific end game.
Declaring war on Daesh, banging the drum to stir up American voters, constantly pressing for action to "solve" the problems in the Middle East, without having even the least understanding (or respect) of the history, the society, the culture of the region is repeating insanity. That Jeb! is calling for it, makes it even more ironic.
13
Israel seems to have learned the point of your column through years of various attacks. When a terrorist attack occurs, the scene is quickly cleaned, mourning is there albeit somewhat muted and life continues even though leaders and citizens alike are aware that the bomb shelter in the apartment building or grocery store is ready to be used at any moment.
While no doubt Israel's response to attacks is subject to legitimate debate and Palestinians have grievances worth noting by the world community, Israel is something of a model in terms of not letting fear dominate the lives of its citizens.
While no doubt Israel's response to attacks is subject to legitimate debate and Palestinians have grievances worth noting by the world community, Israel is something of a model in terms of not letting fear dominate the lives of its citizens.
11
Justice denied is only justice delayed.
Being realistic, the Global warming problem will not be solved before the Middle East, already very hot, becomes uninhabitable as reported here.
Justice denied is only justice delayed.
Being realistic, the Global warming problem will not be solved before the Middle East, already very hot, becomes uninhabitable as reported here.
Justice denied is only justice delayed.
Paul says: "And I won’t say that there are no would-be appeasers out there; there are indeed some people determined to believe that Western imperialism is the root of all evil, and all would be well if we stopped meddling."
Of course that is true.
But it's also true that many choose to ignore our history of meddling in the Middle East which will doom us to repeat the same mistakes over and over if we elect more neocons.
George W. Bush is the father of ISIS.
The complete and utter incompetence and arrogance of his administration and their lies to justify invading Iraq are what created ISIS. They didn't exist previous to that debacle. Our history of backing ruthless dictators like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein and the Taliban (when they were fighting Russians) have helped create many of our current enemies. And our blind backing of Israel in spite of the many atrocities they have committed and continue to commit coupled with their continuing land grabs (it's not OK for Russia, but it's fine for Israel?) will continue to haunt us unless we get smarter.
Of course that is true.
But it's also true that many choose to ignore our history of meddling in the Middle East which will doom us to repeat the same mistakes over and over if we elect more neocons.
George W. Bush is the father of ISIS.
The complete and utter incompetence and arrogance of his administration and their lies to justify invading Iraq are what created ISIS. They didn't exist previous to that debacle. Our history of backing ruthless dictators like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein and the Taliban (when they were fighting Russians) have helped create many of our current enemies. And our blind backing of Israel in spite of the many atrocities they have committed and continue to commit coupled with their continuing land grabs (it's not OK for Russia, but it's fine for Israel?) will continue to haunt us unless we get smarter.
4
Excellent analysis. Two points.
First, imagine substituting 'New York' for 'Paris' and this being the aftermath of an attack in Manhattan three days ago. Imagine how absolutely nuts the conservatives would react to this kind of 'treasonous' ivory tower analysis.
Second, people did point some of this out after 9/11 and were punished for it.
This morning on my Facebook feed, I have college educated friends in their 40s calling for us to 'nuke 'em'.
If being lied to in supporting the disastrous war that created ISIS, cost thousands of american and over 100,000 Iraqi lives is not enough for Americans to wise up to the strategies and goals of terrorism....
First, imagine substituting 'New York' for 'Paris' and this being the aftermath of an attack in Manhattan three days ago. Imagine how absolutely nuts the conservatives would react to this kind of 'treasonous' ivory tower analysis.
Second, people did point some of this out after 9/11 and were punished for it.
This morning on my Facebook feed, I have college educated friends in their 40s calling for us to 'nuke 'em'.
If being lied to in supporting the disastrous war that created ISIS, cost thousands of american and over 100,000 Iraqi lives is not enough for Americans to wise up to the strategies and goals of terrorism....
3
Rumsfield, Chaney, and Bush were all very serious in creating this mess, devoting billions of dollars, and thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Now we have to become serious in cleaning up their leavings.
Isil is the evil that took the place of Saddam. Killing him only created a vacuum for the current madmen. We must wipe them off the face of the earth. It is our only option.
20 French bombs are not enough. Bombing oil trucks are not enough. They must be crush.
Isil is the evil that took the place of Saddam. Killing him only created a vacuum for the current madmen. We must wipe them off the face of the earth. It is our only option.
20 French bombs are not enough. Bombing oil trucks are not enough. They must be crush.
3
I was alive during WWII. Seeing the ISIS attacks in Paris brought back memories of getting news of battlefield attacks by the Axis during that war. At least then we were fighting the enemy, with a U. S. led coordinated Allies command—Europe under General Eisenhower, General MacArthur in Asia.
What have we now. Paul Krugman as the inside expert on ISIS. Not to worry. The Caliphate isn’t coming to Europe, it’s not coming here. Jihad? That’s nothing more than a five letter word starting with “j” and ending with “d.” Genocide of the Yazidis? Paul Krugman as Exhibit A for transposing to ISIS Hitler’s comment in advance of the Holocaust, who remembers the Armenians. Destroy Western civilization? Under Krugman’s ipse dixit redefine the avowed ISIS intent to do just that as “terror” and then stand down because all we have to do is not be afraid of the terror.
The caption on this Krugman reassurance that Paris looks bad but otherwise all’s well with the world, is “Fearing Fear Itself,” a riff on FDR’s 1933 inaugural address statement about the Depression, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” The same FDR who later led the world-wide military coalition to destroy the Axis. A Krugman lecture that would have made some sense, unlike this column, would have done better to start with FDR’s “A day of infamy” and go on from there to FDR’s “win the war.” Make no mistake. Paul Krugman notwithstanding, this is, to quote President Hollande, war.
What have we now. Paul Krugman as the inside expert on ISIS. Not to worry. The Caliphate isn’t coming to Europe, it’s not coming here. Jihad? That’s nothing more than a five letter word starting with “j” and ending with “d.” Genocide of the Yazidis? Paul Krugman as Exhibit A for transposing to ISIS Hitler’s comment in advance of the Holocaust, who remembers the Armenians. Destroy Western civilization? Under Krugman’s ipse dixit redefine the avowed ISIS intent to do just that as “terror” and then stand down because all we have to do is not be afraid of the terror.
The caption on this Krugman reassurance that Paris looks bad but otherwise all’s well with the world, is “Fearing Fear Itself,” a riff on FDR’s 1933 inaugural address statement about the Depression, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” The same FDR who later led the world-wide military coalition to destroy the Axis. A Krugman lecture that would have made some sense, unlike this column, would have done better to start with FDR’s “A day of infamy” and go on from there to FDR’s “win the war.” Make no mistake. Paul Krugman notwithstanding, this is, to quote President Hollande, war.
4
9/11 did change a lot of things - because we (or rather, Bush) over-reacted.
5
Declaring "War" on terrrorisim this is like our "War" on drugs. Trillions of dollars spent and not much to show for it
5
Anyone who uses terrorist events to justify more civilian casualties or curtailment of ciivil liberties is aiding and abetting the terrorists.
6
When we in the West cheered on the democratic impulses of the Arab Spring, only to stand idly by and watch them wither and die for failure to offer jobs and economic growth, we ensured that the forces of jihad would fill the vacuum. Is US imperialism to blame for the reprehensible murders in Paris, Beirut, and Egypt? Not totally.
Yet the imperialist, Bush-Cheney war on Iraq roiled the entire Middle East, and, together with their support for the anti-Sunni administration in Baghdad, led directly to the rise of ISIS and its former Baathist military commanders.
In turn, the refugees overwhelming Europe's capacity to provide jobs, housing, education, and a decent life, are also a direct result of the chaos set in motion by Bush's imperialistic impulses
That said, economic imperialism--the aggressive WTO style of neoliberal globalization which you espouse--has played a deeper role in propagating the despair and hopelessness which provides such fertile ground for Jihadi recruiters.
The globalized capitalist economy is failing at its most basic task--providing jobs and a decent life for far too many people. When we turn our backs on socially-corrosive levels of unemployment in US inner cities, southern Europe, and seemingly everywhere but China, we invite anarchy and disorder.
The 1% grows filthy rich while the masses of humanity migrate and rebel. We're mired in the struggle between "Jihad vs. McWorld" which Benjamin Barber so astutely described.
Yet the imperialist, Bush-Cheney war on Iraq roiled the entire Middle East, and, together with their support for the anti-Sunni administration in Baghdad, led directly to the rise of ISIS and its former Baathist military commanders.
In turn, the refugees overwhelming Europe's capacity to provide jobs, housing, education, and a decent life, are also a direct result of the chaos set in motion by Bush's imperialistic impulses
That said, economic imperialism--the aggressive WTO style of neoliberal globalization which you espouse--has played a deeper role in propagating the despair and hopelessness which provides such fertile ground for Jihadi recruiters.
The globalized capitalist economy is failing at its most basic task--providing jobs and a decent life for far too many people. When we turn our backs on socially-corrosive levels of unemployment in US inner cities, southern Europe, and seemingly everywhere but China, we invite anarchy and disorder.
The 1% grows filthy rich while the masses of humanity migrate and rebel. We're mired in the struggle between "Jihad vs. McWorld" which Benjamin Barber so astutely described.
113
Coalition forces of 5 divisions, air cav supported by all necessary AF and Naval fighters. Full Gulf states troops on the ground. Kill ISIS root and branch. The diplomacy comes later. Arab occupation of a divided Syria and a divided Iraq. Iran can be the big dog. Leave with a reminder. Any organized terror events will be tracked back to the source and we'll deliver total annihilation with tactical nuclear weapons. Try living in that contamination.
The real enemy of all is China ,the weapons from China,the finance of petrol sales from China,Iran,Sudan,the names of the attackers &passports forged names,these are just money seekers,refugees from African countries are the real information resource of all terrorist activities during the last thirty years in the name of the Islamic conference,International African University in Khartoum,Islamic invitation Organization Khartoum,Pakistan,Syria,Iran,Libya,Egypt,Algeria,Semi organization in S.Arabia,Acia
Throughout history people have failed to understand the banality of evil and in doing so they have written off or underestimated the public statements of those committing horrifying acts. Mr. Krugman says Jeb Bush is wrong and it is not the aim of terrorists to destroy Western civilization, which they frequently state. So then, what are their aims and objectives? The best answer can be found in the areas of the world they control. How ISIS governs in the occupied portions of Syria and Iraq, how the Taliban has ruled in parts of Afghanistan illustrates what their desire for the rest of the world is. Sometimes evil people mean what they say. Jeb Bush understands that, apparently Mr. Krugman does not.
Dear Mr. Krugman,
I'm not really worried about terrorism destroying Western Civilization; Western Civilization is doing a fine job of that all by itself, thank you, as you point out with 'climate change' and 'non scientists' telling how everything is just 'ducky' in the atmosphere.
As for DAESH, is Western Civilization really 'at war' with these people?
Specifically, neither Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerrey nor, for that matter, Mr. Putin have spoken about the;
a. Strategic threat DAESH represents to the world or the United States in particular (Though the airliner explosion and the Paris attacks now seem reason enough for France and Russia to 'go to the mat' with DAESH) and
b. What are the 'goals' of ANY action, ground, sea or air?
The United States is a gigantic island with the 9/11 attacks and the Boston Marathon attacks displaying our inability to secure reasonable intelligence about terrorist organizations but with two oceans securing us from a wholesale 'invasion' of terrorists much as seems the case with the E.U., open borders and the refugee crisis, apparently a formula for 'easy travel' for would be suicide bombers.
Killing everyone in sight, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATEs mantra, may work temporarily but subsequent generations will just follow the path of 'righteous murder' and the problem would never go away.
My best guess? Let the states of the Middle East come to 'peaceful terms' with Israel and one of the main "casus belli" of terrorist actions would be gone.
I'm not really worried about terrorism destroying Western Civilization; Western Civilization is doing a fine job of that all by itself, thank you, as you point out with 'climate change' and 'non scientists' telling how everything is just 'ducky' in the atmosphere.
As for DAESH, is Western Civilization really 'at war' with these people?
Specifically, neither Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerrey nor, for that matter, Mr. Putin have spoken about the;
a. Strategic threat DAESH represents to the world or the United States in particular (Though the airliner explosion and the Paris attacks now seem reason enough for France and Russia to 'go to the mat' with DAESH) and
b. What are the 'goals' of ANY action, ground, sea or air?
The United States is a gigantic island with the 9/11 attacks and the Boston Marathon attacks displaying our inability to secure reasonable intelligence about terrorist organizations but with two oceans securing us from a wholesale 'invasion' of terrorists much as seems the case with the E.U., open borders and the refugee crisis, apparently a formula for 'easy travel' for would be suicide bombers.
Killing everyone in sight, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATEs mantra, may work temporarily but subsequent generations will just follow the path of 'righteous murder' and the problem would never go away.
My best guess? Let the states of the Middle East come to 'peaceful terms' with Israel and one of the main "casus belli" of terrorist actions would be gone.
Wow, this is an obsession. Terrorist attack in Paris and what Krugman is writing about? Republicans.
But he is wrong of course. This is war. It didn't start on Friday. It started on 9/11. Maybe even earlier. In 1998 when they attack US ambassy in Sudan. Or if you listen islamic clerics it started in 7th century.
It's war, alright. Only it is asymmetric. They don't have technology to fight conventional war so they attack us this way. Who are the enemies? Western civilization and part of Islamic civilization. And you have a civil war in Islamic civilization with many fractions - secular dictators, non-secular but not in war with West dictators, and you have those that are in the jihad business killing the infidels and so on.
Also you have one group that wants western type of democracy. They have three to four members.
But he is wrong of course. This is war. It didn't start on Friday. It started on 9/11. Maybe even earlier. In 1998 when they attack US ambassy in Sudan. Or if you listen islamic clerics it started in 7th century.
It's war, alright. Only it is asymmetric. They don't have technology to fight conventional war so they attack us this way. Who are the enemies? Western civilization and part of Islamic civilization. And you have a civil war in Islamic civilization with many fractions - secular dictators, non-secular but not in war with West dictators, and you have those that are in the jihad business killing the infidels and so on.
Also you have one group that wants western type of democracy. They have three to four members.
Excellent column. It is time to step back, plan, and organize - then take action. We need a world wide coalition with the cooperation of the Middle Eastern states, otherwise the infection of militant Islam will grow in spite of the damage the West can inflict with military power.
1
The attacks are to instill fear in people, and conservatives are the champions of instilling fear in the populous.
1
This is the first time I've ever read Paul Krugman as he gets it utterly wrong.
Mr. Krugman should read Graeme Woods' remarkable piece in Atlantic magazine from March, 1915. That essay lucidly outlines Daesh's ("Daesh" is now the preferred way to refer to ISIS/ISIL in all it's guises. Mr. Krugman's not up to snuff on that, either) political and religious objectives. They seek an apocalyptic confrontation between Islam and all the non-Islam worlds in which Islam will emerge as the survivor and reap Divine rewards. It's the same vision, really, as Fundamentalist Christianity except with a different winner.
The purpose of these attacks is to provoke response that sharpens the conflict. That, in turn, makes it easier for Daesh to recruit more Jihadists while at the same time moving towards that final, conclusive battle.
IOW, it's not about provoking terror per se. It's about forcing a state of perpetual warfare.
Mr. Krugman should read Graeme Woods' remarkable piece in Atlantic magazine from March, 1915. That essay lucidly outlines Daesh's ("Daesh" is now the preferred way to refer to ISIS/ISIL in all it's guises. Mr. Krugman's not up to snuff on that, either) political and religious objectives. They seek an apocalyptic confrontation between Islam and all the non-Islam worlds in which Islam will emerge as the survivor and reap Divine rewards. It's the same vision, really, as Fundamentalist Christianity except with a different winner.
The purpose of these attacks is to provoke response that sharpens the conflict. That, in turn, makes it easier for Daesh to recruit more Jihadists while at the same time moving towards that final, conclusive battle.
IOW, it's not about provoking terror per se. It's about forcing a state of perpetual warfare.
1
ISIS plans to draw the west into a war against Islam. W. did everything possible to help Al Qaeda, to succeed in turning the west against Islam and to set ordinary Muslims on to jihad. Now Jeb! wants to accelerate the process by creating fear of refugees, and all Muslims with his call to admit Christians only. It is the goal of ISIS to turn all Muslims against the west. Mistreating refugees will go a long way in fulfilling that goal. One wonders if the Bush clan is stupid enough to misread all of Al Qaeda and ISIS' intentions. W's focus in going to war with Iraq before 9/11 neglected all of the warnings from the intelligence community about Al Qaeda's immanent attack. W's failure to end Bin Laden's leadership and withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan so he could attack Iraq set the stage for igniting the Sunni-Shiite war that is underway and for creation of increasingly virulent Al Qaeda splinter groups.
The Bush family's cozy relationship with Saudi monarchs, and their former partners in the Carlyle Group, the Bin Ladens should raise eyebrows around the world. Jeb's call for fear of refugees, especially Muslims, should be considered in that light.
The Wahhabi cult that originates in Saudi Arabia is the common thread in all of the ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, terrorism. It is time for serious intelligence about this connection makes the front page. Before we send troops to Syria, Republicans must look to friends on Wall St, Banks, in hydrocarbons for their loyalties.
The Bush family's cozy relationship with Saudi monarchs, and their former partners in the Carlyle Group, the Bin Ladens should raise eyebrows around the world. Jeb's call for fear of refugees, especially Muslims, should be considered in that light.
The Wahhabi cult that originates in Saudi Arabia is the common thread in all of the ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, terrorism. It is time for serious intelligence about this connection makes the front page. Before we send troops to Syria, Republicans must look to friends on Wall St, Banks, in hydrocarbons for their loyalties.
2
Rather than describing ISIS and its like as a great threat. we should stress that they are weak, bullies and cowards. They can only attack the defenseless. They cover their faces because they are afraid of being recognized, unwilling to take pride in what they are doing.
As long as we make them into supermen, they will continue to attract the disaffected. They should be belittled for what they, in fact, are.
As long as we make them into supermen, they will continue to attract the disaffected. They should be belittled for what they, in fact, are.
2
Mostly agree, but what, pray, is dignified about war?
1
The Friday Paris attack on civilians out for entertainment,convivality and socializing with family and friends, is abominable and barbaric act of terrorism committed on the free people.This is an extension of the January terror attack on 'Charlie Hebdo' killing 11 of its best journalists.
To call it a clash of civilization is an error and undermines cause and effect of terrorism assuming a global dimension in a advanced technocratic paradigm.The ISIS is an evolution of Al Quida.
The birth and the growth of ISIS is traced to the US invasion of Irak on a fall pretext- Saddam Hussain WMD. Later confirmed a blatant lie.
These barbaric 'areligious fundamentalists' were dormant under brute Saddam boot.With Saddam exit the dormant is dominant buthchering believers of Islam and challenging Western democracies.
ISIS has nothing to do with Islam or with 'Jihad'.Its aim is to establish one-dimensional uniformity and eliminate all variables in a quest for superficial unity.
Europe and America are united in their effors to eliminate ISIS.They are bombarding ISIS strongholds since months and are failing due to two pronged strategy- quest for removing Assad and eliminating ISIS.
The call of the hour is that the West and Russia unite, pull all resources,concertedly, and eliminate ISIS.It is most urgent and immediate.Assad question can wait.
Internally, France or UK need to strenghten their 'intelligence' machinery.Paris loss of 129 lives attest serious lapses of intelligence network.
To call it a clash of civilization is an error and undermines cause and effect of terrorism assuming a global dimension in a advanced technocratic paradigm.The ISIS is an evolution of Al Quida.
The birth and the growth of ISIS is traced to the US invasion of Irak on a fall pretext- Saddam Hussain WMD. Later confirmed a blatant lie.
These barbaric 'areligious fundamentalists' were dormant under brute Saddam boot.With Saddam exit the dormant is dominant buthchering believers of Islam and challenging Western democracies.
ISIS has nothing to do with Islam or with 'Jihad'.Its aim is to establish one-dimensional uniformity and eliminate all variables in a quest for superficial unity.
Europe and America are united in their effors to eliminate ISIS.They are bombarding ISIS strongholds since months and are failing due to two pronged strategy- quest for removing Assad and eliminating ISIS.
The call of the hour is that the West and Russia unite, pull all resources,concertedly, and eliminate ISIS.It is most urgent and immediate.Assad question can wait.
Internally, France or UK need to strenghten their 'intelligence' machinery.Paris loss of 129 lives attest serious lapses of intelligence network.
2
I hope we will not repeat one of the many mistakes that George W Bush made, by over-reacting to 9/11. It is a known tactic of terrorists to provoke the more powerful target country to reveal its dark side with brutal responses to terror attacks. The US may have forgotten Abu Ghraib, but I think that the Muslim world remembers it and that ISIS types find it useful for recruitment. It also seems to me that a military response needs to have a military type of objective, and not just be a tantrum, as one could argue the invasion of Iraq was. I hope our response can be smart, not just violent.
2
Dr. Krugman is half right. The US that existed before 9/11 was a much better place then the US post 9/11. Sadly, it's not the same place at all.
3
Thank you Professor Krugman. We should not lose our humanity in our effort to destroy ISIS. Otherwise, they win.
2
Calming and correct. Da'esh, the new "term" for this particular terror group?
1
You reap what you sow, and the West is reaping hundreds of years of enslavement, colonization, and the support of tyrannies in the cause of short-term gain. Yes, climate change is the greatest existential threat we face today, but Professor Krugman underestimates the threat of terrorism. It is here to stay.
"That 911 would change everything. Well it didn't." What planet have you been on Paul? Since 911, we've had the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the bombing of Libya and Syria. The rise of IS and other terrorist groups, the great cost of blood and treasure, not to mention going through airport security.
Fear and panic are a Republican's best electoral friend.
It may be hard to remember, but just 13 months ago, the American media in general and the right-wing media specifically stoked incredible fear in the American population over an imaginary Ebola epidemic.
Coverage was non-stop; fear was everywhere, and since it was election season, Republicans were thrilled and used Ebola to scare the hell out of Americans into voting for the 'mighty Republicans' who would lead America to magical safety over 'terrible President Obama' who somehow was to blame for the 'Ebola epidemic'.
13 months later, the American 'Ebola epidemic' totaled nine imported cases, two domestic cases (for a total of 11 cases) and a grand total of two (2) deaths.
(Meanwhile, Republicans remain silent about the gun death epidemic as 85 Americans die by gunshot every day of the year)
'Ebola' was enough for the GOP to scare the daylights of Republican and independent voters that to ride the November 2014 elections to sizable victories.
Reality must be twisted into a conservative pretzel of fear, paranoia, hysteria, conspiracy and end-times fright for Republicans to win elections, and they more often than not succeed at that political malfeasance.
Jeb Bush, whose family indirectly helped nurture Saudi Arabian oil-export-funded Wahhabbist extremism for decades and whose brother's Iraq invasion helped create ISIS, will now save us from ISIS.
That's rich...like the GOP platform of fear, war and 0.1% tax cuts.
It may be hard to remember, but just 13 months ago, the American media in general and the right-wing media specifically stoked incredible fear in the American population over an imaginary Ebola epidemic.
Coverage was non-stop; fear was everywhere, and since it was election season, Republicans were thrilled and used Ebola to scare the hell out of Americans into voting for the 'mighty Republicans' who would lead America to magical safety over 'terrible President Obama' who somehow was to blame for the 'Ebola epidemic'.
13 months later, the American 'Ebola epidemic' totaled nine imported cases, two domestic cases (for a total of 11 cases) and a grand total of two (2) deaths.
(Meanwhile, Republicans remain silent about the gun death epidemic as 85 Americans die by gunshot every day of the year)
'Ebola' was enough for the GOP to scare the daylights of Republican and independent voters that to ride the November 2014 elections to sizable victories.
Reality must be twisted into a conservative pretzel of fear, paranoia, hysteria, conspiracy and end-times fright for Republicans to win elections, and they more often than not succeed at that political malfeasance.
Jeb Bush, whose family indirectly helped nurture Saudi Arabian oil-export-funded Wahhabbist extremism for decades and whose brother's Iraq invasion helped create ISIS, will now save us from ISIS.
That's rich...like the GOP platform of fear, war and 0.1% tax cuts.
60
The recommended strategy of precision strikes and extreme caution (warning before attacks, refraining from attacking when ISIS "workers" are present such as oil truck drivers) isn't working is it? WW II wasn't won by refraining to kill bad guys when they hid among "civilians". You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs! Get it on and finish the job Barry.
Mr. Krugman is absolutely right. Tragedies like 9/11 and the attack in Paris cannot destroy Western civilization. However, over-reaction certainly can. Just as another example, when sitting senator and GOP Presidential contender, Mr. Lindsey Graham suggests on TV yesterday that NATO should go into both Iraq and Syria to removed both ISIS and Assad. He was asked what we will do with the Russian military in Syria. His response is to force Russia to back down with our military. Because of fear, one of our foremost GOP military leader is willing to risk starting a military conflict with the far superior and numerous army of nuclear powered Russia in order to get to the 10,000 ISIS fighters and Assad. One should remember that Russian people has no conflict with us although they have an unreasonable Putin as a dictator. One should also not forget that ISIS is Russia's common enemy and removing Assad is unimportant in any national security analysis. Indeed, we should not let unreasonable hawks exploiting our natural fear to go to war and we should learn from our mistakes in 9/11.
3
Actually, I think 9/11 did change everything. Our reactions, not terrorists, have made me feel less safe and less free.
160
Hitler did not destroy Germany but he did destroy the Germany of the times as well as tens of millions people and the lives of hundreds of millions more.
9/11 didn't destroy the US. But it did destroy many freedoms and security.
The terror in Paris will not destroy France but it too will destroy. We just don't have the details yet.
As for "this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization” - the jihadists state that as their avowed aim. Why not believe them?!
One blow of an axe won't fell a tree but many blows will.
9/11 didn't destroy the US. But it did destroy many freedoms and security.
The terror in Paris will not destroy France but it too will destroy. We just don't have the details yet.
As for "this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization” - the jihadists state that as their avowed aim. Why not believe them?!
One blow of an axe won't fell a tree but many blows will.
2
Krugman is again reflecting the voice of commonsense, as always! I am afraid "sweep it up. related or not" approach will take effect once again; Hollande's initial reaction was one of despair and revenge. Rather I think it is time for a litlle self-criticism. When the French was bombing Libya (after allowing Kaddafi to put up his tent in the middle of Paris) their strategy was too short-sighted. Rumsfeld's "sweep it up" strategy caused about a million Iraqis dead and many more refugees for no good reason; by the way, who is accountable for this kind of terrorism? Now, Hollande has started bombing indiscrimately; probably killing helpless civilians next to ISIS. If there is such a deep-rooted hate among the arap youth against western world, can we expalin this only by religious motives or life styles. As long as arabic oil is there and there is no alternative energy to replace it, these atrocities will not stop! It is a pity western world cannot bring out politicical leaders like Roosevelt, Brandt or Palme any more... I wish Krugmann was the US president !
2
This disaster in the making began when Reagan, the guy cheerleader who dodged WW II, living out his celluloid induced fantasy, decided to arm fundamentalist Afghans to fight the Soviet Union. He solicited Saudi help which came in the form of money and the establishment of Wahabbi Salafist madrassas which taught a perverted ant weatern, anti modernity, anti woman creed which is the intellectual underpinning of is Taliban, Al Qaida and all it's cancerous permutations, most importantly Al Qaida in Iraq which became ISIS.
That founding nitwittery was compounded, by orders of magnitude when guy cheerleader, Viet Nam dodger, Supreme Court appointed Boy George, future war criminal invaded and occupied Afghanistan, gave bin Laden a free pass out of Tora Bora. Next, channeling his inner Sun Tzu, he led The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, disbanded the Iraqi army, made torture USG policy, gave al Qaida a new Field of Dreams and built the prison that became the University of ISIS.
Now, we have two more war dodging cowards Captain Bone Spur Trump and Doctor Thorazine D. Demento, talking tough, pimping more, perpetual, war in the Middle East.
Because you see, with zero experience of war, just like Reagan and Boy George, they are the heroes who will ride to our rescue.
ISIS is the end result of the US's 62 year long, and counting, Crusade of Folly in the Middle East.
Who wants to be "the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box?"
That founding nitwittery was compounded, by orders of magnitude when guy cheerleader, Viet Nam dodger, Supreme Court appointed Boy George, future war criminal invaded and occupied Afghanistan, gave bin Laden a free pass out of Tora Bora. Next, channeling his inner Sun Tzu, he led The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, disbanded the Iraqi army, made torture USG policy, gave al Qaida a new Field of Dreams and built the prison that became the University of ISIS.
Now, we have two more war dodging cowards Captain Bone Spur Trump and Doctor Thorazine D. Demento, talking tough, pimping more, perpetual, war in the Middle East.
Because you see, with zero experience of war, just like Reagan and Boy George, they are the heroes who will ride to our rescue.
ISIS is the end result of the US's 62 year long, and counting, Crusade of Folly in the Middle East.
Who wants to be "the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box?"
5
Saying that the biggest danger of terrorism is the wrong-headed responses it can inspire, Prof. K makes an important point that is on fullest display in an election cycle where the candidates vie to be packing the biggest six-gun.
We must maintain perspective on who we are as a people, and importantly, who we aspire to be. While there's always been a gap between our actions and who we profess to be, we should strive to narrow it.
There is certainly value in the emotion that the Paris attacks have inspired so long as our response is appropriately measured. Roger Cohen made valid points in his essay of yesterday. ISIS must be addressed and defeated. Part of ISIS's attraction to recruits has been its success. It is espousing with impunity a Muslim jihad based on brutality in defiance of civilization and basic humanity. Whatever justifications it may claim, even though some may have merit, the evil of ISIS must be stopped and its territorial base eliminated.
So far we have been relatively insensitive to the plight of the many fleeing ISIS, leaving their homes and that region. A danger from the Paris attacks is that our insensitivity may be compounded by fear of the refugees as potential terrorists.
We must assess the threat and recognize its parameters. Following 9/11 the U.S. had support in going after Bin Laden; our mistake was in trying to remake Afghanistan. Appropriately limiting our response is vital. And don't forget the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
We must maintain perspective on who we are as a people, and importantly, who we aspire to be. While there's always been a gap between our actions and who we profess to be, we should strive to narrow it.
There is certainly value in the emotion that the Paris attacks have inspired so long as our response is appropriately measured. Roger Cohen made valid points in his essay of yesterday. ISIS must be addressed and defeated. Part of ISIS's attraction to recruits has been its success. It is espousing with impunity a Muslim jihad based on brutality in defiance of civilization and basic humanity. Whatever justifications it may claim, even though some may have merit, the evil of ISIS must be stopped and its territorial base eliminated.
So far we have been relatively insensitive to the plight of the many fleeing ISIS, leaving their homes and that region. A danger from the Paris attacks is that our insensitivity may be compounded by fear of the refugees as potential terrorists.
We must assess the threat and recognize its parameters. Following 9/11 the U.S. had support in going after Bin Laden; our mistake was in trying to remake Afghanistan. Appropriately limiting our response is vital. And don't forget the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
1
I personally would love to see us completely out of the Middle East. Our only interest there for a century has been corporate and considering how corporations offshore their employment and money, why exactly are we paying to protect their business interests? We are 100% not in their interest as far as a bottom line.
We simply have never understood that part of the world and are constantly shocked (all western countries) that they don't want democracy and our values. Saudia Arabia is our worst enemy and have brutal human rights (no rights) but we've put up with them over oil. It's been a failed and ludicrous policy. Same goes for Pakistan. We paid them billions and they in turn harbor end the mastermind on 9/11.
As tragic as France is our biggest threat is cyber attacks and social media. Now every psycho with some computer skills could potentially shut down grids or airlines without a single bullet fired. And also have their murderous rage reinforced by other psychos with only a keyboard.
We simply have never understood that part of the world and are constantly shocked (all western countries) that they don't want democracy and our values. Saudia Arabia is our worst enemy and have brutal human rights (no rights) but we've put up with them over oil. It's been a failed and ludicrous policy. Same goes for Pakistan. We paid them billions and they in turn harbor end the mastermind on 9/11.
As tragic as France is our biggest threat is cyber attacks and social media. Now every psycho with some computer skills could potentially shut down grids or airlines without a single bullet fired. And also have their murderous rage reinforced by other psychos with only a keyboard.
1
The irony in this is that the response of our right wing which the media will surely characterize as tough is actually the softer and more fearful one than the measured and realistic response suggested by Dr. K.
3
And don't you think this would be the time when all candidates would come out and say that as Americans we must stand together and support each other? Enough with the silly use of cute phrases by those on the right to denigrate what should be discussed and even supported. Enough distorting of their own and others' records to rewrite and manipulate history. We need to get a handle on what we have been, to know more about what we are, and from this figure out what to do next. No more fantasy politics. We need to confront our past and present to be able to rise above it. "Death panels and death taxes" trivialize real death; "climate change" trivializes global warming; "tax and spend" trivializes the role of government; "enhanced interrogation" trivializes torture; "pro-life" trivializes rights denial; "job creators" and "liberal media" simply distort and misdirect, "states rights" trivializes slavery. And outright lies about President Obama and his work for us in our highest office makes a mockery of freedom of speech. Let's get real!
3
Arun Gupta, a commentator, has said it all! The liberals in Europe and USA need to figure out how to solve home grown terrorism. I guess Belgium is the starting point.
Paul is right in a way, but a bit out of his area of expertise, I suppose. Right to criticize thoughtless interventionism. Right on Republican political exploitation of terrorism and other military conflicts as means of generating the electoral majorities that elude elites standing for upper class economic interests, who need--need-a wedge issue.
The great question, as it seems to me, is whether a real coalition can be built. Whether in fact, the United Nations can be put in control of Syria. For the US to take the lead justifies claims of imperialism that jihadi jack is thriving on.
Important to strike back but try to do it in the best way.
Obama, are you doing anything?
The great question, as it seems to me, is whether a real coalition can be built. Whether in fact, the United Nations can be put in control of Syria. For the US to take the lead justifies claims of imperialism that jihadi jack is thriving on.
Important to strike back but try to do it in the best way.
Obama, are you doing anything?
GW invaded Iraq. Obama pulled out early against all advise, now the Western world is herding cats. The French reaction is to drop 20 bombs in the desert. That is pathetic. Liberals such as Krugman now have the "not on my block" attitude. That is even more pathetic.
1
I agree with everything in Mr. Krugman's column except for one thing. Mr. Krugman stated that the U. S. invasion of Iraq "set the stage" for the rise of ISIS. This is not true. ISIS arose in Syria, not Iraq. The revolution against the Assad government set the stage for the rise of ISIS. ISIS took advantage of the multi-factional fighting to seize territory while avoiding direct confrontations with Assad's forces. Only after its victories in Syria did ISIS move into Iraq. While it is true that Saddam Hussein would have prevented ISIS from invading Iraq, ISIS still would have been a force in Syria.
This correction is important because there is a strong tendency to blame the United States for all that goes wrong in the world. Indeed, Russian propaganda organs such as Russia Today and World Research claim that the U. S. trained, armed, and financed ISIS. Many people believe this propaganda.
The Iraq invasion was a horrible error, a tragedy of ignorance and arrogance. But it was not the cause of the current crisis in Syria. One of the great ironies of history is that the Arab Spring was the cause of the current crisis and the rise of ISIS.
This correction is important because there is a strong tendency to blame the United States for all that goes wrong in the world. Indeed, Russian propaganda organs such as Russia Today and World Research claim that the U. S. trained, armed, and financed ISIS. Many people believe this propaganda.
The Iraq invasion was a horrible error, a tragedy of ignorance and arrogance. But it was not the cause of the current crisis in Syria. One of the great ironies of history is that the Arab Spring was the cause of the current crisis and the rise of ISIS.
2
I think it is wrong to believe ISIS major objective is to instill fear. ISIS over time has made it clear severally their hatred for western civilization. Dear Professor Krugman, I think if you ask the people in Paris this morning what the major threat to the world today is, I think they'd say, "Terrorism" NOT Climate change. But while I think we should be very concerned with the environment, the most imminent threat to the world is terrorism.
1
If Mr. Krugman was somewhat vague in describing how the world shouldn't react to the recent massacre in Paris, he was vaguer still in how it should. What could the ghoulish public beheadings of innocents, the downing of airliners, or the slaughter of unarmed citizens do but galvanize global sentiment to act swiftly and decisive to rid ourselves of this specter? Whether ISIS can actually destroy Western Civilization has nothing to do with their intent to do just that, so I happen to actually agree with Jeb Bush. There is no doubt in my mind that they wish to bring as much death and destruction as possible to the world. If ISIS is weak compared to France, (to say nothing of her allies) as Mr. Krugman himself stated, there is no reason to delay.
Paul, you forgot that Global Warming is one cause for terrorism, some say Syria was created from an eight year drought.
3
"...the goal of terrorists is to inspire terror." This great line in your final paragraph, Dr. Krugman, applies more to unthinking verbal bomb-throwers like Jeb Bush and the even more ridiculous Ted Cruz. The latter would heap all of the women, children and war's unfortunate detritus and blow them up with the jihadists. Senator Cruz, along with his like-minded brothers [and sisters] on the Right, have the most puerile solutions at hand to neatly tie up the world's ungovernable complexities. The Canadian-who-would-be-president would, without a care, give over innocents to slaughter as justifiable collateral. His lodge brother Jeb! breathlessly, in a shameless attempt to resurrect a dead candidacy, grabs the megaphone to tell us that ISIS is out to kill off the West. It was curious that over the weekend he forgot to remind the world that his brother "kept us safe" on 9/11 after thousands more died 14 years ago. Donald Trump got a few cheap points over the weekend about the dangers of immigration. And who knows where Marco Rubio stands, given his windsock that passes for serious discussion of border security. The horror of Paris is too raw for shabby provincial exploitation but, as we heard in breathless foecasts of doom, the American Right are not above playing the pimp to make a point.
3
“this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.” A fine example of Jeb at his hysterical worst. And in a fashion similar to his brother, using a human tragedy for some political goal. Now "containment" has become a bad word. When the argument becomes about the "word" we find ourselves on the slippery slope.
Climate change has indeed affected Syria. A 6 year drought has reeked havoc on their society. In Iran, one of the world largest salt water lakes has dried up. These and other changes in/on our planet have very serious and long lasting implications, none of which are good.
Climate change has indeed affected Syria. A 6 year drought has reeked havoc on their society. In Iran, one of the world largest salt water lakes has dried up. These and other changes in/on our planet have very serious and long lasting implications, none of which are good.
2
DAESH/ISIS wants the French people to blame and isolate all of the Moslems currently in France, to punish them and drive them into the DAESH operation. The last thing DAESH wants are Moslems who are full members of societies that feel secure and welcome.
Of course, DAESH also wants to spark the war for the end of time where their eschatological beliefs promises that they will be the inheritors of planet earth scrubbed clean of infidels. They welcome attacks, particularly the attacks on Moslems that do not support DAESH and live western nations.
Watching some of the interviews following the attacks a few French voices tried to make the case that the only way to defeat DAESH is to love the Moslems more. For a nation that most consider to be highly secular, that bit of wisdom says that people know that the Golden Rule works. Do not do to others that what you would not have done to you. Unfortunately, "Fear is the mind killer" and our fears will drive us to punish people who had nothing to do with terrorism and hate what DAESH is doing. That will accomplish the goals of DAESH by gaining them more isolated Moslems who join their cause.
Of course, DAESH also wants to spark the war for the end of time where their eschatological beliefs promises that they will be the inheritors of planet earth scrubbed clean of infidels. They welcome attacks, particularly the attacks on Moslems that do not support DAESH and live western nations.
Watching some of the interviews following the attacks a few French voices tried to make the case that the only way to defeat DAESH is to love the Moslems more. For a nation that most consider to be highly secular, that bit of wisdom says that people know that the Golden Rule works. Do not do to others that what you would not have done to you. Unfortunately, "Fear is the mind killer" and our fears will drive us to punish people who had nothing to do with terrorism and hate what DAESH is doing. That will accomplish the goals of DAESH by gaining them more isolated Moslems who join their cause.
2
Mr. Krugman,
Imagine looking down the barrel of a gun.
Imagine looking down the barrel of a gun.
1
ISIS wants to re-establish the caliphate (largely put in place through the military efforts of the Umayyads during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the leader Mu'awiyah and the first of the long string of Abbasid rulers). It stretched at its height from the Indus River to the Pyrenees. To underestimate the resolve of ISIS is of the same magnitude, if not worse given the weapons of destruction available ,as it was for European leaders to underestimate Hitler in the 1930's.
While Krugman paints a grim picture of what life might be like if the climate change advocates are correct, we know due to the pictures we see daily of ISIS brutality, of what life will be like should they be successful. Sorry, the elimination of ISIS must occur. It is the most important threat that the world as a whole faces at this moment.
While Krugman paints a grim picture of what life might be like if the climate change advocates are correct, we know due to the pictures we see daily of ISIS brutality, of what life will be like should they be successful. Sorry, the elimination of ISIS must occur. It is the most important threat that the world as a whole faces at this moment.
As long as we're trying to be honestinstead of giving in to knee jerk emotional reaction, let's be honest about the Syrian refugees. They already have safe haven in Turkey and neighboring Arab states. The ones that are trying to get to more prosperous Western countries are doing that solely for economic reasons exactly as our migrant from Mexico or the previous boat people from North Africa. They aren't stopping at less well off countries like Greece, for instance. And, they aren't migrating because they love the West and Western values. IMO they ought to stay in the havens they already have until we can change the regime in Syria and they can go back to their homes.
2
Well stated, the worst action the US can take is overreaction.
112
Where is NATO? This is an attack on a member of NATO, and every country in NATO ought to be retaliating.
47
The prospect of terror is indeed ... terrifying. But you're still way more likely to die in a car accident.
5
The problem will be if ISIS establishes a more permanent hold on territory inside what is not Iraq and Syria. Is so, presumably those two countries will disintegrate bring more chaos. I would also imagine that ISIS will step up its campaign, joined by Al Qaeda, directly or indirectly, to murder Shiia in those countries and above all Iran. What goes unsaid too often is that the Saudis, the Pakistani ISI and the Iranians help fund their respective sides. Further, too many within the Islamic World remain silent and their barbarians act in their name.
2
Probably a hundred or more Americans die per year from unregulated guns than from terrorism. As usual, this "terror" attack has been overblown and over-covered by the news media. Why don't they cover the hourly news of Americans being killed by guns?
As for this ISIS attack on Paris, we should do nothing. France does not need our help to defend itself against that bunch of barbarians. We ought to bring home our troops from the Middle East. The Arab nations and Afghans ought to clean up their own mess.
I have two views on war: do not go to war unless you are attacked, and then win it without regard to collateral damage. War is not nice. Our side would never have won World War II if we had been shackled by anxiety over collateral damage.
The attack on Paris reinforces my view that Snowden and Manning are traitors; also, smart phones and computers should not allow encryption software unless our government has the keys, otherwise the bad guys can communicate and not be identified or located. In the tradeoff between government surveillance and privacy, I support more surveillance.
As for this ISIS attack on Paris, we should do nothing. France does not need our help to defend itself against that bunch of barbarians. We ought to bring home our troops from the Middle East. The Arab nations and Afghans ought to clean up their own mess.
I have two views on war: do not go to war unless you are attacked, and then win it without regard to collateral damage. War is not nice. Our side would never have won World War II if we had been shackled by anxiety over collateral damage.
The attack on Paris reinforces my view that Snowden and Manning are traitors; also, smart phones and computers should not allow encryption software unless our government has the keys, otherwise the bad guys can communicate and not be identified or located. In the tradeoff between government surveillance and privacy, I support more surveillance.
4
It must be in the Bush family DNA: react with hysteria, scream war, and always coordinated with presidential ambitions.
8
Paris is a sad city. It is also a great city. Since Clovis 1 and the founding of its great University of Paris in the 13th Century. It has been the focus of many great human uprisings...the student uprising along with the Terror. All were against Tyranny. It will always be the same.
1
An excellent piece, both measured in tone and reflecting awareness of the boundaries of the author's expertise. That second quality is lacking in much of what I read and hear since the Paris attacks.
7
Krugman's article appeared to be accurate in many respects yet he destroyed his credentials with a silly attempt to persuade folks that the global warming process is more important than terrorism. Has he noticed the process of warming has stalled for 18 years. The science is not settled. The battle against terrorism is infinitely more important.
3
thanks for being one of the very few adults in the room. this is what I was trying to explain -- without success-- to many of my friends over the weekend. well stated.
20
"Oh, and whatever people like Ted Cruz may imagine, ending our reluctance to kill innocent civilians wouldn’t remove the limits to American power."
We need to ratchet it up a notch or two on Cruz.
The only thing the Princeton and Harvard trained Cruz imagines from this incident is that it will help him consolidate the apocalyptic, conspiratorial, and generally low knowledge elements in the Republican base -- and there are many of them there.
Cruz's cynicism makes Donald Trump look sincere.
Not to defend Trump, but the self-serving prankster is always peeking out from behind the mask.
With Cruz, what you see is what you get, a cynical manipulator with no comic relief.
In short, a man with no civic virtue whatsoever, and borderline sociopathic as a result.
We need to ratchet it up a notch or two on Cruz.
The only thing the Princeton and Harvard trained Cruz imagines from this incident is that it will help him consolidate the apocalyptic, conspiratorial, and generally low knowledge elements in the Republican base -- and there are many of them there.
Cruz's cynicism makes Donald Trump look sincere.
Not to defend Trump, but the self-serving prankster is always peeking out from behind the mask.
With Cruz, what you see is what you get, a cynical manipulator with no comic relief.
In short, a man with no civic virtue whatsoever, and borderline sociopathic as a result.
27
It occurs to me that nothing stimulates gun sales and pro-gun politics more than acts of terrorism. The NRA has to be one of the primary beneficiaries of terrorism, which, by definition, has the goal of fostering fear. As Krugman notes, when it comes to things to fear, terrorism is actually way down the list, and the things at the top of the list, such as climate change, are nothing that can be addressed by arming up.
14
In 1995, more people, including toddlers in a day care center, (168) and many more people (680) were injured in a terrorist attack right here in the United States, in Oklahoma City.
We did not round up and jail the militia and neo-nazi hate groups that spawned the terrorists. Our government tracked down those directly responsible, arrested and jailed them, and put one of them to death.
This is the response required when terrorists act. We investigate, arrest, try, and convict and punish. We also increase surveillance of such groups to keep them ineffective in the future.
Ted Cruz and the other Republican demagogues would arm every Frenchman, increase bombing of cities in the Middle East, and send soldiers (other people's children) into areas now controlled by ISIS, to be killed and forever maimed, to the end that everything becomes worse.
We did not round up and jail the militia and neo-nazi hate groups that spawned the terrorists. Our government tracked down those directly responsible, arrested and jailed them, and put one of them to death.
This is the response required when terrorists act. We investigate, arrest, try, and convict and punish. We also increase surveillance of such groups to keep them ineffective in the future.
Ted Cruz and the other Republican demagogues would arm every Frenchman, increase bombing of cities in the Middle East, and send soldiers (other people's children) into areas now controlled by ISIS, to be killed and forever maimed, to the end that everything becomes worse.
604
As usual, Prof Krugman gets it right. As does the Obama administration, with its attention to cutting off revenues ISIS collects from the sale of oil. That is but one of the connections between Paris/ISIS and global warming, aka burning petroleum for energy.
The West has long funded Islamist terrorism by buying oil. A concentrated program to eliminate oil -- completely! -- by substituting electricity generated from solar and wind, with concomitant improvements in energy efficiency and battery storage, would do more to defeat Islamism in the longer term than any number of warplanes.
Shorter term, attacking the financial assets of extremist groups, most notably funding via transfers from "legitimate" sources in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, should receive more attention. Rapid international electronic funds transfers via cell phone, for example, is an under-examined and growing tool of terrorists. Reigning in this new technology without doubt will cost several someones besides the terrorists money. IF the government is listing to complaints from those someones, it needs to stop doing so NOW. Oil, per se, doesn't buy automatic rifles and components of suicide belts, say nothing of train tickets; currencies transferred between banks do.
The West has long funded Islamist terrorism by buying oil. A concentrated program to eliminate oil -- completely! -- by substituting electricity generated from solar and wind, with concomitant improvements in energy efficiency and battery storage, would do more to defeat Islamism in the longer term than any number of warplanes.
Shorter term, attacking the financial assets of extremist groups, most notably funding via transfers from "legitimate" sources in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, should receive more attention. Rapid international electronic funds transfers via cell phone, for example, is an under-examined and growing tool of terrorists. Reigning in this new technology without doubt will cost several someones besides the terrorists money. IF the government is listing to complaints from those someones, it needs to stop doing so NOW. Oil, per se, doesn't buy automatic rifles and components of suicide belts, say nothing of train tickets; currencies transferred between banks do.
12
The foundation of our Western Platonic thinking is its educational system. It is not just based on learning right thinking, but through stimulating peoples' emotions through governments' and corporations' use of the media where Americans think they are right and anything or anyone different must be wrong.
All is relatively normal here today so, no, the people of France are not terrorized. The French are fuming angry; angrier than I've ever seen them and I've lived here a long time. Besides the obvious emotions everybody had to explain to their kids, who remember the Charlie/grocery store attack, what happened on Saturday morning.
I do see many people on Facebook, especially American's, urging people to move on to some other cause. Those on the right want the world to arm like America; those on the left seek to divert attention to other causes. Many use inappropriate buts, as in "what happened was awful, but..." Yes, those causes are important, some vitaly so, though they can wait a few days while the pain still lingers.
I do see many people on Facebook, especially American's, urging people to move on to some other cause. Those on the right want the world to arm like America; those on the left seek to divert attention to other causes. Many use inappropriate buts, as in "what happened was awful, but..." Yes, those causes are important, some vitaly so, though they can wait a few days while the pain still lingers.
94
Yes, Professor, after viewing "Our Brand Is Crisis" I find the political exploitation of events such as these by folks like Ted Cruz all the more disgusting. The end result could be equally disastrous, whether the acts were the work of ISIS or of agents provocateurs greasing the skids for another bogus military incursion in the Middle East (and more profits for the military-industrial cabal).
There are people such as the Israelis who have lived with the threat of terrorism for some time. They survive and move on. Therefore, we needn't heed the rabid cheerleading from the likes of Cruz while in a state of shock or fear. Maybe once our initial emotions have subsided, if we can agree on a common set of facts (and this in itself is difficult when we're dealing with the current American Right, which manufactures it's own 'reality') we might sit down and discuss reasonable reactions to the events, if such are warranted... and whether this is even our fight.
There are people such as the Israelis who have lived with the threat of terrorism for some time. They survive and move on. Therefore, we needn't heed the rabid cheerleading from the likes of Cruz while in a state of shock or fear. Maybe once our initial emotions have subsided, if we can agree on a common set of facts (and this in itself is difficult when we're dealing with the current American Right, which manufactures it's own 'reality') we might sit down and discuss reasonable reactions to the events, if such are warranted... and whether this is even our fight.
4
40 acres and a camel is the best and most fair way to destroy ISIS. It will be important that all international settlers of the region(s) identified as at issue first agree on a government; a flag; a military and financial backing; set up administration, farms and school and proceed to rid themselves of these renegades while bringing western style culture and democracy to the region. The Homestead Act creating the opportunity must include the right to share in the oil in the region as well. Who is with me?
3
I must be the odd duck, because I ask, "why?" Why do these people hate us? And, then I look at myself in the mirror or at my nation or Paris and ask, "what am I or what are we/they doing wrong to deserve this?" I guess, I'm the type that always blames myself.
If, "people can and do exploit terrorism for political gain, including using it to justify what they imagine will be a splendid, politically beneficial little war", I want out, now, because I also once overheard my father say, although, I did not understand at the time, "you can expect anything in an election year."
If, "people can and do exploit terrorism for political gain, including using it to justify what they imagine will be a splendid, politically beneficial little war", I want out, now, because I also once overheard my father say, although, I did not understand at the time, "you can expect anything in an election year."
1
Mr. Krugman proposes that climate change is the biggest threat to civilization. Perhaps, that is the point. Let us encourage, not discourage, the burning of more and dirtier fossil fuels and hasten the time when this planet is uninhabilable by humans. Recent events indicate that we are unworthy of this earth.
Elect Ted Cruz and let's get it over with.
Elect Ted Cruz and let's get it over with.
1
Bravo and thank you, Paul Krugman, for this welcome dose of sanity for a body politic overheated by bellicose, would-be, commanders-in-chief; right wing bloviators rewarded for outrageous claims; and Neocons itching to get their hands back on the levers of power, to launch additional Middle East fiascos.
By invoking FDR's words, you remind us that we were not always addicted to these rushes of Adrenalin, to losing perspective and abandoning reason, and were not always prone to follow "the sky is falling" doomsayers.
No doubt we will need more of these tonics as the aftermath of the Paris attacks unfolds, and as this election season progresses. Please continue to administer as needed.
By invoking FDR's words, you remind us that we were not always addicted to these rushes of Adrenalin, to losing perspective and abandoning reason, and were not always prone to follow "the sky is falling" doomsayers.
No doubt we will need more of these tonics as the aftermath of the Paris attacks unfolds, and as this election season progresses. Please continue to administer as needed.
3
Authoritarian leaders - and those aspiring to be authoritarian leaders - have always used fear to leverage their position against those who would deny them power. Any rational approach to countering terrorism would be anathema to them. Rationality is the enemy of panic and panic is the friend of the authoritarian.
lff
lff
5
For once I have to disagree, at least in part, to one of PK's statements: "But do you remember all the pronouncements that 9/11 would change everything? Well, it didn’t — and neither will this atrocity."
9/11 has subverted, if not everything certainly quite a few of the most fundamental principles of our nation, beginning with the presumption of innocence, police surveillance, unlimited imprisonment without trial, suspension of habeas corpus, violation of international law (Geneva Convention,) violation of human rights and, to top it all, complete impunity for crimes against the constitution.
In purely quantitative terms, yes, very little has changed except for the allocation of more national resources toward the military-security complex.
But in qualitative and philosophical - political terms, we now live in a different world.
9/11 has subverted, if not everything certainly quite a few of the most fundamental principles of our nation, beginning with the presumption of innocence, police surveillance, unlimited imprisonment without trial, suspension of habeas corpus, violation of international law (Geneva Convention,) violation of human rights and, to top it all, complete impunity for crimes against the constitution.
In purely quantitative terms, yes, very little has changed except for the allocation of more national resources toward the military-security complex.
But in qualitative and philosophical - political terms, we now live in a different world.
10
I have to go with Roger Cohen's sensible column published over the weekend recommending a forceful multi-lateral militany response to ISIS. The chief reasons for a more restrained response are that Western attacks in the Middle East create more terrorists and the inevitable death and injury to the innocent. But the first seems more a result of the anomie caused by poverty, indifference and racism in the West but instigated and welcomed by ISIS, AL Queda and the rest. If the head is destroyed, crime and hardship will remain in the West among these populations, but organized and inspired terrorism will be a lesser threat. As to killing innocents, two responses: Our terrorist enemies already are doing so among their own people. Remember that the Allies did not destroy the death sites in Germany and Poland for this reason. Had they done so in 1943, it is likely far fewer would have been slaughtered. Second, the west has tried to pull back, especially the U.S., for which our president deserves credit for trying. As the facts change, so must our strategy. The bloodshed of innocents clearly is on the hands of brutal pre-Enlightenment jihadists now. Be sure our offensive force is truly multi-national and non-nuclear, enlist countries of the Middle East (those that still are nation states) if possible, then go to war without half-hearted measures.
4
Dr. Krugman says, "we call it terrorism, and shouldn’t dignify it with the name of war." But since when was war a dignified activity? And, do we not inspire terror among civilians with our bombing campaigns and invasions?
Seen objectively, the Jihadists are using the means at their disposal to combat their chosen enemy. That they do not command a $600 billion annual military budget is the crux of the difference between us and them.
Seen objectively, the Jihadists are using the means at their disposal to combat their chosen enemy. That they do not command a $600 billion annual military budget is the crux of the difference between us and them.
4
Dear Dr. Krugman, I love your columns but think starting with Mr. Bush here creates a straw man. The distinction you ask him to draw is too fine. All he can tell is something bad happened. Alert! Wave the flags! He can only speak marshmallow rhetoric and see with foggy vision.
Beyond this, let's remember that god and guns and women as chattel was a deep part of the coding of the killers in Paris. Yet Cruz and Trump and Carson want more god and more guns and less equality for women. Historically and globally this is a bad formula for civilization and the civilized. Separation of church and state, the rule of law, and equality make societies strong. Theocracy, vigilantism, and inequality make them weak. It's not just about how much collateral damage you can inflict, though Mr Cruz would like to think so. You don't have to pull a trigger to oppose civilization, as, for instance a final solution proposal of shipping out twelve million people suggests.
Beyond this, let's remember that god and guns and women as chattel was a deep part of the coding of the killers in Paris. Yet Cruz and Trump and Carson want more god and more guns and less equality for women. Historically and globally this is a bad formula for civilization and the civilized. Separation of church and state, the rule of law, and equality make societies strong. Theocracy, vigilantism, and inequality make them weak. It's not just about how much collateral damage you can inflict, though Mr Cruz would like to think so. You don't have to pull a trigger to oppose civilization, as, for instance a final solution proposal of shipping out twelve million people suggests.
5
Isn't it funny that when the discussion turns to gun control in the wake of one of the repeated mass shootings, the opponents of it say that they people who are advocating it are trying to politicize the issue but that doesn't seem to apply after a terrorist attack.
Yes, I know, thousands of people die each year in terrorist attacks in the U.S. and none from mass shootings by mentally unbalanced people with easy access to guns. Only dumb liberals and the mass media they control don't believe this.
Yes, I know, thousands of people die each year in terrorist attacks in the U.S. and none from mass shootings by mentally unbalanced people with easy access to guns. Only dumb liberals and the mass media they control don't believe this.
1
Fortunately 3 of the attackers wearing suicide vests detonated their bombs without causing massive injuries, killing only themselves-with one exception. Had they really intended to do the most harm they could of simply blown themselves in any of the crowded subways. Perhaps they had epiphanies and deliberately spared others. Meanwhile the so-called mastermind had others do the killings for him and then escaped.
3
"I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
- Frank Herbert, from 'Dune', known as The Litany Against Fear
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
- Frank Herbert, from 'Dune', known as The Litany Against Fear
11
I don't think the terrorists could have scripted a response from the West any better suited to their aims than what the Republican presidential candidates wish to do--or what the Bush administration did after 9/11.
Imagine if, in late 2001, we'd finished the job at Tora Bora and then committed perhaps five percent of what we've ultimately spent in Iraq to rolling up the Taliban and making Afghanistan a functioning, 21st century nation. We could have drained the swamp, and we'd have literally trillions of dollars available to invest in our infrastructure, or educating our people, or even just paying our bills.
Instead we grew Daesh, as surely as if it had been a lab experiment. What will be the unintended consequences of our next dumb war?
Imagine if, in late 2001, we'd finished the job at Tora Bora and then committed perhaps five percent of what we've ultimately spent in Iraq to rolling up the Taliban and making Afghanistan a functioning, 21st century nation. We could have drained the swamp, and we'd have literally trillions of dollars available to invest in our infrastructure, or educating our people, or even just paying our bills.
Instead we grew Daesh, as surely as if it had been a lab experiment. What will be the unintended consequences of our next dumb war?
396
"Think, for a moment, about what France is and what it represents. [...] it’s a robust democracy with a deep well of popular legitimacy.". Professor Krugman should read the nedwpaper he writes for (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world/europe/muslim-frenchwomen-strugg.... the banning of expressions in public of religious (or political) belief (be it the muslim veil, the jewish yarmulke, the black clenched fist or nazi memorabilia) is hardly the sign of a free and tolerant society.
4
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for that helpful essay. Please, however, do keep in mind that terrorists' killings can have direct and massive impact beyond terrorizing populations. The killings in Paris right in front of M. Hollande were surely a warning that terrorists' assassinations of heads of governments and states can become quite a direct way not only to terrorize but indeed to wage wars and end civilizations.
5
Your comments on fear provide the correct perspective, and rationality is what is needed, not the hyperbole that comes from the usual suspects. Fear advances irrationality, and there is already too much of that in our political discourse without adding fear to the mix.
15
The Thirty Years War was centered in what is now Germany, but many other nations jumped in and out of the conflict during that time. Imagine what would have happened if a Turkish army marched into the army determined to 'fix' things. We should definitely destroy elements of this new 30-year conflict that is centered among Arab Moslems that have chosen to attack us e.g. ISIS and al-Qaeda. We should provide safe havens in the area for refugees and refuse to admit any single men into America or Europe and refer them instead to the army we're trying to train, but we should otherwise stay out of it as much as possible.
1
Irrational fear is certainly a force multiplier enjoyed by the incredibly small number of ruthless killers who have arisen from the Islamic world in the 21st century.
The cost in blood and money we brought on ourselves after 9/11 far exceeds the burden we bore in the attack itself, to say nothing of the national institutions we abandoned. Our Constitution took a real hit through expansive government spying on its own people and on our allies; torture became debatable. Without any justification other than mindless fear, we've empowered our leaders to execute American citizens without trial, for example.
And as we saw with the wild reaction to ebola, we have some politicians who are quite willing to exploit fear of any kind, no matter how unscientific or irrational, to achieve their political goals.
Spain surrendered to appeasement after the attacks on its rail system. But the real appeasement and failure to confront Islamic-inspired terrorism is in the Islamic world, which ignores the fact that the body count of innocent Muslims overall is far, far higher than the number of infidels who have died because of the insanity.
Yet the Islamic world continues to send its money and its young people to fight the fight. What are they afraid of?
The cost in blood and money we brought on ourselves after 9/11 far exceeds the burden we bore in the attack itself, to say nothing of the national institutions we abandoned. Our Constitution took a real hit through expansive government spying on its own people and on our allies; torture became debatable. Without any justification other than mindless fear, we've empowered our leaders to execute American citizens without trial, for example.
And as we saw with the wild reaction to ebola, we have some politicians who are quite willing to exploit fear of any kind, no matter how unscientific or irrational, to achieve their political goals.
Spain surrendered to appeasement after the attacks on its rail system. But the real appeasement and failure to confront Islamic-inspired terrorism is in the Islamic world, which ignores the fact that the body count of innocent Muslims overall is far, far higher than the number of infidels who have died because of the insanity.
Yet the Islamic world continues to send its money and its young people to fight the fight. What are they afraid of?
3
We are always in danger of forfeiting our civil liberties and supporting right-wing leaders when terrorism or other threats make us afraid. Since the 1970s, the social psychology theory of "terror management" has been replicated in nearly 200 empirical studies. It reminds us that we need to be especially vigilant in balancing the need for security against terrorism with protection of civil liberties. We also can't let terrorism breed bigotry.
247
Very articulate. However one needs to consider that in some cases that not doing enough is as bad as not doing anything, like when Bashar was crossing red line after red line inaction from world resulted in a vaccum which resulted in ISIS taking on more followers. The West needs to support and align a Muslim army (consisting of Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt and Algeria etc.) and use that military to intervene in the trouble areas in Muslim world (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Chechanya). That approach will result in disarming the terrorist with propaganda point that west is invading these countries meanwhile terrorists can be eliminated more effectively since these people will speak the same language and easily acquire knowledge of local landscape etc.
This can also be done under the US Peacekeeping force aswell but it should be preferred to use a new body to target these terrorist. Please remember that terrorism is a scourge that is best dealt with locally where it rises, I would liken it to blood cancer which is changing the white cells to cancer cells and should be dealt using approaches using the same analogy.
I know some people who tell a story in Pakistan, when the son turned Taliban, father took the gun and shot his own son and his Taliban friends. Of course this kind of thing is difficult but remember terror ideology must be fought in family, in neighborhoods, mosques and help should be extended to those willing to do this and society should be held accountable.
This can also be done under the US Peacekeeping force aswell but it should be preferred to use a new body to target these terrorist. Please remember that terrorism is a scourge that is best dealt with locally where it rises, I would liken it to blood cancer which is changing the white cells to cancer cells and should be dealt using approaches using the same analogy.
I know some people who tell a story in Pakistan, when the son turned Taliban, father took the gun and shot his own son and his Taliban friends. Of course this kind of thing is difficult but remember terror ideology must be fought in family, in neighborhoods, mosques and help should be extended to those willing to do this and society should be held accountable.
3
"Sorry, conservatives: when President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he’s exactly right. Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might."
Putting the absurdity of this statement aside it is interesting to see Krugman use 'global warming', I thought the now accepted protocol for alarmists was 'climate change', which he also uses. In any event, it amazes me that otherwise Very Serious People like Krugman continue to peddle the climate alarmist line without any policy recommendations. I will ask the same questions here I always ask those who say 'climate change' is an immediate threat to 'our civilization':
1) what policy proposals do you recommend?
2) what will those proposals cost; actual cost and lost economic growth cost?
3) who pays those costs?
And the one no one ever considers,
4) what is the impact on 'climate change/global warming' of your proposals? In other words, do any of your proposals, enacted at unknown but certainly tremendous societal cost, make a difference?
I am sure plenty of folks will suggest they have the answers to #s 1 and 3; proposals and who pays. But I doubt there are any answers to #s 2 and 4, what is the cost and what is the impact, other than 'whatever it cost is worth it' and ' any impact is better than no impact'.
Very Serious People indeed.
Putting the absurdity of this statement aside it is interesting to see Krugman use 'global warming', I thought the now accepted protocol for alarmists was 'climate change', which he also uses. In any event, it amazes me that otherwise Very Serious People like Krugman continue to peddle the climate alarmist line without any policy recommendations. I will ask the same questions here I always ask those who say 'climate change' is an immediate threat to 'our civilization':
1) what policy proposals do you recommend?
2) what will those proposals cost; actual cost and lost economic growth cost?
3) who pays those costs?
And the one no one ever considers,
4) what is the impact on 'climate change/global warming' of your proposals? In other words, do any of your proposals, enacted at unknown but certainly tremendous societal cost, make a difference?
I am sure plenty of folks will suggest they have the answers to #s 1 and 3; proposals and who pays. But I doubt there are any answers to #s 2 and 4, what is the cost and what is the impact, other than 'whatever it cost is worth it' and ' any impact is better than no impact'.
Very Serious People indeed.
4
"the targets of terrorism will try to achieve perfect security by eliminating every conceivable threat — a response that inevitably makes things worse"
I don't agree. Currently ISIS occupy parts of Syria and Iraq. They have a specific territory that they control. If we go there, fight them and wipe them out, then the world is categorically a safer place. Half the battle is to eliminate the brain power, the terrorist training, the terrorist/military structure. Without that, you just have frustrated guys throwing rocks at police, which is something i can live with.
I don't agree. Currently ISIS occupy parts of Syria and Iraq. They have a specific territory that they control. If we go there, fight them and wipe them out, then the world is categorically a safer place. Half the battle is to eliminate the brain power, the terrorist training, the terrorist/military structure. Without that, you just have frustrated guys throwing rocks at police, which is something i can live with.
2
I agree with Prof Krugman. IS likes to call these killers "soldiers." For them they are at war. They are not soldiers, they are criminals. We should not dignify them with the name they choose to use for their horrid cowardly and criminal actions.
4
True, invasions of nations on the other side of the world could not have prevented something like 9-11 or the Boston Marathon massacre. The futility of such action in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates that. After 14 years of such military intrusion, they are still caldrons of religiously motivated hatred, largely directed at us.
The question remains, however, about what internal surveillance and preventive action inside this country might have prevented those attacks from occurring? We do not like the idea of secret police, permanent surveillance, and harsh suppression of those known simply to be supportive of militant Islam. On the other hand can it safely be avoided in these times. I don't know. I do begin to wonder.
The question remains, however, about what internal surveillance and preventive action inside this country might have prevented those attacks from occurring? We do not like the idea of secret police, permanent surveillance, and harsh suppression of those known simply to be supportive of militant Islam. On the other hand can it safely be avoided in these times. I don't know. I do begin to wonder.
2
What a sad article by Krugman. Especially sad that he had to drag in science and climate change. Not that I have anything against science. And I am certainly not denying climate change. The problem is this: Liberals are not consistently scientific--they become scientific when it suits them.
One of the biggest arguments that liberals have been passing around ever since terrorism has grown in importance as a problem to the West--say over the past 15 years--is the argument that "if we really begin to act against terrorism to the point of killing innocent bystanders we become just like them".
This has led to the strategy of just taking a certain level of terrorism as normal and that it should be combatted surgically and that everything should be done not to radicalize more Muslims. The problem is that if you want to lay out a military strategy--any strategy--just lay it out without such obvious psychobabble nonsense as "we will become just like them if we kill innocents".
And yes, it is psychobabble nonsense not at all scientific and manifestly demonstrated unscientific by history itself: When a dangerous threat exists to a people, to defeat it you probably will kill innocents, but it certainly does not necessarily mean you will become like the aggressors; you might come home feeling guilty, yes, it is devastating, but it does not necessarily mean "you become them". A disadvantage to liberals--and harm to science itself--is the constant use of science only when it suits them.
One of the biggest arguments that liberals have been passing around ever since terrorism has grown in importance as a problem to the West--say over the past 15 years--is the argument that "if we really begin to act against terrorism to the point of killing innocent bystanders we become just like them".
This has led to the strategy of just taking a certain level of terrorism as normal and that it should be combatted surgically and that everything should be done not to radicalize more Muslims. The problem is that if you want to lay out a military strategy--any strategy--just lay it out without such obvious psychobabble nonsense as "we will become just like them if we kill innocents".
And yes, it is psychobabble nonsense not at all scientific and manifestly demonstrated unscientific by history itself: When a dangerous threat exists to a people, to defeat it you probably will kill innocents, but it certainly does not necessarily mean you will become like the aggressors; you might come home feeling guilty, yes, it is devastating, but it does not necessarily mean "you become them". A disadvantage to liberals--and harm to science itself--is the constant use of science only when it suits them.
3
Mr. Krugman Godspeed and thank you for bring ing your intellect to this situation. It pains me to know that many of our elected officials will beat their chest and bring their bravado to a situation thereby only falling directly into the trap set by those who can only instill fear. Lindsey Grahams "OMG we are all about to die", Trumps "Build a wall" Ted Cruz is the single worst among these and his vile and incorrect pronouncements are too many to list here. our nation spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined and yet the hawks who use fear mongering as their platform actually make us weaker through expenditures in the wrong areas. I am thankful that a majority of our countries citizens are too intelligent to fall into the traps set by the terrorists and also by the American cowboys who are actually weak themselves. Dubai got us into this mess and his lying us into Iraq did nothing but upset a hornets nest that is causing a good majority of the strife we face globally now. Are there bad and evil actors on the world stage of course but please America stop trying to out gore the enemy. The loudest person in a room is always the weakest one period. Thank you again Mr. Krugman for lending your smarts to this necessary conversation. Obamanos!
7
Today the NYT reports 300 homicides in Baltimore, more than double the number of people killed in Paris on 11/13. Yet there is no fear that western civilization is threatened.
Krugman is spot on. As tragic as this attack was, our civilization is not threatened. The same is true for the 9/11 attack in the US. We must not allow political leaders to use this attack as an excuse to start another war. It is not a war.
But with respect to the river of refugees flooding Europe, rationality must find its place along with compassion. Every government has a duty to its citizens to control who may enter the country. Allowing hundreds of thousands to enter Europe in a short period of time is dangerous for all.
Krugman is spot on. As tragic as this attack was, our civilization is not threatened. The same is true for the 9/11 attack in the US. We must not allow political leaders to use this attack as an excuse to start another war. It is not a war.
But with respect to the river of refugees flooding Europe, rationality must find its place along with compassion. Every government has a duty to its citizens to control who may enter the country. Allowing hundreds of thousands to enter Europe in a short period of time is dangerous for all.
4
No doubt fear can lead to dysfunctional behavior vs. clearheaded thinking about the nature of the threat and possible solutions to negate its ill effects. We should not be afraid, but we should be vigilant. To put this in perspective, many more people are killed in a week in the United States by gun violence without a whimper due to the NRA's ability to control our politicians and win the message war by framing it as a constitutional matter.
10
This article is 100% right today and would have been 100% right 15 years ago.
Hawkish heads portray anything less than rhetoric about bombing and war over civilization as somehow representing "lily-livered" liberalism. What they don't realize is that indulging in such hawkish rhetoric--not to mention following it up with real invasions--is doing EXACTLY what these terrorists want. These people are not afraid of being bombed; quite the opposite, they know it will bring them more support in the region. The second Iraq war was the jihadist's dream come true. It has made the world a much, much worse place.
Between appeasement and "war over civilization" lies a broad path. One should follow that path not simply because it is more "humane," but because it is in the self-interest of the U.S. and European nations: for it prevents these attacks from achieving their intended purpose.
The way to be stronger than terrorism is to refuse to respond in the way the terrorists hope we will.
Hawkish heads portray anything less than rhetoric about bombing and war over civilization as somehow representing "lily-livered" liberalism. What they don't realize is that indulging in such hawkish rhetoric--not to mention following it up with real invasions--is doing EXACTLY what these terrorists want. These people are not afraid of being bombed; quite the opposite, they know it will bring them more support in the region. The second Iraq war was the jihadist's dream come true. It has made the world a much, much worse place.
Between appeasement and "war over civilization" lies a broad path. One should follow that path not simply because it is more "humane," but because it is in the self-interest of the U.S. and European nations: for it prevents these attacks from achieving their intended purpose.
The way to be stronger than terrorism is to refuse to respond in the way the terrorists hope we will.
11
The entire American media, left and right, is an incomprehensible babble with respect to the problem of terrorism. If you do not have the right calling for every citizen to arm and start shooting up everything in sight you have the left with nonsense such as "they are not trying to destroy Western civilization, they are just trying to panic us" or "if we kill innocents in trying to destroy terrorism we become just like them".
I have no idea which political party is worse in the U.S. Any dunce can observe that the right just tries to flame us into a frenzy of violence and that the left, on the other hand, is just plain silly and in utter contradiction to their vaunted defense of science and notions such as climate change with statements such as "if we kill innocents eradicating terrorism we become just like them". I would like to see the science behind that last statement. I hate to bring up the Nazis because every fool brings them up these days for the wrong reason, but any dunce knows the West to defeat Naziism descended to barbaric levels and plenty of people came home guilty for atrocities but that does not mean "we became like them". In fact if reacting violently to a threat to the point of killing innocents resulted in people "becoming just like them" no human progress at all would have been made historically: The attacked would have just become like the aggressors and no moral progress or anything would have been made. What an absurd American public. Just worthless.
I have no idea which political party is worse in the U.S. Any dunce can observe that the right just tries to flame us into a frenzy of violence and that the left, on the other hand, is just plain silly and in utter contradiction to their vaunted defense of science and notions such as climate change with statements such as "if we kill innocents eradicating terrorism we become just like them". I would like to see the science behind that last statement. I hate to bring up the Nazis because every fool brings them up these days for the wrong reason, but any dunce knows the West to defeat Naziism descended to barbaric levels and plenty of people came home guilty for atrocities but that does not mean "we became like them". In fact if reacting violently to a threat to the point of killing innocents resulted in people "becoming just like them" no human progress at all would have been made historically: The attacked would have just become like the aggressors and no moral progress or anything would have been made. What an absurd American public. Just worthless.
2
I am afraid you are wrong about the goals of this movement. It is in fact to establish a modern caliphate. It is also to prosecute as much destruction in the West and anyone else they eventually see as an enemy to their form of unreason in the future. They of course are not going to conquer Europe. We know that. We are not idiots. You are dodging the debate. They can conquer large portions of The Middle East, though, and have a much larger grass roots support than we care to admit all over the Sunni Arab world. They do not exist to sow fear. That is just a means to an end, which is a totalitarian cult state. They are in fact very dangerous and Obama's reaction is still to suggest this has nothing to do with Islam. Sorry, the liberals are seriously failing right now. Including you.
6
Fear pays off in solid taxpayer dollar gold for those connected to the flood of money. Statistically speaking, we're much more likely to be killed other ways, but the horror of these incredibly simple actions provokes fear and unfortunately, it's byproduct, vengeance. There is no amount of money to be spent which would prevent this from happening anywhere should a handful of conspirators get together at a coffee shop, find some weapons, then head out and do it.
It would probably be giving these idiots way too much credit to think they're end game is to push Europe's growing fascist nationalism groups further into power, but that's another possible outcome. What will change as it has since 9/11, is that we're going to bankrupt our countries and enrich a few well connected corporations chasing ghosts around the globe.
It would probably be giving these idiots way too much credit to think they're end game is to push Europe's growing fascist nationalism groups further into power, but that's another possible outcome. What will change as it has since 9/11, is that we're going to bankrupt our countries and enrich a few well connected corporations chasing ghosts around the globe.
10
I generally agree with Professor Krugman with one notable exception:
9/11 did indeed change everything, and for the worse. Think of just one example: your experience on at an airport and on an airplane before and after. My kids don't believe me when I tell them what it was like to fly pre-9/11.
Unfortunately most of the "change" for the worse that is caused by terrorists attacks is brought on by our overblown terrorized responses. Yah the TSA and no liquids and take out my computer and take off my shoes and scan me with radiation and swab my bag and strip search me... That worked out well no? Didn't 67 of 70 banned items just make it through airport security in a recent test of procedures? 67 out of 70. Think of the money and wasted hours of airport security and then think about that number again - failed 67 out of 70 times.
Doctor, you are spot on, we must be vigilant and proactive but we also can't be hysterical and ruin our country in our response. You say that terrorism won't destroy western civilization and I agree, but our responses to it just might make it unrecognizable to those of us who remember what it was like to live pre9/11.
9/11 did indeed change everything, and for the worse. Think of just one example: your experience on at an airport and on an airplane before and after. My kids don't believe me when I tell them what it was like to fly pre-9/11.
Unfortunately most of the "change" for the worse that is caused by terrorists attacks is brought on by our overblown terrorized responses. Yah the TSA and no liquids and take out my computer and take off my shoes and scan me with radiation and swab my bag and strip search me... That worked out well no? Didn't 67 of 70 banned items just make it through airport security in a recent test of procedures? 67 out of 70. Think of the money and wasted hours of airport security and then think about that number again - failed 67 out of 70 times.
Doctor, you are spot on, we must be vigilant and proactive but we also can't be hysterical and ruin our country in our response. You say that terrorism won't destroy western civilization and I agree, but our responses to it just might make it unrecognizable to those of us who remember what it was like to live pre9/11.
16
I'm not a bleeding heart that blames American imperialism for all the world's ills, but we cannot deny the violent collateral damage our bombs do. Krugman points out that "the biggest danger terrorism poses to our society comes not from the direct harm inflicted, but from the wrong-headed responses it can inspire" as well as the importance for Western powers to keep up the fight. He also addressed those who exploit this incident for political gain. However he doesn't address the fact that we too often and too soon turn to military violence that should be a last resort. Now that we've helped engender an environment that produces ISIS and other terrorist groups, we have to fight them. But we should also develop our significant cultural, diplomatic and economic tools that we have let atrophy in recent years.
212
Except, the Islamic State does want to destroy Western civilization. That's one reason they destroy historical sites that represent internationalism, like 2,000-year-old temples in Syria built for local deities under Roman pluralism. One recent communication even refers to "invading Gaul". Because we rightly don't celebrate militarism, we may miss the point that Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul was the beginning of Western civilization in unifying the cultures of Europe.
We cringe at that statement and avert our eyes from the historical reality of civilization imposed by force. The Islamic State doesn't blink at that reality. It conquers and holds territories. We're so used to think of borders as fixed after World War II (itself the crossing into a new era of civilization) that we forget acquiring territory was considered a legitimate consequence of war before that.
IS obviously doesn't think it can "conquer" France. But we do their work for them in destroying our own civilization by eroding its ideals through fear and a naive desire for "security"—which is more to Mr. Krugman's point. I would go so far as to say we can't fight IS effectively because we've lost the courage of our convictions. Our blind faith in money has led to a priesthood of billionaires who rob us of agency.
All war is terrorism, but not all terrorism is war. IS conquers and holds territories. It is engaging in war. We can't formulate a fearless response unless we acknowledge THEIR perceived realities.
We cringe at that statement and avert our eyes from the historical reality of civilization imposed by force. The Islamic State doesn't blink at that reality. It conquers and holds territories. We're so used to think of borders as fixed after World War II (itself the crossing into a new era of civilization) that we forget acquiring territory was considered a legitimate consequence of war before that.
IS obviously doesn't think it can "conquer" France. But we do their work for them in destroying our own civilization by eroding its ideals through fear and a naive desire for "security"—which is more to Mr. Krugman's point. I would go so far as to say we can't fight IS effectively because we've lost the courage of our convictions. Our blind faith in money has led to a priesthood of billionaires who rob us of agency.
All war is terrorism, but not all terrorism is war. IS conquers and holds territories. It is engaging in war. We can't formulate a fearless response unless we acknowledge THEIR perceived realities.
60
This is a well considered understanding of terrorism and reaction to it.
I do question a couple of assumption adopted, including, "ending our reluctance to kill innocent civilians wouldn’t remove the limits to American power. It would, however, do wonders for terrorist recruitment."
We have not been reluctant to kill Muslims over there. That has been a major basis of terrorist recruitment.
Also, this highlights the nature of campaigns and of American politicians today, "Take, for example, Jeb Bush’s declaration that “this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.”
He said that because he thought likely voters for him would want to hear it. He'd say anything he thought they wanted to hear. It does not reflect good judgment. It is not an attempt at leadership. It is scrambling to the head of the parade in order to claim to lead it.
It is not just Bush. We don't even expect anything better from politicians. We don't get it either, except for a very few. Bernie has been willing to be a voice in the wilderness, when what he said was not popular. That folks is leadership and independent judgment, whether you agree with him or not.
Finally, it is important to distinguish between appeasement and correcting course. The West is not the root of all evil, but it does have unwise policies that have contributed to these problems. Fixing that is not appeasement.
We don't need more violence, more killing of innocents, more destruction. We need peace. Make a peace.
I do question a couple of assumption adopted, including, "ending our reluctance to kill innocent civilians wouldn’t remove the limits to American power. It would, however, do wonders for terrorist recruitment."
We have not been reluctant to kill Muslims over there. That has been a major basis of terrorist recruitment.
Also, this highlights the nature of campaigns and of American politicians today, "Take, for example, Jeb Bush’s declaration that “this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.”
He said that because he thought likely voters for him would want to hear it. He'd say anything he thought they wanted to hear. It does not reflect good judgment. It is not an attempt at leadership. It is scrambling to the head of the parade in order to claim to lead it.
It is not just Bush. We don't even expect anything better from politicians. We don't get it either, except for a very few. Bernie has been willing to be a voice in the wilderness, when what he said was not popular. That folks is leadership and independent judgment, whether you agree with him or not.
Finally, it is important to distinguish between appeasement and correcting course. The West is not the root of all evil, but it does have unwise policies that have contributed to these problems. Fixing that is not appeasement.
We don't need more violence, more killing of innocents, more destruction. We need peace. Make a peace.
73
Much needed note of sanity amid the usual bluster.
Thanks.
Thanks.
76
Jeb Bush's response is sorely lacking in nuance or depth. But in effect what the Daesh are doing is an organized attempt to destroy Western values. When we massively up our invasive surveillance of ourselves, when we accept greater and greater cuts to our civil liberties in exchange for some measure of military-imposed security, when we succumb to hating vast swathes of humanity over religious labels, then the terrorists are winning.
15
Krugman underestimates the effect of terrorism. We should not give in to fear; we should not surrender our freedoms for security. What we should do is figure out reasonable options which enable both. Here is one example: let the State Department decide which countries train terrorists and restrict travel to those countries; require prior permission and special passports for approved reasons to those countries; refuse re-entry to any citizen who travels to those countries without prior permission and special passports; and prosecute violators and those who abet them whether they live abroad or return home.
32
Michael L Hays,
You should unpack that idea. It is not doable. The basis of the idea is what the passport system is for. If a person is traveling without visa/permission then how might they be tracked? If they want to hide where they have been how would anyone know unless everyone has a chip in them? Do we really want to chip everyone?
You should unpack that idea. It is not doable. The basis of the idea is what the passport system is for. If a person is traveling without visa/permission then how might they be tracked? If they want to hide where they have been how would anyone know unless everyone has a chip in them? Do we really want to chip everyone?
Indeed, terrorists aim to create fear (terror) in people, disrupting normalcy and 'demanding' we surrender freedom for temporary security, and appease them to prevent future attacks by entering into a cocoon of despair and despondency, neutralized, neutered actually, from defending ourselves but for immediate survival. France is responding, I trust, by an aggressive will not only to survive but to show resiliency and fortitude to act appropriately, without stampeding, and methodically destroy an ideologically dogmatic radical Islam, whose religiously-driven members (jihadists) cannot attend to reason; faith-based violence does not allow it Using military force seems necessary in the short-term horizon; but for a peaceful future, we have to become not just tolerant of other's differences; instead, allow pluralism, and secularism. It may not be a democracy as we are used to, but at least it will be cognizant and respectful of human rights. To that aim, we must educate ourselves and everybody on the basic values of life and our social fabric, restore dignity by way of creating jobs were none exist today. And give voice and power to the half being held captive, women. Call me a simpleton, but we cannot create virtue simply by dropping bombs. We need to garner the courage to get our hands dirty and get to work hard for each other, and make it in as persistent a way as possible. Difficult? You bet. Necessary? Essential!
9
As an economist I would hope that Dr. Krugman could and seems to be distinguishing between the macro & micro impact of the murders in Paris. On the micro level, hundreds of families have had an unimaginable tradegy visited upon them. Their grief, horror and desire for revenge will likely last forever. On a macro level, the actions of the murderers is not even a blip on the radar screen of life and death on Planet Earth. More people will starve to death, be killed in car crashes, or murdered this week than on Friday night in Paris. Their spouses will be just as widowed their children just as orphaned as those on Friday night. Consciously ignoring the desire of murderers to terrorize while confronting forcefully those who preach hatred and intolerance is a brave response. Bombing cities may feel good for a micro moment in time, like the mission accomplished banner after bombing Bahgdad. But how good does it feel today. For one, I am not afraid of the the murderers of Paris. On the other hand, I am very afraid of the politicians who claim that the only way to stop hate driven murders of hundreds is with hate driven murders of tens of thousands.
99
Well, as usual, Republican politicians are clamoring for another war. No mention of how we're going to pay for it.
Let's put them on notice - if they want another major war in the Middle East, led by the US, then taxes will have to be raised substantially. Wars need to be funded and not by slashing the social safety net, cutting investment in infrastructure and education and continuing to deny the huge role climate change plays in mass migration - years of drought in Syria was a key component of the initial uprising.
Want more war? Then be ready to RAISE TAXES and since the middle class and poor are already tapped out, the one percenters will have to finance it.
Let's put them on notice - if they want another major war in the Middle East, led by the US, then taxes will have to be raised substantially. Wars need to be funded and not by slashing the social safety net, cutting investment in infrastructure and education and continuing to deny the huge role climate change plays in mass migration - years of drought in Syria was a key component of the initial uprising.
Want more war? Then be ready to RAISE TAXES and since the middle class and poor are already tapped out, the one percenters will have to finance it.
95
Krugman disputes that “this is an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization.” Really? Western Europe and England have now been seeded with many millions of Muslims who - judged by their efforts to implement Sharia law, and mass disaffection with western society and culture - pose a genuinely unnerving threat to that most basic elements of western society - freedom and safety.
What would it take for Krugman to not so blightly dismiss the danger? How about a coordinated set of dirty nuclear explosions occurring in some of our major cities? Much worse than 9/11. Not so far fetched considering the nuclear weapons resident in the ever unstable and terrorist strengths in Pakistan. The threat is so serious that our only real protection is the broad and deep acceptance of a near police state. We're going to have to trade abridgement of freedoms - freedoms once taken for granted and fundamental to Western civilization to protect what remains.
Maybe Krugman wasn't in New York on 9/11 - I was and the images of the WTC collapsing forever in my minds eye convinced me to never assume our way of life is beyond peril.
What would it take for Krugman to not so blightly dismiss the danger? How about a coordinated set of dirty nuclear explosions occurring in some of our major cities? Much worse than 9/11. Not so far fetched considering the nuclear weapons resident in the ever unstable and terrorist strengths in Pakistan. The threat is so serious that our only real protection is the broad and deep acceptance of a near police state. We're going to have to trade abridgement of freedoms - freedoms once taken for granted and fundamental to Western civilization to protect what remains.
Maybe Krugman wasn't in New York on 9/11 - I was and the images of the WTC collapsing forever in my minds eye convinced me to never assume our way of life is beyond peril.
15
Really? It took seeing the WTC collapsing to convince you of that?
1
I was there too and we do not need a police state.
1
Tom Paine, it doesn't help to make your point when you wildly exaggerate the number of refugees in Europe. It is not "many millions." Look at the chart linked below and then stop sowing fear
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11841346/Refugee-crisis...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11841346/Refugee-crisis...
1
I want to add one to your very well focused comments. The most difficult part seems to be how to minimize the fatal effects of suicide bombers, either if they act individually (as locals do in the U.S.) or in groups. At some point in Israel it seemed unsurmountable, however, the results are obvious. It can be done! There are concrete measures which have historically proven to be effective. Remember Carlos (the jackal)?
5
Maybe the solution is to shutdown social media. Itwould have many side benefits including preventing the deaths of pedestrians walking across the street staring at their 'smart' phones. The inconvenience to young people who would have to learn social skills is a small price to pay for stopping these 'elaborate' plots that are so dependent upon social media - and to stop the easy reruitment of disaffected young men.
I would be more than happy to see the end of Facebook, twitter, etc.
I would be more than happy to see the end of Facebook, twitter, etc.
11
The lack of a source of instant emotional gratification would give time to those susceptible young men to live with whatever is going on inside them forcing them to deal with it instead of suppressing it by evoking physical and emotional feelings that overwhelm the thing.
1
From your lips to God's ear...
1
In principle, I am wildly opposed to the sort of military adventurism we've practiced in Iraq & Afghanistan And any student of history knows the west stirred this pot not only with the Balfour agreement but with our meddling in the 50's with a then nearly European Iran when we deposed Mossadech. That said, the threat posed by jihadist madness has to be addressed. Europe has been slow to heed the warnings of those who've dared to condemn the advancing predicament. The sad reality is tha there has to be a demand in Europe that those Muslims who refuse to live in the manner of an open society, cannot live there and without equivocation. What Mr. Krugman doesn't address is that the fear generated by these incidents lives in the minds of people, just as school shootings so in the U.S. Over the weekend, I read the first 1,800 comments on the tragedy posted in the Times. Most expressed sympathy, but many also noted they were cancelling their travel plans to Europe. What will a struggling southern Europe do with the loss of that revenue and in this case, perception is reality. NATO and the world in general need to establish a viable strategy to eliminate this phenomenon. It's not going away.
5
The Good People in Paris were out in droves to restaurants, memorials and tourist attractions yesterday and that is the best defense average people can take against common criminal, mass-murdering, socially unconscious, hiding-behind-religion terrorist thugs. Deep disdain for their fear tactics and personal commitment to helping rid society of these evil daesh, along with even more aggressive allied air strikes to destroy their nests, is the answer. It IS working.
19
Thank you Mr. Krugman for a reasoned response and objective long view. Would that our ledaers have such wisdom and probity.
And I look for the transition of our debate from how to exact revenge to how to address the root of this enmity's strength and attraction -- we will always have terrible and evil individuals who advocate for terror, but we must stop the flow of disillusioned people that they are able to convert to their side.
Every life matters, but revenge doesn't seem to win. If we examine the numbers, I believe that we will see far greater losses in the areas of terrorists's "homelands" than in our own. Meanwhile, we are losing more than lives.
And I look for the transition of our debate from how to exact revenge to how to address the root of this enmity's strength and attraction -- we will always have terrible and evil individuals who advocate for terror, but we must stop the flow of disillusioned people that they are able to convert to their side.
Every life matters, but revenge doesn't seem to win. If we examine the numbers, I believe that we will see far greater losses in the areas of terrorists's "homelands" than in our own. Meanwhile, we are losing more than lives.
28
War mongering is about creating war and the huge profits it creates for the international corporate elite. Behind their concerned faces lives a touch of satisfaction that arms will keep flowing everywhere. this is not new for it has been going on for hundreds of years especially in the era of the military industrial complex. But the impulse to make profits off of the suffering of others is still despicable.
34
Speaking of profiting from war and the Bush family, I find it remarkable that four generations of that family have profited from war, from Samuel, to Prescott, to the two presidents, and now candidate Jeb Bush. To hear Jeb Bush say anything about what we should do in the Middle East should make the whole world hyper-ventilate.
Everything you say is right Prof. Krugman. But some of the grievance is right. And we are indeed on the wrong side of their anger.
It is sickening to watch what some of these kids do (and mostly they are kids). But they draw from a well of anger and alienation that we would do well to acknowledge.
As an Indian, we are too well accustomed to a constant worry of "excess peace" when we see long periods of dormancy from terrorism. Welcome as it is, we never know what the fringes are cooking up. Our political leadership (and sometimes our news media) are only too happy to never educate the masses but cook up sensations when terrorism occurs. We rarely see "progress" to resolving conflicts. India-Pakistan differences over Jammu-Kashmir rarely make any headway before either party finds a reason to dodge negotiations.
My own country is as much at fault as Pakistan for evading that progress. No matter how much reason we have to be aggrieved at an attack. That is not something we can blame on a terrorist. The job of political leadership is to resolve conflict by building a modus vivendi, depending on what they(& we ) can live with.
You are absolutely right : That the only thing to fear is the wrong-headed easy response rather than a thoughtful solution to the grievance.
Yes, we mourn the Parisians and are appalled at the attacks and we demand justice for the affected. But we cannot avoid the fact that it won't go away unless there is justice in the world.
It is sickening to watch what some of these kids do (and mostly they are kids). But they draw from a well of anger and alienation that we would do well to acknowledge.
As an Indian, we are too well accustomed to a constant worry of "excess peace" when we see long periods of dormancy from terrorism. Welcome as it is, we never know what the fringes are cooking up. Our political leadership (and sometimes our news media) are only too happy to never educate the masses but cook up sensations when terrorism occurs. We rarely see "progress" to resolving conflicts. India-Pakistan differences over Jammu-Kashmir rarely make any headway before either party finds a reason to dodge negotiations.
My own country is as much at fault as Pakistan for evading that progress. No matter how much reason we have to be aggrieved at an attack. That is not something we can blame on a terrorist. The job of political leadership is to resolve conflict by building a modus vivendi, depending on what they(& we ) can live with.
You are absolutely right : That the only thing to fear is the wrong-headed easy response rather than a thoughtful solution to the grievance.
Yes, we mourn the Parisians and are appalled at the attacks and we demand justice for the affected. But we cannot avoid the fact that it won't go away unless there is justice in the world.
37
Adult responses like this are ... whatever the reverse of "shrill" is. Calling someone "shrill" was a way of marginalizing them without dealing with their actual arguments; here, the goal will be the same (Krugman wisely covered the "appeasement" route, but there will be something else), because everyone knows the correct response to terrorism is a combination of fear, rage, chest-puffing (Bush with a bullhorn!), and then letting the bombs fly, whatever the consequences. France has already started with the bombing; of course, it won't do much good, but it does serve the short-term purpose of convincing the French populace that "something" is being done (and has the downside of serving the illusion that these things can be settled by the knee-jerk application of force). We'll have to see if the French people come to their senses sooner than we did. I suppose the "good" news is that France's military isn't as bloated as ours is, and so the relative cost of an extended bout of self-defeating war is much higher for them, making it -- I hope -- less likely that they'll go about it. France was one of the saner countries in the runup to the Iraq war; that sanity is going to be tested to its limit.
25
Unfortunately the danger to Western civilization is quite real. You are certainly right that no terrorist group can outright destroy us but we can readily destroy ourselves. It is well established in medicine, that suffering and even death often result, not directly from an insult or injury but, from the body's own inflammatory and immune responses to it. Remember that ER episode where a burn victim is told to call their loved ones before their lung tissue stops functioning from the swelling and inflammation?
After 9/11, many things have changed. We have openly engaged in illegal detention and torture. We have pursued illegal surveillance and unjustified war. These are very serious symptoms. If we are unable to temper our responses, we might not make it.
After 9/11, many things have changed. We have openly engaged in illegal detention and torture. We have pursued illegal surveillance and unjustified war. These are very serious symptoms. If we are unable to temper our responses, we might not make it.
20
Very profound analysis, indeed: we need t measure our involvement. Surely, the terrorist anticipated an immediate and forceful retaliation: it was not a surprise, even a struck child strikes back if he can get away with it.
When the shock wave dissipates, strategdy will be required.
When the shock wave dissipates, strategdy will be required.
6
For a country that claims to be the "home of the brave", we seem to have far too many politicians driven to attack other countries based on their fear of losing an election. And the "brave" American people who expect 100% government guaranteed safety in a world of extreme danger are just as likely to elect those politicians. In this period of political "frenzy", I hope voters are looking for thoughtful, reason based policy rather than emotional appeals to action without any consideration of consequences. We have a president who operates like that now.
56
"All we have to fear, is fear itself.", Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Unfortunately, Jeb Bush, like his brother before him, wants us all to be even more frightened of terrorists so that he can then prescribe himself as the potential solution and, next, declare the Democrats to be weak. One rule we should always follow in dealing with politicians: they don't get to define how we view the world when, in fact, their underlying motive is to shape our views in ways that benefit them. Most of what all them say about the current situation should be taken a little more than background noise.
Since most people know little about terrorist activities and intentions, fear bordering on panic is a natural response. Conflating their capacities with that of governments equipped with massive military power is a huge mistake. We have to see them for what they are and, most importantly, for what they are not.
The most likely purpose of the horrid attacks in Paris, along with the probable downing of the Russian airliner filled with vacationers earlier, was to "bring the war home" to Europe, to show the world that further involvement in the mess in Syria would have grave consequences. Instead, it is likely to inspire a massive reaction, even an overreaction, from western governments, including our own. Whatever sorrowful anger we are trying to process now in sympathy with the French, we should be very careful as to what we wish for in response, Jeb Bush notwithstanding.
61
and, yes Virginia, he had to add global warming to this mix, which could and might destroy everything if it was actually real. Prof Krugman has moments of lucidity, unfortunately swamped by this strange enchantment by the left religion.
7
For the millionth time, science proves global warming poses a threat to the planet!
1
mf,
Your fear of reality won't change it.
The fantasy you have replaced it with is not real.
Your fear of reality won't change it.
The fantasy you have replaced it with is not real.
1
I see you live in Arizona. By all means, check back in here in, oh, ten years or so, when it will be too hot for you to even go outside in the summer. Tell us then all about "this strange enchantment" that you seem to want to deny.
1
The goal is not to only create fear and terror. That is a step on a way to a larger goal. Just because professor Krugman judges the terrorists incapable of winning a war on western civilization does not mean they are not waging or trying to win that war.
7
One ominous example of an inappropriate response is the cynical attempt by a number of US government security officials to tie this catastrophe to secure encryption, which they have recently been attempting to cajole the technology companies into compromising. Encrypted communications, according to them, made the Paris events possible. One official, when interviewed, came close to accusing Apple of being responsible for the attacks.
We can expect this theme to be taken up vociferously in coming days. They obviously hope that they can stampede the American public into accepting their demands - recently rejected - on the basis of the attacks, as they have in the past with so many other ineffective but intrusive security measures.
We can expect this theme to be taken up vociferously in coming days. They obviously hope that they can stampede the American public into accepting their demands - recently rejected - on the basis of the attacks, as they have in the past with so many other ineffective but intrusive security measures.
20
The Islamic terrorism is different from other from of terrorism that are based on national, ethnic or language identity. Islamic terrorism is a cocktail of terror and a major religion - a religion that is spread all over the world. Religion is compared to opium to intoxicate the minds - it is a very potent force when mixed with terror. Paul - you do not know its capability because world never seen this manifestation of religion - Cursade or Islzmic invasions were closely defined events with clearly defined forces to fight. This is not so.
One point is clear that modern nation states are struggling to counter this force but in last 14 years they could not find a solution. The impact of this invisible force on Western and non- Wstern states are growing. World is confused - Pandits are telling many prescriptions - nation building in Afganisthan, national security force in Iraq, democratic election in Egypt,.... None of the strategy worked.
One possible solution - temporary suspension of right of privacy showed benefit in USA, but civil society under the disclosure of Snowdon, wanted to close it. Time has come for all nations to understand that without major sacrifice, this evil force can not be destroyed. The power of this force is not military hardware, the strategy to destroy it also will be an abstract entity - civil liberty adjustment for limited time till it is destroyed.
One point is clear that modern nation states are struggling to counter this force but in last 14 years they could not find a solution. The impact of this invisible force on Western and non- Wstern states are growing. World is confused - Pandits are telling many prescriptions - nation building in Afganisthan, national security force in Iraq, democratic election in Egypt,.... None of the strategy worked.
One possible solution - temporary suspension of right of privacy showed benefit in USA, but civil society under the disclosure of Snowdon, wanted to close it. Time has come for all nations to understand that without major sacrifice, this evil force can not be destroyed. The power of this force is not military hardware, the strategy to destroy it also will be an abstract entity - civil liberty adjustment for limited time till it is destroyed.
1
This is exactly wrong, and plays directly into the hands of these despicable terrorists. By suspending civil rights- precisely what makes Western democracies different from totalitarian regimes like ISIS- we become what we despise.
The U.S. and Western Democracies defeated Hitler and Imperialist Japan, and neutralized a Soviet Empire possessing thousands of thermonuclear warheads, all without seriously compromising basic civil rights. You're suggesting we should do so now in response to a handful of murderous criminals?
Who's side are you on?
The U.S. and Western Democracies defeated Hitler and Imperialist Japan, and neutralized a Soviet Empire possessing thousands of thermonuclear warheads, all without seriously compromising basic civil rights. You're suggesting we should do so now in response to a handful of murderous criminals?
Who's side are you on?
Good piece by Professor Krugman. It brings into focus an important point about European civil society.
The question is: will Europeans opt for full engagement in a war against the muslim world or for a political peace settlement in Syria?
The spillover of the Syrian war on America's Western European allies brings into question how the Middle East wars have been managed so far.
After this last bloody carnage in Paris, foreign policy managed by politicians and a small cadre of civil service and military assistants will certainly be challenged by a politically engaged society.
The Islamic State strike in Paris, one of the most Western affluent cities in the world, clearly shows foreign policy is now a matter of life and death for millions of Europeans enjoying a comfortable life.
Contrary to America, Europeans have a historical memory of winless wars in their soil for centuries.
The question is: will Europeans opt for full engagement in a war against the muslim world or for a political peace settlement in Syria?
The spillover of the Syrian war on America's Western European allies brings into question how the Middle East wars have been managed so far.
After this last bloody carnage in Paris, foreign policy managed by politicians and a small cadre of civil service and military assistants will certainly be challenged by a politically engaged society.
The Islamic State strike in Paris, one of the most Western affluent cities in the world, clearly shows foreign policy is now a matter of life and death for millions of Europeans enjoying a comfortable life.
Contrary to America, Europeans have a historical memory of winless wars in their soil for centuries.
9
Desperate actions are born of desperation. Desperate responses reveal the mirrored desperation of the responder, but do not advance the cause of peace. In working with desperate people, efforts to thoughtfully address the desperation need to be made, because it is the desperation that drives the violence onward, and it must be dealt with or it will live on and take on a new life. However, there must be parameters, boundaries, limits or thoughtful engagement becomes an impossibility. The difficult part is that a wounded tiger may be too afraid to approach without it biting or clawing the aspiring tamer.
5
Another excellent column. Revenge is not a winning policy. Exaggerating the impact murderous of fanatics is not helpful. The western countries who suffered the worst tragedies at the hands of a very few perpetrators, England, France, Spain and the United States are still standing, thriving examples of civilization, even with their imperfections.
45
True. During WWII, we should have simply blown hugs and kisses to the Germans and Japanese, rung some temple bells, sung Kumbaya and shown how brotherly love wins out in the end. Forget about D-Day, the Kursk Bulge, and burning those two fascist states to the ground until they gave up.
Note the asymmetry. For every terrorist that spends $100 on a nail-filled pressure cooker, the US spends $100,000 to "make sure" that it doesn't happen again. But it does anyway. This, of course, is an arms race we cannot win. And if I recall correctly, it was an arms race that brought down the Soviet Union.
Fond of my Haikus I write from time to time here, yesterday's suggested that the West take off its "red coats" and "think like them". That can be interpreted and misinterpreted in any number of ways - admittedly part of my intention. But in the spirit of keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer, we and our allies must know this enemy to defeat it. And so far, it seems, we do not.
Professor Krugman does not go far enough in his analysis: we cannot give into terror because it will bankrupt us, forcing us in the end to then play the nuclear card, the only card we will have left in our hand. I argue that we cannot continue to wage war by trying to kill the head of the snake, because seven more pop up - and it is asymmetry writ large, playing whack-a-mole with billion dollar bombers. I applaud the current effort of bombing oil trucks - far more symmetrical and therefore likely to bear real fruit. The next step must be to follow the money - the trail is there and we will probably be disappointed but not surprised as to where it leads.
Fond of my Haikus I write from time to time here, yesterday's suggested that the West take off its "red coats" and "think like them". That can be interpreted and misinterpreted in any number of ways - admittedly part of my intention. But in the spirit of keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer, we and our allies must know this enemy to defeat it. And so far, it seems, we do not.
Professor Krugman does not go far enough in his analysis: we cannot give into terror because it will bankrupt us, forcing us in the end to then play the nuclear card, the only card we will have left in our hand. I argue that we cannot continue to wage war by trying to kill the head of the snake, because seven more pop up - and it is asymmetry writ large, playing whack-a-mole with billion dollar bombers. I applaud the current effort of bombing oil trucks - far more symmetrical and therefore likely to bear real fruit. The next step must be to follow the money - the trail is there and we will probably be disappointed but not surprised as to where it leads.
44
In thinking about what might be done to root out ISIS militarily, where it is snugged in with non-combatants, I'm reminded of battles gone by where we have made the choice to forego reticence about destroying historical sites or killing civilians for a "greater good." I think of the Citadel at Hue City in Viet Nam, or Monte Casino in Italy, or Caen in Normandy, or the fire bombing of Tokyo. With each one of those still highly debated actions we determined we would "take the gloves off" because to not do so was, in the moment, considered an existential threat. Certainly we have to capacity for cruelty that could lay waist to all redoubts and security for these actors. If those choices are to be made, we will tell ourselves that we were forced to them by an enemy that would not quit with their intractability in attacking us or in resisting our intentions and agenda. With war, we suspend our humanity and civilization and slaughter our enemies (i.e. "Put them in a box and kill them.") That is why those that know war are so reticent to call for it's use.
18
"... the Citadel at Hue City in Viet Nam, or Monte Casino in Italy, or Caen in Normandy, or the fire bombing of Tokyo."
tdom has an excellent memory.
May our past follies warn us against committing new ones.
tdom has an excellent memory.
May our past follies warn us against committing new ones.
Jeb, please define western civilization! Where would it be without the number system from the east, we would all still be using Roman numbers. It is a falsehood to think that civilization happened in vacuum, intrinsically, by itself. It did not work that way for humanity, since times immemorial, east, west, north, south have all communicated, traded and exchanged, goods, ideas, cultures. We have each build on the other's backs. Western civilization would be nowhere without slaves from Africa, treasure chests brimming with goodies from the east, precious gems, minerals, spices, silks, algebra, number system, meditation, yoga and everything else that humans have sought together. The pursuit for comfort, for peace, for advancement, for technology, the desire to be happy, is integral to human beings, it is the same quest, with or without gadgets, gizmos and paraphernalia.
10
How do you distinguish appeasement from the realization that we have known for more than 40 years that the Middle East situation would continue to be unstable and for 30 years (in the case of Exxon) that climate change was a gathering threat, and no real effort was ever made to develop alternative energy and disengage from the region? We have a military presence in so many places -- special forces in most of the countries in the world -- we are always trying to get other Western countries involved, and now more of what got us here is advocated. The solution always seems to involve more opportunities for "defense" contractors.
13
And I assume that the oath by a large part of the muslim world to destroy America and the rest of the west are empty words by muslims politicians and their followers? Do you not see what is going on throughout Europe? The muslim world has invaded the European continent without firing a shot. They have been greeted in a hopeful manner by those countries only to find that these are not the gracious guests that they had expected but a mob that comes in with a list of demands and the ability to destroy every remnant of civilization that it took these many centuries to create. I, incidently, am not one of those that will adhere to the climate change story because the pseudo intellectual left demands that I do! It is a diversion as far as many of us are concerned.
3
What an awful stream of self-righteous, high-minded blathering is running in these comments:
- The most important thing is to prepare yourself not overreact when terrorists murder your wife.
- Ban the word terrorism. When I call it terrorism, I admit to being terrorized. We cannot break up the furniture of our civilization.
- When this happens with children in my class, I do all I can to understand what is causing the petulance which frequently results in violence, destruction and anger. We need to involve those involved to resolve the inner turmoil and return harmony to the class.
- Fear of the death, of terrorists? No, Americans should only fear the politicians.
- There were 129 people killed but the population of Paris is more than 2 million.
- What I feel for these Islamic terrorists is not fear, but a profound pity. They are desperate for attention. Poor fools.
- Terrorism a public health problem. The recruitment of youthful suicide bombers is a symptom of deep distress and WE(!) must begin to address the root causes of the attraction terrorism holds for people who are prone to their infection.
Even the thought that those commenters are just not too bright doesn't console me.
- The most important thing is to prepare yourself not overreact when terrorists murder your wife.
- Ban the word terrorism. When I call it terrorism, I admit to being terrorized. We cannot break up the furniture of our civilization.
- When this happens with children in my class, I do all I can to understand what is causing the petulance which frequently results in violence, destruction and anger. We need to involve those involved to resolve the inner turmoil and return harmony to the class.
- Fear of the death, of terrorists? No, Americans should only fear the politicians.
- There were 129 people killed but the population of Paris is more than 2 million.
- What I feel for these Islamic terrorists is not fear, but a profound pity. They are desperate for attention. Poor fools.
- Terrorism a public health problem. The recruitment of youthful suicide bombers is a symptom of deep distress and WE(!) must begin to address the root causes of the attraction terrorism holds for people who are prone to their infection.
Even the thought that those commenters are just not too bright doesn't console me.
11
ISIS is a cancer. Like most cancers, it started locally but eventually gained the skills to metastasize, using the bloodstream to travel to and infect other parts of the body. The first stage is infection at far away sites but still largely localized. If kept unchecked, the cancer will weaken all vital organs leading to death.
Treating cancer with chemotherapy is like carpet bombing the cancer with toxic drugs. It does kill the cancer cells but also kill their neighbor normal cells, causing much suffering and even death other other causes. A better way is to enhance the body's natural defense, the immune system to be aware of the signs and movements of suspicious activities and be able to share that information quickly to educate and train defenders. Many new successful cancer immunotherapies work on this principle.
After 9/11, the US used a similar strategy with the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the coordination among all intelligent agencies. There were many hiccups and there have been issues for the citizenry but that has kept us largely safe, not just from outside invaders but also from ingrown ones. This is not a perfect model but it is a good model to build on to keep the world safe.
Treating cancer with chemotherapy is like carpet bombing the cancer with toxic drugs. It does kill the cancer cells but also kill their neighbor normal cells, causing much suffering and even death other other causes. A better way is to enhance the body's natural defense, the immune system to be aware of the signs and movements of suspicious activities and be able to share that information quickly to educate and train defenders. Many new successful cancer immunotherapies work on this principle.
After 9/11, the US used a similar strategy with the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the coordination among all intelligent agencies. There were many hiccups and there have been issues for the citizenry but that has kept us largely safe, not just from outside invaders but also from ingrown ones. This is not a perfect model but it is a good model to build on to keep the world safe.
6
Largely safe? How is it that so many want to pretend that Boston did not happen? How skilled this administration has become in finding all sorts of diversion in order to hide the realities from the American people. We are not going to be safe against the muslim jihadist as they have no compunction about dying for their cause. They believe deeply in what they believe in while so many in the west have stopped believing in anything but their own personal welfare. One's country be damned!
Perhaps I am unnatural, after the initial reports of carnage Friday night I didn't follow any reports of the violence, I wanted to know nothing of their hideous tactics. I focused on the lives lost, the innocents cut down, they were far more deserving of my attention than the terrorists.
But that's the extent of ignoring the threats the terrorists pose. While they may not be an major organized force now, t every indication that ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist bands are growing in number. They are resourceful and have mastered Social Media for recruitment.
While I have no doubt that the knee-jerk reaction will be the further curtailment of our liberties and the further intrusions on our privacy here in the US. The solution is simple the fight must be taken decisively to them.
There's plenty of blame for the situation first created by George Bush's Reign of Error, Obama needs to rethink his obviously failing strategy. In the last few weeks Lebanon was hit, the Russians were hit in Egypt, and now the French, it's time to build a real Coalition of the willing to put boots on the ground and end this very real threat.
Their intention is the destruction of Western civilization, and they have proved to be very patient in attaining that goal, it's foolish to be so dismissive about their asymmetrical tactics. More important, is getting out in front to confront their ideology of terror. It's hard to defeat someone militarily ans yet win their hearts and minds, that's the challenge
But that's the extent of ignoring the threats the terrorists pose. While they may not be an major organized force now, t every indication that ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist bands are growing in number. They are resourceful and have mastered Social Media for recruitment.
While I have no doubt that the knee-jerk reaction will be the further curtailment of our liberties and the further intrusions on our privacy here in the US. The solution is simple the fight must be taken decisively to them.
There's plenty of blame for the situation first created by George Bush's Reign of Error, Obama needs to rethink his obviously failing strategy. In the last few weeks Lebanon was hit, the Russians were hit in Egypt, and now the French, it's time to build a real Coalition of the willing to put boots on the ground and end this very real threat.
Their intention is the destruction of Western civilization, and they have proved to be very patient in attaining that goal, it's foolish to be so dismissive about their asymmetrical tactics. More important, is getting out in front to confront their ideology of terror. It's hard to defeat someone militarily ans yet win their hearts and minds, that's the challenge
3
Their is no winning the hearts and minds of those so committed to tyranny and treachery.
Thank you. Well-reasoned, sound, and well-intentioned. Chance of widespread adoption? Zero. I feel better though if it is any consolation.
25
It is reasonable to argue against over reacting to terrorism. But emotionally this attitude feels a bit off. People who have been attacked are not feeling especially reasonable. And it is also not realistic to expect them to talk themselves into a passive attitude. There is an emotional reality to take care of, and a demonstration of force against the terrorists -- or their presumed center of operation - can help achieve this. We don't have to start WWIII but if we do nothing, or act as if it is no biggie, we fail to address a basic human need of those who deserve some measure of psychic justice.
1
"Like millions of people, I’ve been obsessively following the news from Paris, putting aside other things to focus on the horror." Not me but seriously my heart is with anyone who is terrorized. In any event, I long came to terms that you guys know more than I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/world/asia/nancy-pelosi-made-rare-visi...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/business/ibms-design-centered-strategy...
http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/world/asia/nancy-pelosi-made-rare-visi...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/business/ibms-design-centered-strategy...
http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
More Americans have died due to our response to the attacks on 9/11 than died in the attacks themselves. We sent thousands of our young men and women to early graves in the name of vengeance. We are supposed to be a country that is ruled by reason, and yet we let our emotions get the best of us. We allowed our enemies to trick us into becoming more like them. We tortured, we imprisoned without trial, we turned our own people into suspects and we stopped listening to our greatest allies. We did all of this in a blind rage. I warn the French against going down the road that we took. I warn them to not give up who they are in the pursuit of revenge. A response is necessary, but it needs to be devised intelligently and it needs to have an end.
95
As always, and increasingly, I deeply appreciate having Paul Krugman with us.
I do get reminded daily, such as from all the media attention to Graham and Cruz and the rest of them, that the realities of being ignorant and fearful, these topics/themes are given short shrift in our education of children. We continue to be vulnerable to whatever spews from the far right.
We seem to think it is more important to learn how to be wealthy.
Maybe our eventual Democratic candidate for the White House, and while I must keep hoping we don't also have to deal with a spoiler in the contest, could do well to have as the primary theme for the 2016 campaign, Living with Fear.
I do get reminded daily, such as from all the media attention to Graham and Cruz and the rest of them, that the realities of being ignorant and fearful, these topics/themes are given short shrift in our education of children. We continue to be vulnerable to whatever spews from the far right.
We seem to think it is more important to learn how to be wealthy.
Maybe our eventual Democratic candidate for the White House, and while I must keep hoping we don't also have to deal with a spoiler in the contest, could do well to have as the primary theme for the 2016 campaign, Living with Fear.
13
I'm looking at the attacks from two lines of conventional knowledge:
1) Acting out of fear gives what's feared more power.
2) Fear is a Pain feedback loop converting the emotional to a signal indicating need for action or change.
Knowing the former, an action out fear is to be avoided. Thinking about what the fear is doing, while not capitulating or appeasing, fear, the important question is: What's with all this fundamentalist violent radicalization?
I don't limit my question to ISIS but how it directly affects me or any other US citizen. Conclusion: I have a much greater chance of dying at the hands of drivers who tailgate & weave at 70+ mph highway/50+ mph all but very residential areas. They have a very high percentage of bigger cars & exhibit retaliation if I slow down making them go around preferring that I move out of their way.
In microcosm, this defines the mindset of the terrorist. At higher rates of force like speeding, they mistake the size and horsepower of their car for power when, at these speeds, the speed itself is the power center. Their car's mass makes them more dangerous to themselves because they overestimate their driving skills and underestimate their perception of safety.
Answer: Slow down both to not act out of the fear they intend but also make a change that brings their behavior to what's safer to us both.
In microcosm, this defines the mindset of the terrorist.
Next question: Why do so many act like terrorists even if small ways?
1) Acting out of fear gives what's feared more power.
2) Fear is a Pain feedback loop converting the emotional to a signal indicating need for action or change.
Knowing the former, an action out fear is to be avoided. Thinking about what the fear is doing, while not capitulating or appeasing, fear, the important question is: What's with all this fundamentalist violent radicalization?
I don't limit my question to ISIS but how it directly affects me or any other US citizen. Conclusion: I have a much greater chance of dying at the hands of drivers who tailgate & weave at 70+ mph highway/50+ mph all but very residential areas. They have a very high percentage of bigger cars & exhibit retaliation if I slow down making them go around preferring that I move out of their way.
In microcosm, this defines the mindset of the terrorist. At higher rates of force like speeding, they mistake the size and horsepower of their car for power when, at these speeds, the speed itself is the power center. Their car's mass makes them more dangerous to themselves because they overestimate their driving skills and underestimate their perception of safety.
Answer: Slow down both to not act out of the fear they intend but also make a change that brings their behavior to what's safer to us both.
In microcosm, this defines the mindset of the terrorist.
Next question: Why do so many act like terrorists even if small ways?
13
Blue. So true. And oil fuels the insane power fantasies of both ISIS and the dangerous drivers.
All those who are advocating an "all-out war" (whatever that is) against terrorism should be required to specify what sacrifices we as a country must be prepared to undertake, Will we reinstitute a draft so that all young people, and not just volunteers, put their lives on the line? Will we tax citizens at a much higher percentage (including a massive increase in the highest marginal rate) to pay for the war and its aftermath? And how many years are we willing to make such sacrifices? Will civilians be required to volunteer their time and/or money to aid the cause? Talk is plentiful and cheap, but it solves nothing.
40
(sorry, submitted incomplete thoughts by accident) ... generating support and recruits for the insurgents. The government is thus caught in a dilemma: no reaction or appeasement makes the insurgents look powerful; a strong reaction risks becoming a counterproductive overreaction. What is therefore needed is an appropriate war strategy, not simply, or mainly, a military strategy, but a political-economic one one the order of the Cold War: a long term commitment to contain and eventually eliminate the threat by addressing the political and economic problems that fuel it.
7
I share your sentiments. Big battles are the thing of the past. Technological and stealth and fear warfare is the future. We can combat this by funding R&D, regulating finance, letting the CIA, FBI and Homeland security deal with these things and getting on with our lives, making our Country stronger economically, educationally, non-partisan, and environmentally. This is what will diminish terrorist.
6
Paul is, as usual, right in many ways, but misses that terrorism _is_ an act of war, a standard tactic in wars of national, now regional, liberation. As another commenter rightly pointed out, its purpose is to destabilize the enemy government, undercut its legitimacy by making it seempowerless to fulfill its most basic purpose, maintain public order, and provoke it into overreaction that will cause harms that will alienate the target population, generating support an
3
As time passes, it is clear two circumstances are quite clear. We spend billions on protection, as in Police everywhere, the inane TSA, The FBI, chasing suspects, etc etc. Point is, we are a police state, and we live in fear. As always we wait until something bad happens, before we call on our justice system. We refuse racial profiling. Now what?
5
The response to Paris should be well thought-out on political and military grounds, and the importance of other problems (climate change, for example) should not be reduced. But I think that Krugman is dead wrong on ISIS.
The deeds of ISIS represent pure evil, and its reach is growing. ISIS must be stopped, just as Hitler had to be stopped. This mission should be undertaken by an international coalition in which the Muslim nations of the Middle East play a prominent role. Ideally, the United Nations should pass a resolution approving such a mission, and should send in a peace-keeping force once ISIS has been destroyed.
The deeds of ISIS represent pure evil, and its reach is growing. ISIS must be stopped, just as Hitler had to be stopped. This mission should be undertaken by an international coalition in which the Muslim nations of the Middle East play a prominent role. Ideally, the United Nations should pass a resolution approving such a mission, and should send in a peace-keeping force once ISIS has been destroyed.
12
The response to Paris was crafted at least a year, maybe two years, ago. Paris may open the eyes of more European and Middle Eastern powers and cause them to accept the wisdom of the Obama strategy. Tactics are up to the newcomers, but the strategy has been clear to those willing to see.
5
Hitler was the freely elected head of a legitimate nation state. Through diplomacy he formed a powerful military alliance with other nations that waged a titanic war against much of the rest of the world.
Please do not compare Hitler and Nazi-era Germany to the self-proclaimed Islamic State. ISIS is a terrorist group that has seized territory. It is a dangerous nuisance that must and will be dealt with. The larger issue is dealing with the social and economic conditions that spawn such creatures. It is easy to get rid of the roaches in your kitchen. It is much more difficult to keep those roaches from returning.
Please do not compare Hitler and Nazi-era Germany to the self-proclaimed Islamic State. ISIS is a terrorist group that has seized territory. It is a dangerous nuisance that must and will be dealt with. The larger issue is dealing with the social and economic conditions that spawn such creatures. It is easy to get rid of the roaches in your kitchen. It is much more difficult to keep those roaches from returning.
1
To wait for the UN to pass a resolution is a waste of time. They are useless and as far as I am concerned need to be kept out of this.
I don't understand this editorial at all, largely because I don't think there is a rational basis for the attacks. The usual purpose of terrorrism is in fact to encourage appeasement (though perhaps a more neutral way of saying this is that they want to disincentivize what they view as bad behavior from the governments of the victims). That works pretty well when you are a non-state actor, because retaliation is difficult. But ISIS is, in all practical respects, a state, and they seem to be declaring war with the West. I can only surmise that they have deluded themselves into thinking that it is a war that they can win, thinking that when push comes to shove, greater Islam will side with them.
6
No, ISIS has not declared on the West. Rather, they've declared war on just about everyone. Muslims by far and away are the largest group that has been killed by them.
The best description I've seen of the group is that they are a dystopian death cult. As such, killing them will never eliminate all of them, but can at least control them. The more that they can be made to look unsuccessful, the better, because such a perception will make them less attractive to the disaffected that seek to belong to any group that might value them.
The best description I've seen of the group is that they are a dystopian death cult. As such, killing them will never eliminate all of them, but can at least control them. The more that they can be made to look unsuccessful, the better, because such a perception will make them less attractive to the disaffected that seek to belong to any group that might value them.
Perhaps you could read it several more times and even some of the comments to arrive at a better understanding.
Thank you Dr. Krugman for a voice of sanity in the wilderness of hysteria. I think you are reminding us that we have mistaken the goals of the medieval barbarians regarding caliphate versus spreading panic.
While I have no doubt they believe they will ultimately prevail and establish their particular religious philosophy on the world, they are certainly going about that goal the wrong way. Clearly the only way to gain control of people's thinking is by the power of attraction.
That's what you say about our haste and overreaction would of course only play into their hands and attract more recruits. Not recruits that would actually be able to destroy civilization, but recruits able and willing to sow mayhem where it will have the maximum impact.
While I have no doubt they believe they will ultimately prevail and establish their particular religious philosophy on the world, they are certainly going about that goal the wrong way. Clearly the only way to gain control of people's thinking is by the power of attraction.
That's what you say about our haste and overreaction would of course only play into their hands and attract more recruits. Not recruits that would actually be able to destroy civilization, but recruits able and willing to sow mayhem where it will have the maximum impact.
36
I have to admire that Paul Krugman is willing to say what is difficult to say when it is most difficult to say it. That, my friends, is called courage.
221
You can be courageous and wrong
Nothing good will emerge from terrorism, whether in Paris, New York or anywhere else. But in their reactions to it, our presidential candidates will reveal more of their character and fitness to serve.
Calling the Paris attacks the beginning of "war" could be a metaphor for our determination to eliminate the source of those attacks. Or it could mark the beginning of a real war in which "collateral damage" -- death and grievous injury to civilians -- does nothing to improve prospects for peace.
Terror has been and will be forever with us and cannot be eliminated. Neither can it be appeased. Perhaps a miracle will emerge from talks with Russia that will speed resolution of the Syrian conflict. But nothing will restore the thousands of homes and businesses and millions of lives that have destroyed.
Everyone agrees that restoration of any kind of stability in the Middle East will require the active involvement of the governments that rule there. But most of those governments are led by dictators who fear permanent loss of power more than sporadic terror. And the US war against Iraq, culminating in the execution and death of its dictator and those supporting him, is a powerful demonstration to dictators of what can happen when terror triggers war.
Calling the Paris attacks the beginning of "war" could be a metaphor for our determination to eliminate the source of those attacks. Or it could mark the beginning of a real war in which "collateral damage" -- death and grievous injury to civilians -- does nothing to improve prospects for peace.
Terror has been and will be forever with us and cannot be eliminated. Neither can it be appeased. Perhaps a miracle will emerge from talks with Russia that will speed resolution of the Syrian conflict. But nothing will restore the thousands of homes and businesses and millions of lives that have destroyed.
Everyone agrees that restoration of any kind of stability in the Middle East will require the active involvement of the governments that rule there. But most of those governments are led by dictators who fear permanent loss of power more than sporadic terror. And the US war against Iraq, culminating in the execution and death of its dictator and those supporting him, is a powerful demonstration to dictators of what can happen when terror triggers war.
6
Easy for you to say Dr. Krugman. After all, a good bit of our economy and our culture thrives on fear. Our most lucrative industry includes arming ourselves to the hilt for fear of something indescribable. At Halloween, we insist our children be given potentially toxic commercially wrapped candy instead of home-made delicacies from the irrational fear of embedded razor blades. At this moment, parts of us are itching to rush and bomb the daylights out of some distant land and we only need the impetus.
9
On the U.S.'s response to terrorism.
If I were to make a pure psychological analysis, get right to the emotional core of both Democratic and Republican responses to terrorism, I would say the right wing easily falls into vengeance type thinking, eye for an eye, but that the left wing seems to be overly concerned with personal conscience to the point of statements such as "if we retaliate against them to the point of killing innocents we become just like them" or promoting strategies of alliance and committee building which for all possible success have underneath the whiff of wanting to distribute responsibility so simultaneously all are involved, but all are also in position of not really holding anyone accountable for guilt or failure.
Essentially, whether anyone wants to admit or not, the fact of terrorism is not being responded to with clear and honest thought and rationality--both the left and right have within them much unconscious emotional reaction making the problem complicated. The emotion demonstrated by the right is more easily seen--anyone can recognize manifestation of temper. But the left is no less emotional--the words emanating from the left, whether you want to speak of them accusing terrorists of being like spoiled boys or taking pity on them (emotions of condescension, infamous liberal arrogance which can afford pity and/or wagging a finger), or saying "we will become like them if killing innocents" (preservation of conscience), stink of emotion.
If I were to make a pure psychological analysis, get right to the emotional core of both Democratic and Republican responses to terrorism, I would say the right wing easily falls into vengeance type thinking, eye for an eye, but that the left wing seems to be overly concerned with personal conscience to the point of statements such as "if we retaliate against them to the point of killing innocents we become just like them" or promoting strategies of alliance and committee building which for all possible success have underneath the whiff of wanting to distribute responsibility so simultaneously all are involved, but all are also in position of not really holding anyone accountable for guilt or failure.
Essentially, whether anyone wants to admit or not, the fact of terrorism is not being responded to with clear and honest thought and rationality--both the left and right have within them much unconscious emotional reaction making the problem complicated. The emotion demonstrated by the right is more easily seen--anyone can recognize manifestation of temper. But the left is no less emotional--the words emanating from the left, whether you want to speak of them accusing terrorists of being like spoiled boys or taking pity on them (emotions of condescension, infamous liberal arrogance which can afford pity and/or wagging a finger), or saying "we will become like them if killing innocents" (preservation of conscience), stink of emotion.
6
Very well expressed. Too bad your analysis of what is really happening will fall on both the deaf left ears and the deaf right ears. One stirs the septic tank to the right and one stirs the septic tank to the left. Too bad both sides have no notion of how to clean the septic tank.
5
Daniel, this sort of false equivalence is a wonderful way to empower the right to engage in their fantasies of vengeance.
Coalition building is a useful way to harness power and build legitimacy, as used by Truman and Eisenhower and Bush Sr and Clinton (in the Balkans). Bush Jr's "coalition of the willing" felt more like a PR stunt, but still must have brought meaningful resources from some allies. And wow, look at all the conservative President who have engaged in coalition building.
The rhetorical power of "we will become like them" has nowhere near the influence on the left that "clash of civilizations" rhetoric has on the right.
Coalition building is a useful way to harness power and build legitimacy, as used by Truman and Eisenhower and Bush Sr and Clinton (in the Balkans). Bush Jr's "coalition of the willing" felt more like a PR stunt, but still must have brought meaningful resources from some allies. And wow, look at all the conservative President who have engaged in coalition building.
The rhetorical power of "we will become like them" has nowhere near the influence on the left that "clash of civilizations" rhetoric has on the right.
2
You don't know any liberals, do you? You are giving us the fox view of them. We know the importance of containing them but we also realize that unless you can cut off their sources you will never defeat them. Liberals are criticized for thinking.
It's time to look at Saudi Arabia and their support of extremism but also look at their relations with the Bush family. After 9/11 why were they the only people allowed to fly in our airspace. Why won't they release those 28 pages from the congressional 9/11 report that addressed evidence of Saudi support for the hijackers who attacked New York and Washington in 2001?
It's time to look at Saudi Arabia and their support of extremism but also look at their relations with the Bush family. After 9/11 why were they the only people allowed to fly in our airspace. Why won't they release those 28 pages from the congressional 9/11 report that addressed evidence of Saudi support for the hijackers who attacked New York and Washington in 2001?
1
Even though I had the same "nuke'em"-type reaction after 9/11 that a lot of people seem to be expressing now, in the back of my mind ever since I've thought basically the same as Krugman that the way to fight terrorism is through intelligence, police work, pursuit of terrorists, and capture or kill them. We're not fighting a war against a nation or nations; Arabs never modernized and developed a culture of nation-states like in the West. The terrorists don't wear uniforms like we do, so we can't readily identify them and expect to bomb them into defeat. As Krugman states, all our air bombing and indiscriminate killing does, with its "collateral damage" (killing innocents, too), is create more terrorists, like fighting a hydra. We need to attack this complex problem in a more focused, strategic, and intricate way - surgical strikes, not mass bombing, even though that provides more relief of our angst and anger in the short run.
49
I think it is important that we resist elevating the terrorists to the level of warriors and martyrs and instead remind ourselves that they are criminals and thugs. I suspect the terrorsits become inspired by claims that they threaten "western civilization." We should attempt to limit our hyperbole and focus more on the futility of their goals.
94
Well said. All kinds of criminals and demented creatures use terror. Terrorism is the use of terror in pursuit of a political or ideological aim.
1
Mr. Krugman is dead wrong as usual. Apparently he chose not to read some parts of Mao's book. The point of these attacks is not to "sow panic". These needling attacks are standard tactics in guerilla warfare. They are intended to tie up enemy resources, throw them off balance, choose the battlefield and degrade the will of the populace to fight. His assertion that these radicals cannot conquer France is sadly mistaken. The North Vietnamese defeated both France and the United States successively despite having a fraction of their respective budgets. Wars may not always be won by those who are committed to the fight, but they are universally lost by those who don't even realize they are in a fight.
10
Oh, please. China is different from ISIL. Do you really think North Korea could invade and defeat France, much less the United States? ISIL has no territory to bomb into submission; no factories to wipe out. It's a different kind of war. The question is, how do we fight it? You don't have an answer, and neither do I. I just think there is one.
40
I'm not agreeing with you PUB sir.
Since nothing really happens in terrorist attacks except personal death and destruction and social responses are all like broad police action the terrorist don't gain anything. Their purposes are to "feel good and have purpose." They feel good as a tribe when they speak to each other, they feel purposeful when they plan, they feel good when they execute plans. This is all just misdirected human energy because the model of life in their consciousness includes a twisted fixed dogma that they use to feel justified. This is some ways simply shows that any religion any dogma can lead to human actions that are wrong.
Since nothing really happens in terrorist attacks except personal death and destruction and social responses are all like broad police action the terrorist don't gain anything. Their purposes are to "feel good and have purpose." They feel good as a tribe when they speak to each other, they feel purposeful when they plan, they feel good when they execute plans. This is all just misdirected human energy because the model of life in their consciousness includes a twisted fixed dogma that they use to feel justified. This is some ways simply shows that any religion any dogma can lead to human actions that are wrong.
12
Oh, I'm sorry. Did Prof. Krugman say they were not in a fight ? He said that the wrong response is what is to feared. and not the right response. Because these terrorists don't have a hope in hell of destroying Western civilization.
And in fact they don't have a chance of destroying Eastern civilization either, where there are strong democracies that are capable, if less so, of withstanding these pinprick-atrocities.
Make no mistake, they are abhorrent atrocities. Also, do not mistake them for anything other than pinpricks in the context of societal life.
The gradation of responses does include actions that are not in the political lexicon of the governments : Such as solving the root causes.
But your comment is way off the mark.
And in fact they don't have a chance of destroying Eastern civilization either, where there are strong democracies that are capable, if less so, of withstanding these pinprick-atrocities.
Make no mistake, they are abhorrent atrocities. Also, do not mistake them for anything other than pinpricks in the context of societal life.
The gradation of responses does include actions that are not in the political lexicon of the governments : Such as solving the root causes.
But your comment is way off the mark.
3
The first thing to remember about terrorist attacks is that the terrorists aren't crazy. They have very specific goals in mind.
In this case, the attackers left behind a Syrian passport. Why would they do that? Because they're hoping that the European nations that are currently accepting refugees from Syria will close their borders. Why would they want that? Because that makes it more likely that the population under their control in Iraq and Syria will decide to accept their rule and try to wait them out rather than try to escape.
In this case, the attackers left behind a Syrian passport. Why would they do that? Because they're hoping that the European nations that are currently accepting refugees from Syria will close their borders. Why would they want that? Because that makes it more likely that the population under their control in Iraq and Syria will decide to accept their rule and try to wait them out rather than try to escape.
107
We do meddle and we are guilty of hegemony. And we have been toppling heads of state, elected democratically or not, since the 1950's. Democratize or we'll shoot you is not a policy that has been unilaterally successful. Rand Paul's non-interventionist policy is not likely to prevail but we must be very selective about where we fight and then fight to win. Even then, we will be like Brer Fox and the tar baby if we let ourselves be stuck forever in the tribal quagmire known as the Middle East.
25
You are correct, Paul. 2 books I suggest are:
"Holy Horrors" by James A Haught and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
"Holy Horrors" illustrations of the Crusades will help put the current acts of extremists into focus.
"Collapse" will help show how a civilization ended when they destroyed their local environment, but now thanks to technology, we are able to do the same on a global basis.
Already, the chicken hawks are out thumping their chests and beating the war drums. I weep for the future.
"Holy Horrors" by James A Haught and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
"Holy Horrors" illustrations of the Crusades will help put the current acts of extremists into focus.
"Collapse" will help show how a civilization ended when they destroyed their local environment, but now thanks to technology, we are able to do the same on a global basis.
Already, the chicken hawks are out thumping their chests and beating the war drums. I weep for the future.
116
Fred, thank you for recommending Collapse. I read it in 2005 (?), so have been able to watch events unfold with a certain detachment which allows me to focus on climate change, the REAL problem.
1
No, imperialism is not the root of all evil, just a great deal of it.
The First World War never really ended. There was a twenty-year armistice between the major powers and then an additional six-year war followed by a forty-five year Cold War fought in Third World nations.
Now, we are in a struggle to determine the fate of mankind, with nuclear weapons still around, man-made global climate change a serious challenge, and the unresolved issues regarding the break-up of the Ottoman Empire bedeviling us.
The First World War never really ended. There was a twenty-year armistice between the major powers and then an additional six-year war followed by a forty-five year Cold War fought in Third World nations.
Now, we are in a struggle to determine the fate of mankind, with nuclear weapons still around, man-made global climate change a serious challenge, and the unresolved issues regarding the break-up of the Ottoman Empire bedeviling us.
53
Interestingly, it could just as well be argued that the *end* of imperialism, with active American encouragement, is the root of all evil -- you mentioned for example the breakup of the Ottoman and British Empires, which had allowed various ethnic and religious groups to coexist, is at the root of the current problems.
5
Interesting point. Except, the British Empire was hardly benign in nature. I could also point to the Congo Free State as another example. And the Ottomans, although not Arab, were at least of the same faith as their subjects, and allowed all religions to co-exist.
8
Your reference to the breakup if the Ottoman Empire is right on. Britain and France made an arrogant, secret deal to gain control of Lebanon, Syria,and Palestine when the war ended, thwarting Arab aspirations of independence from imperial rulers. The League of Nations and the United Nations, both Western creations, were their tools. The USA was drawn into the resulting colonial mess, eventually becoming the major enabler or enforcer of Western meddling in the region. We in the West are now the confused victims of horrific blowback from a century of Western imperialism in former Ottoman lands. But we Americans "don't know much about history" so we fail to learn from it.
4
Military spending is useless if the enemy is already inside your country. France may spend billions on nuclear weapons and fighter planes, but these weapons cannot be used against mobs of fighters on the streets of Paris. If enough French Muslims were willing to fight for their cause, they could seize areas in Paris and other large cities, and would be very difficult to root out.
10
Well, terrorism has achieved its goal with you, at least.
1
"If enough French Muslims were willing to fight for their cause" seems to conflate the cause of French Muslims with the cause of ISIS.
That would be perhaps the worst outcome of the terrorist attacks.
It would be much better for the French to take steps necessary to increase the sense of belonging of French Muslims to the French Republic.
That would be perhaps the worst outcome of the terrorist attacks.
It would be much better for the French to take steps necessary to increase the sense of belonging of French Muslims to the French Republic.
1
Dr. Krugman says about the Paris attacks what was also true of 9/11. Bin Laden obviously wanted the US to overreact, and did it ever. The US exceeded his wildest dreams many times over, throwing in the gratuitous invasion and occupation of Iraq as a huge bonus. It's the gift that keeps on giving, having destabilized the region and provided fertile ground for the rise of ISIS.
And so it goes.
And so it goes.
809
Do you recall the impact of 9-11, Paul? ISIS wants to repeat that and more. The risk benefit ratio of continuing the present course of action tells us that it is the wrong course. We need to get more aggressive to reduce the risks to our society, our culture and our everyday lives. The barbarity of the Middle East in 2015 requires intervention as a moral matter, too. The refugees are leaving because they have no choice, if they want to live. It is in our national interest and it is a moral imperative to chart a new, more aggressive strategy.
9
And want would this new, more aggressive strategy entail? Bombing... where? Boots on the ground... in Paris? Nuclear weapons... against which population, exactly? Being bellicose, like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, is easy. Being smart is difficult.
33
"We need to get more aggressive to reduce the risks to our society, our culture and our everyday lives." Your society, your culture, your everyday lives? Are they representative of the norm across America? Do they prevail among the segments of society from which we normally get the feet to put in our boots on the ground?
Imagine most people drawing a pistol wherever they may be attacked. Unlike the movies, shooting in reality is wild misses by surprised victims, shooting each other. That's real terror. So is Cruz, who apparently is anxious to bring deaths anywhere in he United States, not to mention elsewhere. And so is Jeb!, whose strongest promise is to do whatever someone else suggests be done in order that be elected president.
78
What instills fear in the masses? Ideology posing as a religion.
Consider the term "Holy War". It's an oxymoron. It's the most potent weapon of words ISIS and all the other terrorists have. It can cross borders the world over through all forms of media.
People frustrated and angered easily succumb to any suggestions posed as religion.
I fear the spread of this cancerous ideology through the catalyst of religious belief before any material attacks anywhere.
We need weapons of propaganda dispersed throughout the different forms of media to disspell the lie of "Holy War". Yes, propaganda.
The war is spread through television, the internet, the press, and more. That is where the real battles take place, for the hearts and minds of those in anger or in fear. Until the lie of "Holy War" is met with the truth that it is a lie of man, and not a will of God, we are all in danger.
Consider the term "Holy War". It's an oxymoron. It's the most potent weapon of words ISIS and all the other terrorists have. It can cross borders the world over through all forms of media.
People frustrated and angered easily succumb to any suggestions posed as religion.
I fear the spread of this cancerous ideology through the catalyst of religious belief before any material attacks anywhere.
We need weapons of propaganda dispersed throughout the different forms of media to disspell the lie of "Holy War". Yes, propaganda.
The war is spread through television, the internet, the press, and more. That is where the real battles take place, for the hearts and minds of those in anger or in fear. Until the lie of "Holy War" is met with the truth that it is a lie of man, and not a will of God, we are all in danger.
35
There is pressure, after these and similar past events, to go along with the ratcheted-up rhetoric describing them, pressure that gets its force by implying that those who don't want to use that rhetoric and who see these events in a different way are unpatriotic and not members of the community in good standing. As much as we hold up our society as pluralistic, we seem to demand an orthodox response to these events. And the response demanded is not a helpful one. It feeds those who commit the violent acts and it weakens those whose communities are targets -- weakens in the long run and at the core, because I think part of the problem is that the orthodox response may look strong on the surface, but does not come to grips with the dynamics of the problem as it exists; we can't keep ourselves perfectly safe and our fear works against our ability to live well in the world in which we do live. So we weaken ourselves with our instinctive reaction to these events and we sideline people who might have a more helpful approach in responding to these events, it seems to me.
25
Spot on.
They tore again at the civilized/pluralistic social fabric - and are watching with delight as we tear it further with our own violent and intolerant rhetoric toward each other.
Yes, we need some measure of that 'orthodox response' at the very least to defend ourselves. We ALSO need a thoughtful, nuanced conversation/approach to understand/address the root causes/triggers of the violence - and recognize/acknowledge/be accountable to the dynamics that stoked this insanity. Leave your demonizing, McCarthy-ism at the door, please. This effort that will likely yield change agonizingly slow. Think of it as our gift - our responsibility - to future generations. Nothing but a never-ending gun/bomb fight - THAT'S the definition of insanity.
They tore again at the civilized/pluralistic social fabric - and are watching with delight as we tear it further with our own violent and intolerant rhetoric toward each other.
Yes, we need some measure of that 'orthodox response' at the very least to defend ourselves. We ALSO need a thoughtful, nuanced conversation/approach to understand/address the root causes/triggers of the violence - and recognize/acknowledge/be accountable to the dynamics that stoked this insanity. Leave your demonizing, McCarthy-ism at the door, please. This effort that will likely yield change agonizingly slow. Think of it as our gift - our responsibility - to future generations. Nothing but a never-ending gun/bomb fight - THAT'S the definition of insanity.
2
"Sorry, conservatives: when President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he’s exactly right. Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might."
There *are* absolutely scenarios where apocalyptic terrorists could destroy the world as we know it. If, for instance, God forbid, terrorists were to detonate a nuclear weapon in either India or Pakistan, it could easily create confusion and that could lead to the other country responding with a nuclear counter-attack. Other nuclear attacks are also possible. The proliferation of nuclear armaments and the possibility of their use by jihadist organizations is indeed a real problem, one that rivals climate change in its potential for destruction. Perhaps a better strategy would be to fight climate change as if there were no global terrorism, and to fight global terrorism as if there were no climate change.
There *are* absolutely scenarios where apocalyptic terrorists could destroy the world as we know it. If, for instance, God forbid, terrorists were to detonate a nuclear weapon in either India or Pakistan, it could easily create confusion and that could lead to the other country responding with a nuclear counter-attack. Other nuclear attacks are also possible. The proliferation of nuclear armaments and the possibility of their use by jihadist organizations is indeed a real problem, one that rivals climate change in its potential for destruction. Perhaps a better strategy would be to fight climate change as if there were no global terrorism, and to fight global terrorism as if there were no climate change.
13
Good analysis, and I'm with Ms. Egeli in her comment below. We should not forget that most of Ben Laden's group were originally Saudi intelligentsia, outraged by our presence in the holy heart of Islam. FDR's promise to protect the degenerate Saudi royalty- which supposedly we still honor while closing our eyes to their Sharia abuses- makes no sense at all. Why do we do business with these people? We don't need the oil anymore- although Exxon-Mobil would disagree. They are not our true allies, nor are any of the other Arab states that follow the same brutal, sexist laws. Let those people police themselves, mature, and struggle with their own internal conflicts in today's modern world without our direct involvement, which only inspires more hatred and more volunteers for ISIS.
Christians too went through a similar bad patch in Europe five hundred or so years back, ironically murdering each other by the thousands, ostensibly for Christ. Thank God for our still imperfect separation of church and state here at home.
Christians too went through a similar bad patch in Europe five hundred or so years back, ironically murdering each other by the thousands, ostensibly for Christ. Thank God for our still imperfect separation of church and state here at home.
151
Thanks to the NYT commenter who pointed out this:
What ISIS Really Wants:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wan...
Among other things - with the establishment of a Caliphate, all the 7th century practices, that have fallen into disuse, are now applicable, per ISIS.
What ISIS Really Wants:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wan...
Among other things - with the establishment of a Caliphate, all the 7th century practices, that have fallen into disuse, are now applicable, per ISIS.
9
What ruddy caliphate is this without the control of Mecca? I hope ISIS considers invasion of KSA, where a receptive Sunni population awaits and bring democracy to KSA rulers who want the perfect democracy in Syria.
1
Krugman is absolutely correct in his comment here. However cautioning against the rhetorical over-reach of our GOP pretenders to the crown is one thing and responding to the actions of these stateless terrorists is another. The west clearly need not huddle in a nervous and frightened clutch to these attacks and mindless slaughters (though many will) but at the same time we ought not pretend the murderous actions of these psychopaths are not a problem. I suppose because of my own personal makeup and beliefs that aggressive responses are called for. This infection we call ISIS, ISIL, or whatever needs and deserves to be removed from the worlds community. If Islam can't or won't deal with the schisms in their societies then, I think, we have a collective right and responsibility to act, and act aggressively. Andrew Bacevich wrote a terrific piece the other day on one possible solution, containment through isolation. My sense is to contain and eliminate; and reluctantly I expect that means boots on the ground. Something I fully believe this administration is loathe to endorse. We need not fear ISIS, but neither should we seek to just survive with them being kept at arms length either. After the infection is removed, there will be ample time to sort out who created the problem in the first place.
9
Yes. But the problem is not ISIL, or Boko Harem, or Al Queda, or Taliban, whatever the next group calls itself. The problem, like it or not, is Islam, or a large (not small) portion of its adherents. How do we deal with this reality?
If we ban anything, it should be the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" in favor of "criminal". Wanton murder is clearly criminal behavior. When I call it terrorism, I admit to being terrorized. I linguistically choose to give the criminal power over my mind, my thoughts and by extension my actions.
Irresolute, forceful and unceasing efforts should be brought forth to drive criminals from our midst. If we break up the furniture of our civilization to build barricades, all we end up with ultimately is broken furniture.
Irresolute, forceful and unceasing efforts should be brought forth to drive criminals from our midst. If we break up the furniture of our civilization to build barricades, all we end up with ultimately is broken furniture.
20
"If we ban anything, it should be the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" in favor of "criminal"."
A big Amen to that! Stop glorifying these people by calling them terrorists.
A big Amen to that! Stop glorifying these people by calling them terrorists.
1
And while we're at it, Doug, maybe we could ban the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and instead do as the Democratic candidates did during their debate - use the phrase "jihadic terrorism".
My local news station is already reporting threats against Moslem residents of our area, in essence blaming these citizens who happen to be Moslems for the horrible acts in Paris. This is happening at least in part because most of the time the reports are about "Islamic terrorists", rather than jihadic terrorists.
My local news station is already reporting threats against Moslem residents of our area, in essence blaming these citizens who happen to be Moslems for the horrible acts in Paris. This is happening at least in part because most of the time the reports are about "Islamic terrorists", rather than jihadic terrorists.
1
I think of ISIS as simply a very extreme case of petulance resulting from emotional turmoil, personal pain and desire to control and overcome these problems. When this happens with children in my class, I do all I can to understand what is causing the petulance which frequently results in violence, destruction and anger. Once I understand underlying processes at work, I endeavor to involve those involved to resolve the inner turmoil and return harmony to the class. If I simply punish the offenders, the turmoil doesn't go away it simply festers for the right moment of further expression and gets much worse.
6
Mike Wilson is so perceptive for having pointed out that ISIS is simply a case of "petulance resulting from emotional turmoil, personal pain..." and so on. His proffered solution based on his in-depth experience of dealing with children in his class is just awesome. Wilson is so perceptive to have realized that ISIS with AK-47s, beheadings, bombs on airplanes, can be thought of just as petulant children who seem to have suffered emotional turmoil. I'm so happy that we have intelligent sensitive teachers such as Mike Wilson. Perhaps Mr. Wilson can go to their headquarters and tell them to take a time out. They should sit in the corner and face the wall until they realize that they are making Mr. Wilson very angry. He will make them stay in from recess and they will have to stay 30 minutes after school and write, "I have been naughty" 20 times on the blackboard. Although some parents may think Mr. Wilson has been a bit harsh with their dear killer-children, I'm sure Mr. Wilson will apologize profusely at the next parent-teachers conference. Really, I'm astonished that Mr. Wilson actually exists and is a teacher. Amazing! Just amazing. If Mike Wilson is somebody's idea of humor it is in very bad taste. No one with those ideas can really exist, can they?
3
When the children in your class behead each other, do you give them a stern talking to, or a time out?
I can't think of an example in history in which violence of this type has accomplished the goals of the perpetrators. Looking more generally, even the terror bombings of major cities during WWII, whose purpose was to demoralize the enemies, did not bring their governments close to capitulation. The only kind of terrorism that seems to work is when a despot like Stalin or Assad applies it to his own population. In those situations, the people knuckle under. In every other case, upper lips stiffen.
12
Paul - do you believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have had a little bit to do, with Japan's decision to surrender?
Although I do not agree with everything written in this op-ed, I completely agree with the main thrust of it.
The politicians and pundits who use fear to achieve their objectives -- objectives that are usually narrow-minded and intolerant -- are not any better than the terrorists who use fear to accomplish similar objectives.
Americans should only fear the politicians who spew incoherent notions of fear. Don't let the fear-mongers like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, et al deceive you.
The politicians and pundits who use fear to achieve their objectives -- objectives that are usually narrow-minded and intolerant -- are not any better than the terrorists who use fear to accomplish similar objectives.
Americans should only fear the politicians who spew incoherent notions of fear. Don't let the fear-mongers like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, et al deceive you.
201
Unfortunately History has shown us that from "The Maine"to the Tonkin Gulf to 9/11 this is an environment where demagogues, warmongers and the surveillance state feed upon the fear.
From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan to now Syria and Iraq again, the US counter terrorism efforts have been both futile and counterproductive. Please read 'The Drone Papers' https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ and see how our latest high tech solution is killing 10 unintended people for each 'target'. Our Old School solution sends death squads in the night to kick in doors and kill whoever is in the room. Our every "success" creates another ten families who have reason to hate.
The solution to terrorism is not in the power of Western Military. The roots of terrorism, the financier of terrorism, the exporter of terrorism for the last 40 years is none other than out "Allie" the radical repressive Wahhabi regime that is Saudi Arabia.
It is time to radically rethink the response to terrorism. As it stands now our approach is just creating more people with a reason to hate us.
Perhaps it is time for the West to recognize that the current Middle East is a hellhole fueled by western oil money. Perhaps it is time to think creatively and consider regime change in Saudi Arabia and seizing and declaring the oil fields a World Heritage to be managed by the UN accordingly.
Then let the people of the Middle East sort it out for themselves, just as Europe did for 1000 years.
From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan to now Syria and Iraq again, the US counter terrorism efforts have been both futile and counterproductive. Please read 'The Drone Papers' https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ and see how our latest high tech solution is killing 10 unintended people for each 'target'. Our Old School solution sends death squads in the night to kick in doors and kill whoever is in the room. Our every "success" creates another ten families who have reason to hate.
The solution to terrorism is not in the power of Western Military. The roots of terrorism, the financier of terrorism, the exporter of terrorism for the last 40 years is none other than out "Allie" the radical repressive Wahhabi regime that is Saudi Arabia.
It is time to radically rethink the response to terrorism. As it stands now our approach is just creating more people with a reason to hate us.
Perhaps it is time for the West to recognize that the current Middle East is a hellhole fueled by western oil money. Perhaps it is time to think creatively and consider regime change in Saudi Arabia and seizing and declaring the oil fields a World Heritage to be managed by the UN accordingly.
Then let the people of the Middle East sort it out for themselves, just as Europe did for 1000 years.
23
Yours is the one and only solution likely to be both effective and just.
Whether state terrorism or the one by non-state groups, the main purpose of it remains to cause fear in society. Neither appeasement nor succumbing to fear but confronting terrorism boldly and unitedly could be the right response.
6
Paul, there is no greater act of terrorism than military aggression- and the U.S. is hands down the largest terrorist organization. Not one country in the Muslim world has attacked or threatened to attack the U.S. including Afghanistan. For decades Afghanistan has had no central government, porous borders and unaffiliated warlords controlling local regions. Yet we chose to hold them responsible when terrorists fled to their mountains for refuge. All the planning for 9/11 took place in Germany, nearly all the participants were Saudis, was financed by wealthy Saudis and the flight lessons provided by U.S. companies. Our close “ally” Pakistan provided safe haven for the terrorists through members of Pakistan’s intelligence agency and military. Muslim citizens have been kept in abject poverty, tortured, murdered or jailed by ruthless repressive regimes that we’ve supported economically and with advanced American weaponry. The long history of western colonialism and U.S. meddling in the region has created the blowback we see today. The world is not owned by the U.S. nor do we have a right to control the destinies of any country by creating governments that are clients of the U.S.
294
"creating governments that are clients of the U.S." More appropriately, facilitating governments that are clients of the people, Iraq being a prime example after the overthrow of Saddam.
Your points around the U.S. not having rights to control other destinies of other countries are spot on. But your statement that "...the U.S. is hands down the largest terrorist organization," is very short-sighted, and limited. Agreed that we have stuck our nose in places where we shouldn't have but I suggest you expand your knowledge, or at least open your mind to an expanded view of world history. Thankfully, and to the relief of many nations that have been terrorized in the past by ruthless killers, the U.S. Military has stepped in and provided assistance that reversed aggression and added stability where needed.
Touché!!
Right. It can seem immediately after such a violent event as if the whole country or at least city, is burning and destroyed. There were 129 people killed and that's 129 too many, but the population of Paris is north of 2.2 million.
Creating terror is certainly the thing as folks are made to feel unsafe in a variety of ordinary places -cafe, theater, sidewalk. The other thing about such terror attacks is that they are sudden, which means that there is little possibility of defending ones-self or responding (despite idiotic statements that if Parisians had concealed carry they would be safer) because an explosion suddenly kills or an automatic gun is fired spraying the area with bullets.
Sadly, media types seem see such events as an opportunity to ramp up coverage. In my opinion the amount of coverage we get after such an event is way over the top. Really the actual "news" is over pretty fast. By last night much of the "news" (on NBC Lester Holt had flown to Paris and was anchoring on the weekend, not his usual gig) was really human interest, e.g., someone who was present describing his experience. Pictures of panicked folks running when some fireworks went off were shown repeatedly. I have no doubt that we will have stories about this event all week, though there will really be little in the way of 'new' or 'news' in them.
Creating terror is certainly the thing as folks are made to feel unsafe in a variety of ordinary places -cafe, theater, sidewalk. The other thing about such terror attacks is that they are sudden, which means that there is little possibility of defending ones-self or responding (despite idiotic statements that if Parisians had concealed carry they would be safer) because an explosion suddenly kills or an automatic gun is fired spraying the area with bullets.
Sadly, media types seem see such events as an opportunity to ramp up coverage. In my opinion the amount of coverage we get after such an event is way over the top. Really the actual "news" is over pretty fast. By last night much of the "news" (on NBC Lester Holt had flown to Paris and was anchoring on the weekend, not his usual gig) was really human interest, e.g., someone who was present describing his experience. Pictures of panicked folks running when some fireworks went off were shown repeatedly. I have no doubt that we will have stories about this event all week, though there will really be little in the way of 'new' or 'news' in them.
31
I don't watch television news broadcasts. One of the reasons is the constant unnecessary barrage of fear mongering that seems to be the intent of much of it. It happens with news at all levels: world, national, and local. Maybe I'm naive or just a conspiracy theorist, but I suspect that a lot of 'news' is not intended to inform, maybe initially as you suggest, but has an even more insidious as the stories continue. It's just a way to make us fearful with the intention to herd us into supporting the military industrial complex without any question. Everything really comes down to money, doesn't it?
1
So, lesso given: What's even a few hundred fatalities when your population's 2.2 mil plus? "Laugh it off." Just like Monty Python's knight: "It's only a flesh wound!"
"Aux armes, citoyens. Formez vos bataillons. Marchons, marchons "
For this struggle, a platoon of accountants might be more useful than a a battalion, especially a battalion of feckless Iraqi soldiers. Money from the sale of antiquities and oil sustain ISIS, along with money from the Gulf Arabs. We have to recognize that We have to recognize the disparate interests of potential allies in the region: the Kurds, the Turks, and even the Russians. If the United States is going to kill Muslims, we are playing into the hands of the Jihadis, so we might have to invest in more relief for refugees.
For this struggle, a platoon of accountants might be more useful than a a battalion, especially a battalion of feckless Iraqi soldiers. Money from the sale of antiquities and oil sustain ISIS, along with money from the Gulf Arabs. We have to recognize that We have to recognize the disparate interests of potential allies in the region: the Kurds, the Turks, and even the Russians. If the United States is going to kill Muslims, we are playing into the hands of the Jihadis, so we might have to invest in more relief for refugees.
16
I wonder how ISIS can be stopped without significant civilian deaths. We lament the loss of civilian lives in Paris but are probably killing far more civilians in Syria and Iraq. And with every death of a Syrian, Afghani or Iraqi child, we create angrier and more vengeful enemies. It's a death spiral for all. On the other hand, ISIS had no interest in peace so it really doesn't help to show restraint. I fear that annihilation, including civilians, will be considered to be the best answer.
9
By engaging Saudis and Iran to converse together and put the medieval Shia Sunni rivalry to rest. By telling them that all Muslims are loved by the almighty, not one ounce less than the other. So are people of all other faiths, or no faith.
We are born on this planet to show our love that we are capable of, in the image of that Consciousness that is inherent in each of us, equal parts. We are our harshest judges when we cross over, it is we who witness what we have done and feel remorse. That which helps us watch our life replay, does it with warmth and love, look child what you did, next time learn from it. So we are all together in a learning school. We have each been victim, culprit, perpetrator, prosecuted, we each take turns to give the other the experience of what is NOT, what is the absence of love. Each time we are born we forget who we were, it's so brilliant because then we can each role play our parts beautifully.
We are born on this planet to show our love that we are capable of, in the image of that Consciousness that is inherent in each of us, equal parts. We are our harshest judges when we cross over, it is we who witness what we have done and feel remorse. That which helps us watch our life replay, does it with warmth and love, look child what you did, next time learn from it. So we are all together in a learning school. We have each been victim, culprit, perpetrator, prosecuted, we each take turns to give the other the experience of what is NOT, what is the absence of love. Each time we are born we forget who we were, it's so brilliant because then we can each role play our parts beautifully.
3
We should be ready for this kind of massacre to happen in the United States. It is probably a matter of "when" and not "if." When it does happen, we citizens have to be ready to speak out forcefully against hysterical over-reactions ("an organized attempt to destroy Western civilization") and to speak in favor of a clear-eyed, judicious, realistic response.
21
Thanks for the warning! What about the mass shootings that occur here almost on a weekly basis. Yes the Paris incident was grander but not as sick as Newtown!
1
This is all very true, and I agree with it entirely.
But we cannot discount the need for leadership. President Obama (of whom I am a great admirer) has not sufficiently articulated to the American people the degree to which ISIS is a problem, what can be done about it, and what we are doing about it. I agree that the impulse to "do something" just to appear active can lead to bad outcomes; but we need to understand his strategy. He has fallen behind on this.
But we cannot discount the need for leadership. President Obama (of whom I am a great admirer) has not sufficiently articulated to the American people the degree to which ISIS is a problem, what can be done about it, and what we are doing about it. I agree that the impulse to "do something" just to appear active can lead to bad outcomes; but we need to understand his strategy. He has fallen behind on this.
15
Obama just doesn't want any more Americans dying in the Middle East. And he's hoping that political leaders there will start to lead. And does killing equate with leadership? Many think so. We cannot persuade, cajole, bribe the people who live in the Midfle East to stand up to ISIS. Bush and Cheney knocked over a hornets nest and we will live with that horrible decision for decades. And we are considering someone more horrible than either as president in Ted Cruz. Cruz makes Cheney look like a kindergarten teacher,
57
You must have been asleep. Sufficiently articulated? Perhaps English language is not enough...
2
Obama isn't a grandstander... he's been patient (maybe slow,) steady and determined; his strategy has been effective, ISIS has been weakened... these attacks outside its region are a PR campaign to re-instill ISIS's illusion of power and scope. If there is ever an upside to such horror—which is nearly unimaginable—it might be that Israel, Iran, the USA, Russia, China, Egypt, the EU, Saudi Arabia, etc. will have to unite in a common cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, indeed.
1
Climate change is indeed a planetary threat, but it’s not on the news 24/7 like these horrific tragedies. Until that happens, we best neutralize ISIS and what they stand for.
Fear is one of the strongest emotions we have. Once we start living in fear our way of life will change and that means the enemies have won.
On the other hand, we have to separate the demagogues, hyperbole and disinformation coming from our media and leaders who will manipulate the information to get their desired result. Remember Iraq and all the bogus claims made from our leaders and amplified by our Conservative media. Will that happen again? Will we learn from history or repeat it? Who will stand up to these war hawks??
Hopefully, this time people won’t be duped into another quagmire and spend trillions of dollars in blood and treasure that are shifted to the American taxpayers while gutting domestic programs. The next president will determine what roles we play.
No doubt, America and other nations need to confront ISIS. What we don’t need to do is bankrupt this country by letting "fear" get the best of us.
Fear is one of the strongest emotions we have. Once we start living in fear our way of life will change and that means the enemies have won.
On the other hand, we have to separate the demagogues, hyperbole and disinformation coming from our media and leaders who will manipulate the information to get their desired result. Remember Iraq and all the bogus claims made from our leaders and amplified by our Conservative media. Will that happen again? Will we learn from history or repeat it? Who will stand up to these war hawks??
Hopefully, this time people won’t be duped into another quagmire and spend trillions of dollars in blood and treasure that are shifted to the American taxpayers while gutting domestic programs. The next president will determine what roles we play.
No doubt, America and other nations need to confront ISIS. What we don’t need to do is bankrupt this country by letting "fear" get the best of us.
32
Climate change is so real that the ME as we know it, especially the Gulf countries, will face extreme heat conditions, never seen before. How far is 2025?
3
"So what can we say about how to respond to terrorism?" - "refuse to give in to fear."
Very nice advice, very helpful. And what does it mean? Don't fear the next attack? Don't fear the death?
Sugary words, repeated thousands times before.
Yes, let's them kill our loved ones - we don't fear! Let's them kill at random right in the heart of our mundane daily life - they won't scare us! We are strong, we will mourn the dead and tell them that we won. And then they of course will understand all the futility of their efforts and will cease to behave badly towards us.
Very nice advice, very helpful. And what does it mean? Don't fear the next attack? Don't fear the death?
Sugary words, repeated thousands times before.
Yes, let's them kill our loved ones - we don't fear! Let's them kill at random right in the heart of our mundane daily life - they won't scare us! We are strong, we will mourn the dead and tell them that we won. And then they of course will understand all the futility of their efforts and will cease to behave badly towards us.
8
You completely missed the point of the article.
4
Do you, therefore, propose the Chicken-Little approach. In WW2 the British believed the "sugary words".
1
First reactions to terrorism should take a lesson from drunk dialing an ex. You just shouldn't do it.
20
Funny, but not good advice.
Just lay down, and say, "Set up your mosque in the White House, sure." That's your advice taken to its end.
Just lay down, and say, "Set up your mosque in the White House, sure." That's your advice taken to its end.
Another bull's eye for Professor Krugman.
146
I disagree with Paul’s disagreement. What ISIS intended was very much part of an organized attempt – and by all indications it was quite well organized – to damage and incrementally destroy Western civilization.
Certainly, fear was sown, but the point was that it was done at little cost. Eight people plus an as-yet-unknown network of supporters – hardly an army, certainly not an investment of hundreds of millions. But look at the impact to Paris and to the West. This clearly is a model Islamist terrorists can now duplicate wherever intelligence weaknesses exist sufficient to allow a similar attack. And how many such attacks before Paris is gravely injured – its commerce, its tourist trade, its openness? What other cities can be wounded in similar manner, and at such minimal cost? Our plains weren’t settled by investing the land but by controlling the water sources – you don’t need to destroy a nation’s infrastructure if you can subject its major cities to terror.
The accepted wisdom is that Islamism and its primary violent exponent, ISIS, do not represent an existential threat to us because they lack the numbers and resources. But when repeated attacks against key targets can be launched in the midst of our civilization, at low cost, and the cumulative effect of such attacks is destructive, then they DO represent such a threat.
Now, it’s true that our reaction need not be excessive. We don’t need to salt their lands after destroying them. We simply need to destroy them.
Certainly, fear was sown, but the point was that it was done at little cost. Eight people plus an as-yet-unknown network of supporters – hardly an army, certainly not an investment of hundreds of millions. But look at the impact to Paris and to the West. This clearly is a model Islamist terrorists can now duplicate wherever intelligence weaknesses exist sufficient to allow a similar attack. And how many such attacks before Paris is gravely injured – its commerce, its tourist trade, its openness? What other cities can be wounded in similar manner, and at such minimal cost? Our plains weren’t settled by investing the land but by controlling the water sources – you don’t need to destroy a nation’s infrastructure if you can subject its major cities to terror.
The accepted wisdom is that Islamism and its primary violent exponent, ISIS, do not represent an existential threat to us because they lack the numbers and resources. But when repeated attacks against key targets can be launched in the midst of our civilization, at low cost, and the cumulative effect of such attacks is destructive, then they DO represent such a threat.
Now, it’s true that our reaction need not be excessive. We don’t need to salt their lands after destroying them. We simply need to destroy them.
11
I'm not sure if I have agreed with Mr. Luettgen before, but in this case I think he has a strong point. ISIS, terrorists if you will, have leverage especially when suicide acts are involved. Small amounts of money can do great harm (how expensive was 9/11 from the terrorist's side?). If Paris were to undergo sustained attacks, Paris would have to change, and not for the better. If intelligence sources were to stop these attacks, then they would have to become more intrusive. A Paris with police on every other corner checking ID, with little revenue from tourists (because they no longer come), is not the end of western civilization, but it is looking in that direction.
1
Richard, destroy them you say, but who are they you don't say. I haven't heard one Republican admit the truth - our supposed friends in Saudi Arabia who have been funding this group are to blame. Just as they were the ones who funded 9/11. But the Republicans are really owned by the oil money and industry so nothing really happens. And then their are the profiteers of war and guess who those people are? If you want answers follow the money is the first thing you do. ISIS will not destroy Western civilization, but stupidity and selfishness can destroy any country. The question is which path, as a country do we take and to whom do we listen. I am thinking Dr. K has some good ideas here but I also believe he underestimates the absolute degree of greed in this country and the desire of some to engage in war because it enriches their pocketbooks. By the way, historically speaking, violence in the Middle East has led to higher prices at the gas pump. Hmmm, I wonder how that might drive some peoples strategy on this problem. Just saying.
3
@Richard: Your post is proving Prof. Krugman's point, and the title of the article. You can't destroy a nation's infrastructure by terror, unless a nation lets itself be terrorized.
When I was a teenager, my younger sister used to wind me up till I would yell and scream. She tried the same with my best friend (more like my brother) and he just ignored her. Eventually she gave up teasing him, because she got no response.
Yes, it was horrible the 127 people that were killed. Yes we need to investigate and try to mitigate the risk of a repeat. But keep it in perspective. It was 127 people from a nation of over 60 million in France. We're 320 million people. ISIS is maybe 30 thousand. If every ISIS member killed 100 Americans, there would still be 99% of Americans left and no ISIS. Ergo, ISIS is not an existential threat to the US or the world unless we make let them.
The jihadists want us to react as you write. They want us to go to the middle east and try to destroy them. That is their best recruiting tool. They live there. We don't. Eventually we will want to leave.
When a mosquito bites me I kill that mosquito. If I get bitten a lot I put on bug spray or go inside. In no case do I go on a rampage trying to kill all mosquitoes in the world.
For the record: My sister is not a terrorist.
When I was a teenager, my younger sister used to wind me up till I would yell and scream. She tried the same with my best friend (more like my brother) and he just ignored her. Eventually she gave up teasing him, because she got no response.
Yes, it was horrible the 127 people that were killed. Yes we need to investigate and try to mitigate the risk of a repeat. But keep it in perspective. It was 127 people from a nation of over 60 million in France. We're 320 million people. ISIS is maybe 30 thousand. If every ISIS member killed 100 Americans, there would still be 99% of Americans left and no ISIS. Ergo, ISIS is not an existential threat to the US or the world unless we make let them.
The jihadists want us to react as you write. They want us to go to the middle east and try to destroy them. That is their best recruiting tool. They live there. We don't. Eventually we will want to leave.
When a mosquito bites me I kill that mosquito. If I get bitten a lot I put on bug spray or go inside. In no case do I go on a rampage trying to kill all mosquitoes in the world.
For the record: My sister is not a terrorist.
4
I think the best comment from the right wingers over the weekend was that Europe and Paris in this instance could have been saved with carry permits like we have here at home. Yes, right wingers believe the answer in the restaurants and the concerts would have been more people shooting guns so the police would have an even more difficult time sorting out the bad guys from the 'legal gun owners'. Yes even the gun lobby has weighed in on this horror as though they have the solution, more people walking around with guns because the murder rate here at home is so low.
245
In actuality, the "right wingers" said the refugees fro Syria and the ME should not have been allowed in France in the first place. That would have stopped it from the beginning. The second choice was to be able to defend ourselves.
And our murder rate is very low when compared to other countries as a percentage of the actual population. We are a large country and there is always something going on. Look at Sweden's rape rate to see where the unhindered refugee flow is ultimately going to take all of the European countries.
And our murder rate is very low when compared to other countries as a percentage of the actual population. We are a large country and there is always something going on. Look at Sweden's rape rate to see where the unhindered refugee flow is ultimately going to take all of the European countries.
3
What happens when you shoot a guy who has explosives strapped to his belly?
3
What I feel for these Islamic terrorists is not fear, but a profound pity. How pathetic must their lives be to toss it away so cheaply. How desperate for attention must they be to embark on a campaign of destruction and self-destruction for a fleeting chance at feeling that they matter. They don't. And no one will ever remember their names or faces. They may kill me one day in one of their contemptible attacks but it doesn't matter because I've led a happy life, full of love and family, friends, enriching experiences, hard work and gratifying rewards. They can't say the same. Poor fools.
37
The bigger question is why? Why do they feel their life is so cheap and pathetic? Who has brought them to that conclusion? How, How are their minds able to be twisted and contorted to allow these destructive illogical hamful thoughts in that if they kill inocense, they will rise to heaven? Hatred, desparation, poverty and the loss of hope; any pieces of the human condition, the very essense of the worth of living, must be extinguished in order for their brain washing to begin by the 'muslim terrorists'! How have they and their families come to that conclusion? Years of empty living? The governments of the world have failed them and us! The governments in which they live (middle east) have planted the seeds of dispare. The govenments of the west, France and the US, have cultivated international relationships of racism, bias, hypocrisy, double speak; all at hte espense of the little people around the world who feel only dispare, hatred, no worth, and, and, and, . . . . Therein lies the root of the propblem. When the religions around the world teach and preach unity, love, value, in lockstep with the governments who put their guns away and bring out the butter, education, jobs, hatred jealousy, contempt, could craw back to the middle ages! I hope!
1
Homo sapiens evolved in the Great Rift of Africa. He was a hunter/gatherer; his prey, any animal he could kill. He made no distinction between rival packs of apes and other large species. The ability to kill was his most valuable survival tool. Aggressive, bestial behavior was burned into his DNA. Over time, man’s mental superiority proved to be decisive in establishing his dominance. He learned to manipulate his environment. His aggressive temperament was still important, but no longer crucial. The need to kill gradually became a right to kill, part of the culture that developed. Unused DNA will normally be corrupted and inoperative. However, killing remains a legitimate act, and man is trapped in his bestiality. The Geneva Conventions, the death penalty, homicide in self defense are recognized licenses to kill. War has always been the ultimate strategy to settle conflicts. Primitive tribes often ascribe social status to skill in killing. Game hunting provides an outlet for the instinct to kill.
But the first ape-men were born into well defined social groups that developed in response to the imperatives of survival. It required the reigning in of his aggressive instincts within the group. This dynamic is still operative today. However, when the factors enumerated above come into play, there is nothing to restrict the expression of his bestial nature.
But the first ape-men were born into well defined social groups that developed in response to the imperatives of survival. It required the reigning in of his aggressive instincts within the group. This dynamic is still operative today. However, when the factors enumerated above come into play, there is nothing to restrict the expression of his bestial nature.
6
You do not know what you put forward. You put out an argument based on supposition that reads like fact. There are a few bones, perhaps a nearly complete skeleton or two of our most distant ancestors, and somehow you know the basic psychology of them. Modern people can indeed be brutal. We know that cannibalism can occur. But these are the exception rather than the rule with people. It is not helpful to put out a scientific version of original sin.
2
I agree on most points. The primary goal of these types of attacks is to elicit a global cultural response that will fuel further fire to the conflict and allow Jihadist networks to grow. However, I reject the assertion that the best response to these strikes is retaliation or further use of blunt military force against the perpetrators, or that a pacifist strategy is equivalent to appeasement. The history of Islamic jihad since the Soviet-Afghan War provides clear and distinct evidence that when major powers attempt to solve a problem in the Middle East by arming tribesmen or through direct military occupation, the area in consideration remains inflamed for longer, thereby creating more Jihadists (like an autoimmune disorder or something). The results are always worse than the original problem. Why is there a DAESH (ISIS) presence in Iraq today, when there wasn’t in 2002? Why is Syria more of a hotbed for radicalism than Libya? Because of greater American idiocy in Syria than Libya (sorry Hillary). If history is any guide, and if we ignored Syria and focused all our efforts in eliminating Jihadists in Libya through blunt military force (airstrikes, arming locals, occupations, etc.), then I guarantee you there would be more Jihadists in Libya at the end of that “Western” campaign than there were to begin with. It NEVER works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm
23
Salahmaker, you haven't told us what does work! You're just pointing out the obvious. Do we attack the house of Saudi? Reign in the oil industry's hold on the middle east? Tell us please!
Very thoughtful and in my opinion accurate discussion. Yet, I must object to your final point.
9/11 DID change everything!
Not just the event itself of course, but the US reaction to it. It the Middle East and at the same time weakened the US, by overextending it militarily and draining it of its resources. Given that the US has for decades been the sole reasonable superpower, its inability to act decisively and wisely at such crucial times, precipitated everything that we see today - the collapse of the Middle East, the spreading of fundamentalism throughout the globe, and the reactionary rise of right-wing (borderline neo-fascist) parties and governments in Europe and elsewhere. This is a sad and worrisome situation, and 9/11 was the crucial tipping point event. (Similarly, by the way, was the assassination of Rabin in Israel 20 years ago, and with similar effects on the region.) I think we have every reason to worry of the reactions to the Paris events this week.
9/11 DID change everything!
Not just the event itself of course, but the US reaction to it. It the Middle East and at the same time weakened the US, by overextending it militarily and draining it of its resources. Given that the US has for decades been the sole reasonable superpower, its inability to act decisively and wisely at such crucial times, precipitated everything that we see today - the collapse of the Middle East, the spreading of fundamentalism throughout the globe, and the reactionary rise of right-wing (borderline neo-fascist) parties and governments in Europe and elsewhere. This is a sad and worrisome situation, and 9/11 was the crucial tipping point event. (Similarly, by the way, was the assassination of Rabin in Israel 20 years ago, and with similar effects on the region.) I think we have every reason to worry of the reactions to the Paris events this week.
24
So true. bin Laden knew the short game would be 9-11 and the long game, our reaction. bin Laden is still beating us.
12
Yes. That is why it is called asymmetrical warfare. In 9/11 a small group of terrorists, armed with $1.39 boxcutters, turned four commercial jets into guided bombs killing 3,000 Americans. The American Right Wing responded with a program to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, an invasion whose current and future costs have been projected to be $4 to $6 trillion. The Right, just as the terrorists, used fear as a controlling force. Through fear, Americans were ready to abandon the very liberties that so distinguished this country in a vain search for security. (3,000 were killed on 9/11. We have ca. 33,000 gun deaths in this country every year.) This terror-inspired fear is the damaging drain on our resources, this dumbing down of our thought and freedoms is the true weakening of our society and the real threat to our national security.
10
I agree with you on both positions. This was a thoughtful article and stating that 9/11 did not change "everything" is not completely accurate. It may be mainly semantics, but I'd would say that the 9/11 attacks did not really change anything, it was the misguided response of the Bush/Cheney administration that changed everything. If the aftermath had been handled by people who were not neo-cons it would have remained a tragedy inflicted on us by cowardly radicals. Instead, it became a trigger to destabilize the Middle East, spend ridiculous amounts of money, cost more American lives and become a recruitment tool for radicals. Bin Laden could not accomplish his goals. It took Bush/Cheney to hand him a victory.
5
When one calls the attacks in Paris an act of war, as Francois Hollande has done, one confers de facto statehood on ISIS or IS. Is that a good idea? When Republicans complain that President Obama treats terrorist attacks as crimes, rather than acts of war, implicit is the idea that the tools of warfare are available against a specific territory with known boundaries.
These are crimes on a large scale, but they are not the acts of a recognized state, and one cannot declare war against that state. ISIS is an overlay that covers wide areas in which sympathizers and victims live. We have to separate one from the other, and prevent the one from becoming the other. Overreactions that target innocent civilians, as Sen. Cruz offhandedly advocates, promise to perpetuate these problems for generations to come.
These are crimes on a large scale, but they are not the acts of a recognized state, and one cannot declare war against that state. ISIS is an overlay that covers wide areas in which sympathizers and victims live. We have to separate one from the other, and prevent the one from becoming the other. Overreactions that target innocent civilians, as Sen. Cruz offhandedly advocates, promise to perpetuate these problems for generations to come.
138
I don't often agree with Krigman, but this time he has given us the proper perspective on a horrendous, heinous attack.
The real problem is what is an appropriate response?
There may not be any real effective alternatives, and containment is the best that can be expected until the mayhem plays itself out and the underlying causes of terrorism are dealt with.
The real problem is what is an appropriate response?
There may not be any real effective alternatives, and containment is the best that can be expected until the mayhem plays itself out and the underlying causes of terrorism are dealt with.
20
Yes, I agree. Krugman's perspective is how I would want our leaders to regard terrorist attempts to create divisions and fear. I would hope that people will understand that giving in to fear is exactly how we will lose to terrorist.
3
First comes fear and then comes panic which leads to brash and rash decisions. Hopefully, we will elect someone that doesn’t have their finger on the bomb. Killing more innocents people is what ISIS wants.
We spend $600B/yr on military spending for obsolete weapons, maintenance and Cold War duds should mothballed. Instead, money should be spent on intelligence and special ops. We need to stop using the same tactics of the last 50 years.
We need new thinking and that means cleaning Defense of the rust and 20th century dust balls. More money wouldn't solve this problem. And neither will taking away our civil liberties which becomes a slippery slope.
The sooner the Arab states realize they are part of the solution, the sooner we can shut down ISIS.
We spend $600B/yr on military spending for obsolete weapons, maintenance and Cold War duds should mothballed. Instead, money should be spent on intelligence and special ops. We need to stop using the same tactics of the last 50 years.
We need new thinking and that means cleaning Defense of the rust and 20th century dust balls. More money wouldn't solve this problem. And neither will taking away our civil liberties which becomes a slippery slope.
The sooner the Arab states realize they are part of the solution, the sooner we can shut down ISIS.
639
An excellent analysis that needed very badly to be made. I would add one other point. Our concern with political correctness has prevented us from being more outspoken and direct in opposing the "jihadists." In addition to military measures we should confront the fanatics and ideologues who blame the west and accuse it of causing the terrorism. We should be unrelenting in exposing the viral nonsense spread in the media to recruit converts and advance their cause.
2
Is this a re-run of the problems the British Revolutionary troops had with the American Indians hiding behind trees? The British marched in locked step right into their bows and arrows. Adjusting to new battle tactics of your enemy is sort of a no brainer first step, isn't it?
You can't just pound 2 billion muslims into the ground! We do need new thinking on how to approach this jihadist threat in today's world. Aren't we more intelligent than they? Where are our culturally enlightened and new-thinking military strategists?
You can't just pound 2 billion muslims into the ground! We do need new thinking on how to approach this jihadist threat in today's world. Aren't we more intelligent than they? Where are our culturally enlightened and new-thinking military strategists?
1
The Arab states do not care if they are part of the solution - Saudi Arabia has done nothing to fight Isis and probably never will.
1
As usual, Prof. Krugman is right on point. I'm trying to imagine what British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, were he alive today, would be saying to the likes of Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Those guys, and their cowardly cohort, are always ready to head off to war, provided that someone else takes the risk and bears the cost. It all fits in with their party's incessant fear mongering, whether it's immigrant bashing, or loudly calling out the president for his supposed 'weakness' and 'fecklessness'. They are clueless about the real threat facing everyone everywhere.
Churchill's biggest domestic problem in World War II was finding enough food for people to eat while still fighting the war. Defeating the submarine menace was his first order of business, and he was savvy enough to make that his main priority. I think Churchill would well appreciate the threat climate change poses to the world's food supply.
Understandably, radical Islamist attacks on targets of opportunity cause tremendous heartache and suffering, and they generate the big headlines. Slow death by drought and infertility of farmland that end up causing death to tens of thousands of people never gets the public attention in most assuredly deserves.
We know that increased ambient temperatures in the Middle East, along with water scarcities are pushing entire populations out of the region. Much of the radicalism that we now see is a reflection of a climate that is growing more inhospitable to agriculture every day.
Churchill's biggest domestic problem in World War II was finding enough food for people to eat while still fighting the war. Defeating the submarine menace was his first order of business, and he was savvy enough to make that his main priority. I think Churchill would well appreciate the threat climate change poses to the world's food supply.
Understandably, radical Islamist attacks on targets of opportunity cause tremendous heartache and suffering, and they generate the big headlines. Slow death by drought and infertility of farmland that end up causing death to tens of thousands of people never gets the public attention in most assuredly deserves.
We know that increased ambient temperatures in the Middle East, along with water scarcities are pushing entire populations out of the region. Much of the radicalism that we now see is a reflection of a climate that is growing more inhospitable to agriculture every day.
1078
Don't forget overpopulation, which is habitually ignored and has had an even worse effect on these nations than warming.
14
Churchill, I believe, would pursue ISIS to the gates of hell.
4
WW II, you kill Hitler, and the war in Europe is probably over. Japan was a little different due to the fanaticism of the people at that time themselves. ISIS and the radical Islamic beliefs driving it are different still. It is a belief system, the members themselves are the weapons. Who are you going to "make peace" with? Are all the followers going to suddenly change their goals and objectives because they lose some equipment or leadership? Is it the infrastructure we really need to destroy or are we kidding ourselves? As unpalatable as it is to the dreamers, people who are so motivated as to be willing to die to kill us can only be killed to be stopped. Our political leaders need to face and deal with the reality of what we are up against.
1
Let passion clarify the course and do not let anger cloud its steps! This is a quantum war, individual attacks in spaced intervals against soft civilian targets selected for massive kill zones. It is a media and a subterranean war, its human assets hidden and mobile, its amoeba-like command structure ubiquitous in the shadows.
In the US, do not let the response be driven by GOP superficiality and cliches. Example: Newt Gingrich screams on Fox about labels while silent about bombs and their financing, mum on the expansion of international terrorism into Europe using European residents who have been radicalized; never a solution or measure of helpful common sense in his blame. His pillorying partisanship expands the confusion; Gingrich politically loots the tragedies that follow terror.
The fight against terrorism must target its lowest levels: how is its money laundered and funneled, are officials intercepting the right communications? Can each security approach be rethought and refined?
Terrorism is played out on a different grid than state conflicts–terrorism is more a social activity than a military attack. Responding with missiles and state armies will have little effect except to inflame the peer pressure that creates suicide bombers. Terrorism is small war with a big impact; it coalesces, grows, gathers and dispenses evil, individual by individual. States must refine the patterns and data that enable small, active family-and-friend cells to be accurately targeted.
In the US, do not let the response be driven by GOP superficiality and cliches. Example: Newt Gingrich screams on Fox about labels while silent about bombs and their financing, mum on the expansion of international terrorism into Europe using European residents who have been radicalized; never a solution or measure of helpful common sense in his blame. His pillorying partisanship expands the confusion; Gingrich politically loots the tragedies that follow terror.
The fight against terrorism must target its lowest levels: how is its money laundered and funneled, are officials intercepting the right communications? Can each security approach be rethought and refined?
Terrorism is played out on a different grid than state conflicts–terrorism is more a social activity than a military attack. Responding with missiles and state armies will have little effect except to inflame the peer pressure that creates suicide bombers. Terrorism is small war with a big impact; it coalesces, grows, gathers and dispenses evil, individual by individual. States must refine the patterns and data that enable small, active family-and-friend cells to be accurately targeted.
39
Terrorism is a disease, we should begin to take a public health approach to this infection. The recruitment of youthful suicide bombers is a symptom of deep distress and we must begin to address the root causes of the attraction terrorism holds for people who are prone to their infection. Many commenters recognize the daily onslaught of gun violence here in the United States needs to be recognized as a public health problem and so does terrorism
8
Agreed! Especially, we need a prevention approach that identifies a list of risk factors, embraces multi-disciplinary teams, and engages with peers and communities. Like all diseases, treatment varies and changes based on its stage; at the advanced stage of mass carnage of innocents, properly directed military force can reduce (but not eliminate!) terrorist threats.
Agreed, terrorism must be rethought and not left to the generals and politicians who will use broken models of power that augur failure.
In a June 2013 web post, "The Archetype of the Outlier," I describe some of the factors of political economy and social psychology that inform the thinking and personalities of terrorists and their abject moral breakdown. [http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2013/06/12/the-archetype-of-the-outl...]. Written about Edward Snowden, it easily transfers to the first stages of terrorist formation.
President Obama presciently outlined the intractability, damages, and challenges of stateless terrorism in his 2009 Nobel speech.
"President Obama's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech:" [http://wp.me/p1mBVu-2xJ] (pdf)
Also see: "Conflict Violence: Obama, Syria and the Nobel Speech," [http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2013/09/04/conflict-violence-obama-s...].
These posts discuss non-religious and non-political models.
Agreed, terrorism must be rethought and not left to the generals and politicians who will use broken models of power that augur failure.
In a June 2013 web post, "The Archetype of the Outlier," I describe some of the factors of political economy and social psychology that inform the thinking and personalities of terrorists and their abject moral breakdown. [http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2013/06/12/the-archetype-of-the-outl...]. Written about Edward Snowden, it easily transfers to the first stages of terrorist formation.
President Obama presciently outlined the intractability, damages, and challenges of stateless terrorism in his 2009 Nobel speech.
"President Obama's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech:" [http://wp.me/p1mBVu-2xJ] (pdf)
Also see: "Conflict Violence: Obama, Syria and the Nobel Speech," [http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2013/09/04/conflict-violence-obama-s...].
These posts discuss non-religious and non-political models.
2
RE "Gingrich politically loots the tragedies that follow terror."
Gingrich singularly cost the nation immeasurable damage which is his mark on the GOP of today. There is no clearer example of the GOP as an extremist force that is dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition than Gingrich. He is the author of modern obstructionism whose sole aim is to destroy to win. putting the GOP's political goals ahead of the good of the nation. That is borderline treason and certainly a violation of his oath of office. Every american with any decent sense of civics should be disgusted with this bloviating jerk.
Gingrich singularly cost the nation immeasurable damage which is his mark on the GOP of today. There is no clearer example of the GOP as an extremist force that is dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition than Gingrich. He is the author of modern obstructionism whose sole aim is to destroy to win. putting the GOP's political goals ahead of the good of the nation. That is borderline treason and certainly a violation of his oath of office. Every american with any decent sense of civics should be disgusted with this bloviating jerk.
8
The best way to stop terrorist movements is to stop them from recruiting. The police state way of doing this, the one usually adopted, is surveillance, spying, harassment, censorship, arrests, torture, and the like. The most effective way is to provide alternative goals and paths that will channel terrorist idealism into other channels.
In the case of Islamic terrorist movements, alternative goals and paths should come from a militant but not fundamentalist understanding of Islam, one that is capable of explaining and justifying from the Koran a ban on terrorist violence, a path towards a better society, and the nature of that society. Such a theology needs to be developed and propagated, and this does not seem to be happening.
Wars and police states are both defensive, and are what the terrorists want because these are the environments in which they can best recruit. One possible offense is propagating a new theology that would hinder terrorist recruiting by giving an alternative worth discussing.
The tar baby is a favorite weapon of the weaker side, and the main weapon of terrorists. It has worked on us repeatedly, and we used it on the Soviets (except that it eventually backfired for us).
In the case of Islamic terrorist movements, alternative goals and paths should come from a militant but not fundamentalist understanding of Islam, one that is capable of explaining and justifying from the Koran a ban on terrorist violence, a path towards a better society, and the nature of that society. Such a theology needs to be developed and propagated, and this does not seem to be happening.
Wars and police states are both defensive, and are what the terrorists want because these are the environments in which they can best recruit. One possible offense is propagating a new theology that would hinder terrorist recruiting by giving an alternative worth discussing.
The tar baby is a favorite weapon of the weaker side, and the main weapon of terrorists. It has worked on us repeatedly, and we used it on the Soviets (except that it eventually backfired for us).
10
Someone who has nothing left to lose, is the most dangerous of adversaries.
These guys are coming from societies that marginalize them, that offer them no meaningful work, that refuse to assimilate them, that spit on them because of the color of their skin, and the birthplaces of their ancestors. They aren't "Real French, or Belgians", no matter that they were born and raised there, and perhaps their parents as well.
There needs to be a huge work program for these men, giving them dignity, pride in themselves, and entry into greater society, and most importantly, a living wage, so they can hope and plan for the future of their families and children.
Without that, there will be an unending stream of these disaffected men, cut off from acceptance in the societies of their birth, unable to hope for a normal family life, with nothing to lose, and plenty of anger.
These guys are coming from societies that marginalize them, that offer them no meaningful work, that refuse to assimilate them, that spit on them because of the color of their skin, and the birthplaces of their ancestors. They aren't "Real French, or Belgians", no matter that they were born and raised there, and perhaps their parents as well.
There needs to be a huge work program for these men, giving them dignity, pride in themselves, and entry into greater society, and most importantly, a living wage, so they can hope and plan for the future of their families and children.
Without that, there will be an unending stream of these disaffected men, cut off from acceptance in the societies of their birth, unable to hope for a normal family life, with nothing to lose, and plenty of anger.
14
"All we have to fear is fear itself." -FDR
"The goal of terrorist is to terrorize. The answer is not to become terrorized" -F. Zakaria
"Courage" -D Rather
You can't be the land of the free without being the home of the brave.
My high school 19th cent British lit teacher said the point of "keeping a stiff upper lip" was it intensified ones grit while appearing faintly like a smile to the adversary. At places like Roarke's Drift where a few held out against far superior forces it might appear that the British were actually enjoying themselves instead of soiling their clothes. Somewhere I have a picture of a milkman energetically and w/ the appearance of a smile (stiff upper lip?) delivering milk across the rubble of London the morning after a blitz in 1940.
Reaction is what they want. To the extent we can we need to be like the Whos in Whooterville the day after the Grinch stole Christmas. We need to embrace, celebrate & flagrantly enjoy our way of life in every way possible almost as if the terror & losses had not happened even while attempting to mourn our losses.
We didn't choose it but we are living through a new era of difficulty just like our grandparents. Thru it all we must continue to carry on. This reaffirms our values & undermines the terrorists.
Make their crimes appear more banal & the evil of jihadism will become more apparent, even to them. They left with their guilt, we with our losses. Try to carry-on. Perhaps future generations might call us great too.
"The goal of terrorist is to terrorize. The answer is not to become terrorized" -F. Zakaria
"Courage" -D Rather
You can't be the land of the free without being the home of the brave.
My high school 19th cent British lit teacher said the point of "keeping a stiff upper lip" was it intensified ones grit while appearing faintly like a smile to the adversary. At places like Roarke's Drift where a few held out against far superior forces it might appear that the British were actually enjoying themselves instead of soiling their clothes. Somewhere I have a picture of a milkman energetically and w/ the appearance of a smile (stiff upper lip?) delivering milk across the rubble of London the morning after a blitz in 1940.
Reaction is what they want. To the extent we can we need to be like the Whos in Whooterville the day after the Grinch stole Christmas. We need to embrace, celebrate & flagrantly enjoy our way of life in every way possible almost as if the terror & losses had not happened even while attempting to mourn our losses.
We didn't choose it but we are living through a new era of difficulty just like our grandparents. Thru it all we must continue to carry on. This reaffirms our values & undermines the terrorists.
Make their crimes appear more banal & the evil of jihadism will become more apparent, even to them. They left with their guilt, we with our losses. Try to carry-on. Perhaps future generations might call us great too.
242
I think there are some constructive things that can be done as a result of these events. Terrorism has already been with us for nearly a generation, it'll probably last several more.
In August on a train in France 3 Americans thwarted a terrorist attack before it started. 2 of the 3 had had basic military training. They had been trained on how to react to a threat of violence.
I teach in Korea. Some time after their 2nd semester all Korean men are subject to universal conscription. They come back changed. They have discipline (good) & a cigarette habit (bad).
In the mean time my friends & relatives with children in their teens & twenties tell me about problems their kids have with lack of discipline & work ethic etc. I think they call these millennials. One of these friends, a former colleague ended up teaching soldiers in the Military & was amazed at their discipline & concentration, so he was trying to convince his son to join some branch of the military for what he called character development which he viewed distinct from educational development.
Since the age of terrorism is likely to be with us for a while I think there's an opportunity there.
We should have universal conscription. Put youth thru basic training, teach them how to react to the threat of violence that could be with them thru their entire future, teach first aid & have them do community service or building infrastructure or renewable energy. When done they can get free tuition or vocational training.
In August on a train in France 3 Americans thwarted a terrorist attack before it started. 2 of the 3 had had basic military training. They had been trained on how to react to a threat of violence.
I teach in Korea. Some time after their 2nd semester all Korean men are subject to universal conscription. They come back changed. They have discipline (good) & a cigarette habit (bad).
In the mean time my friends & relatives with children in their teens & twenties tell me about problems their kids have with lack of discipline & work ethic etc. I think they call these millennials. One of these friends, a former colleague ended up teaching soldiers in the Military & was amazed at their discipline & concentration, so he was trying to convince his son to join some branch of the military for what he called character development which he viewed distinct from educational development.
Since the age of terrorism is likely to be with us for a while I think there's an opportunity there.
We should have universal conscription. Put youth thru basic training, teach them how to react to the threat of violence that could be with them thru their entire future, teach first aid & have them do community service or building infrastructure or renewable energy. When done they can get free tuition or vocational training.
22
Professor Krugman is once again right on the major issue. The refugee question has indeed become more fraught, but at the same time some of the answers might have become clearer. The refugees are coming, as most of us in Europe realise. There are those who are screaming that we have to secure the borders. Not a chance. Our choice is whether on the one hand to pretend the refugees are not entitled to be here thus condemning most if not all to a life underground and outside the law or on the other hand to take real and practical measures to allow them to join society as real participants, subject to the laws and responsible as citizens, provisional or otherwise. The latter would make Europe winners in a real sense.
382
Or possibly, just possibly, the refugees could stay in the safe and humane UN refugee camps in the middle east. I would love to know why exactly you are so keen to bring them physically into your community. Is there an agenda?
1
An excellent article on keeping things in perspective. There were immediate tweets after the horrible killing of 127 people in Paris that everything would have been all right if they just had loose gun laws like we have in the US. The perspective? Since Friday night there will have been (on average) 11 gun deaths in all of France, while in the US there will have been about 180. Today in the US there will be another 90. And tomorrow. And Wednesday. And every day after that.
Paul Krugman is right that the jihadists aren't going to destroy western civilization. However, the fear instilled in the US population has lead to a country armed to the teeth and 33,000 gun deaths per year. 11 times more people die of gun deaths every single year in the US than were killed on 9/11. We have a gun massacre every week. How's that for perspective?
Paul Krugman is right that the jihadists aren't going to destroy western civilization. However, the fear instilled in the US population has lead to a country armed to the teeth and 33,000 gun deaths per year. 11 times more people die of gun deaths every single year in the US than were killed on 9/11. We have a gun massacre every week. How's that for perspective?
2157
Armed civilians are not the answer. However, armed and trained under-cover security personnel at major public events are definitely part of the answer. Would have saved many dozens of lives on Friday.
1
A wise man once observed, in similar circumstances, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." If fear spreads, the terrorists are winning.
6
Any reasonable person recognizes that US gun ownership did not emerge from fear of terrorism. The perspective is fine, but please don't descend into hyperbole.
Obama might have called climate change the greatest fate we face. But the more relevant quote right now should be from Bernie Sanders. At the Democratic debate the other night, he related it to the terrorist threat, due to the instability, lack of resources, and migration of peoples that climate change will cause.
At the debate, Dickerson asked Sanders if after the Paris attacks--- does he still believe climate change is the greatest threat to national security?
BERNIE SANDERS:
“Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict.”
I’m puzzled why Paul Krugman couldn’t at least mention that and give Sanders just a bit of the attention he deserves for his intelligent and realistic proposals on that and on other issues, where I’d think they’d agree.
At the debate, Dickerson asked Sanders if after the Paris attacks--- does he still believe climate change is the greatest threat to national security?
BERNIE SANDERS:
“Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict.”
I’m puzzled why Paul Krugman couldn’t at least mention that and give Sanders just a bit of the attention he deserves for his intelligent and realistic proposals on that and on other issues, where I’d think they’d agree.
1583
If memory serves me correctly the Syrian civil war was precipitated by an intense drought.
From Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-sy...
From the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-confli...
But I think its a symptom of a larger issue: global concentration of wealth.
Concentration of wealth helps the wealthy buy control of government and prevent sensible environment controls. In the late 1960s, early 1970s when wealth wasn't so concentrated we created the EPA and began to effectively solve an Ozone problem.
As wealth concentrates it vacates other areas - especially working class and minorities: 51% black youth unemployment. Working class white self destructing in growing numbers. Afflicted young Muslims become jihadist: it won't get them a job but if they self destruct for the cause, it promises them immediate entry into paradise and a God sanctioned orgy. The elites are whistling past the grave yard hoping that America's afflicted working class don't find jihadism: if people are self destructing, while at it, why not roll the dice to maybe score some God sanctioned orgy anyway? Probably its a false promise but if it makes inevitable self destruction even a tad easier then its compelling to the self destructing.
At the very least, would it hurt the rich/society too much to offer these guys work with livable wage?
From Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-sy...
From the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-confli...
But I think its a symptom of a larger issue: global concentration of wealth.
Concentration of wealth helps the wealthy buy control of government and prevent sensible environment controls. In the late 1960s, early 1970s when wealth wasn't so concentrated we created the EPA and began to effectively solve an Ozone problem.
As wealth concentrates it vacates other areas - especially working class and minorities: 51% black youth unemployment. Working class white self destructing in growing numbers. Afflicted young Muslims become jihadist: it won't get them a job but if they self destruct for the cause, it promises them immediate entry into paradise and a God sanctioned orgy. The elites are whistling past the grave yard hoping that America's afflicted working class don't find jihadism: if people are self destructing, while at it, why not roll the dice to maybe score some God sanctioned orgy anyway? Probably its a false promise but if it makes inevitable self destruction even a tad easier then its compelling to the self destructing.
At the very least, would it hurt the rich/society too much to offer these guys work with livable wage?
38
He didn't give this comment attention because the comment is not really on point. The best current predictions generally predict increases in arable land at high latitudes approximately offsetting decreases in low lattitudes, but in either case, we're talking about effects that become statistically important only decades from now. Similarly, the long-term effects of climate change will become statistically important decades from now, when other technological shifts are likely to make the landscape very different. (For example, dramatic reduction in energy cost could make desalination and transportation of water much more practical.) This does not mean that climate change is not important, but that it should not be conflated with national security.
1
Because Krugman is a strong supporter of Clinton (as he was in 2008), and is likely to serve in an advisory capacity to a Clinton presidency. As you likely noticed, Rima, Clinton noted in the second Democratic debate that Krugman had praised her Wall Street plan.
Against this backdrop, the likelihood of Krugman's praising Sanders is akin to a snowball's chance in hell.
Against this backdrop, the likelihood of Krugman's praising Sanders is akin to a snowball's chance in hell.
5
I believe I recognize a significant goal of ISIS; It is a psychological war indeed. The Russian Airliner downing occurred on Halloween and the Paris attacks occurred on Friday the 13th. On face value, this is meant to play on the primitive rooted emotions in Western Nations. But more important, what I have noticed is that the Terrorists are enlarging their appearance by taking on the persona of the Devil as portrayed in Biblical writings that foretell the end times. Many in Western Religions are acutely aware of those predictions, especially the "Born Again Christians". They study and fear the end Times predictions. The Terrorists know that and take advantage of it.
The Terrorists are still just crazy humans we can defeat.
The Terrorists are still just crazy humans we can defeat.
54
All true, save for the fact that ISIS is persistently trying to acquire some level of nuclear capability. There really is a sub rosa market in the means to do this. It doesn't require a full nuclear bomb capability. A so-called "dirty-bomb" would suit ISIS fine. What distinguishes ISIS is the monstrous cruelty, apparently without limitation, with which it practices its terrorism. It doesn't seem to matter in the least to its decision makers that such utter cruelty and immorality only increases proportionally the certainty of ISIS's eventual total defeat.
18
I agree with you except for the last line. ISIS can be contained by constant vigilance. But we live in a complicated world and I don't think anything can ever be totally eliminated.
1
The obvious response will the the unleashing of Iran to deal with the terrorists. They are the only source of ready boots to stomp that ground, and even eager boots. Remember many of them are the same Bathists who did so many damage to Iran in that big war a while back.
That's going to be the short-term and shortsighted response, and it may even be effective in destroying ISIL or ISIS or whatever the so-called Islamic so-called state is labeled with. The problem is the longer term results, which will be the dissolution of the British fantasy that was Iraq. Actually, it's probably already over, but the Iranians will probably give the Kurds total autonomy in exchange for their help and the residual question is whether or not they will bother with a permanent occupation of the non-Kurdish non-Shia leftover parts of Iraq.
Short-term thinking tends to have those long-term consequences. Iran and Iraq are leading examples, eh?
That's going to be the short-term and shortsighted response, and it may even be effective in destroying ISIL or ISIS or whatever the so-called Islamic so-called state is labeled with. The problem is the longer term results, which will be the dissolution of the British fantasy that was Iraq. Actually, it's probably already over, but the Iranians will probably give the Kurds total autonomy in exchange for their help and the residual question is whether or not they will bother with a permanent occupation of the non-Kurdish non-Shia leftover parts of Iraq.
Short-term thinking tends to have those long-term consequences. Iran and Iraq are leading examples, eh?
22
Actually I think there's a great deal of merit in leaving the ME and letting the region sort it out themselves. But we mustn't forget, we (because we elected people who meddled in the ME for decades and then outright invaded) are responsible for the mess. To my mind, the best way to diffuse the situation is to take away the reason for it in the first place. Don't use the oil or gas from that region. And put an embargo on the sale of arms to that region. Let them alone in peace. Send aid for them to rebuild themselves. And to do that, heavily tax oil, the financials and the arms industries.
249
I'm afraid that your solution is impractical now -- without that oil and gas, the world's economy would grind to a halt. Remember the Arab oil embargo? It would make sense though for the world to replace fossil fuels -- that would reduce warming and undercut the vile petro states.
That being said, your belief that the US is the prime mover behind the mess in the Middle East is just plain silly. We have certainly played a part, particularly in Iraq, but we were hardly the major meddler there -- Britain and France were. For the most part, the United States has been a stabilizing influence.
I hate to be critical, but you should learn some history rather than just knee-jerking issues like this. Read for example about the Suez crisis, when the United States under Eisenhower forced Britain, France, and Israel to end their power play in Egypt.
That being said, your belief that the US is the prime mover behind the mess in the Middle East is just plain silly. We have certainly played a part, particularly in Iraq, but we were hardly the major meddler there -- Britain and France were. For the most part, the United States has been a stabilizing influence.
I hate to be critical, but you should learn some history rather than just knee-jerking issues like this. Read for example about the Suez crisis, when the United States under Eisenhower forced Britain, France, and Israel to end their power play in Egypt.
7
Josh - yes, Britain and France played major roles in the Middle East, including setting up nations/boundaries that did not take into account the people living in that region and its subdivisions. And yes, Ike helped sort out the Suez crisis.
But the US has been the prime Western mover in the Middle East since the first Gulf War in 1990/91.
But the US has been the prime Western mover in the Middle East since the first Gulf War in 1990/91.
6
As it now stands, of every dollar we send to help them "rebuild", 90 cents or more will be diverted, some to the pockets of dictators, some to the very forces staging the fight against us. It would NOT be the first time.
Various journalists and comments here have pointed to a Belgian nexus which should become the target of a very coordinated international effort, and they can't do it soon enough. It should be but one of many targets, we need to get serious about eliminating this scourge once and for all. By that, I don't mean bomb them back into the stone age, they're already there, but it will involve some serious military operations. We were able to coalesce during WWII to defeat the Nazis and these folks are much worse in many ways, if that could be imagined. If, as they claim, surrender is not an option, then by all means send them to their glorious afterlife, sword in hand. It's a fairly simple calculus when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the world's people, as most of them would rather have 40 acres and a mule than 72 virgins. If we don't address the growing inequality, hunger, poverty and desperation, the resultant disenfranchisement becomes the best recruiting tool of the Caliphate. Most of our politicians don't seem to realize you can't expect folks to bootstrap if they don't have shoes.
Various journalists and comments here have pointed to a Belgian nexus which should become the target of a very coordinated international effort, and they can't do it soon enough. It should be but one of many targets, we need to get serious about eliminating this scourge once and for all. By that, I don't mean bomb them back into the stone age, they're already there, but it will involve some serious military operations. We were able to coalesce during WWII to defeat the Nazis and these folks are much worse in many ways, if that could be imagined. If, as they claim, surrender is not an option, then by all means send them to their glorious afterlife, sword in hand. It's a fairly simple calculus when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the world's people, as most of them would rather have 40 acres and a mule than 72 virgins. If we don't address the growing inequality, hunger, poverty and desperation, the resultant disenfranchisement becomes the best recruiting tool of the Caliphate. Most of our politicians don't seem to realize you can't expect folks to bootstrap if they don't have shoes.
5
I'll concluded with N.N. Taleb's article
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/minority.pdf
"The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority".
We see that already with the Freedom Caucus, the 40 members out of 247 Republicans in the House. :)
A small stubborn minority can greatly influence the nature of society, and this is something that we have to worry about; a threat is not proportional to its size because of how complex systems behave. A truly rational assessment of what we face will take this into account. The answer may still come out as Prof. Krugman says, but we haven't done that assessment yet.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/minority.pdf
"The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority".
We see that already with the Freedom Caucus, the 40 members out of 247 Republicans in the House. :)
A small stubborn minority can greatly influence the nature of society, and this is something that we have to worry about; a threat is not proportional to its size because of how complex systems behave. A truly rational assessment of what we face will take this into account. The answer may still come out as Prof. Krugman says, but we haven't done that assessment yet.
130
Isn't it also true for Democrats, though? Most of the Democrats I know are rational and mostly middle-of-the-road in outlook. But the national dialog of Democrats is dominated by hard-left extremists -- heck, a SOCIALIST is running for President, without comment -- the Democratic PARTY backs gay marriage, a gay military, forced unisex bathrooms, no borders, massive illegal immigration, amnesty and The Dream Act. The average Democrat doesn't support any of those things. But the party does, because it is controlled by hard-left extremists.
Repub candidates relish fear,
Another war they would hold dear,
Climate change they'll deny
Inequality? Fie!
Entitlements must disappear.
Attack O and say he is weak,
Obfuscate and use double speak
Like Cheney and Rummy
With bluster be chummy
And call every Democrat meek!
Another war they would hold dear,
Climate change they'll deny
Inequality? Fie!
Entitlements must disappear.
Attack O and say he is weak,
Obfuscate and use double speak
Like Cheney and Rummy
With bluster be chummy
And call every Democrat meek!
375
No need, ISIS has been contained.
1
Also, on a per capita basis, Belgium has sent the most fighters to ISIS in Syria.
My third comment is that the West has been quite happy to wink at Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism. Instead of treating Pakistan like North Korea (another nuclear terrorist state), America has been selling it arms, giving it billions of dollars in aid, even while Pakistan sheltered the Taliban that were shooting at American soldiers. What is that if not appeasement?
My third comment is that the West has been quite happy to wink at Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism. Instead of treating Pakistan like North Korea (another nuclear terrorist state), America has been selling it arms, giving it billions of dollars in aid, even while Pakistan sheltered the Taliban that were shooting at American soldiers. What is that if not appeasement?
318
Pakistan was wrongly identified as an ally after 9/11 because it suited the Bush Administration's more grandiose plans. They are the biggest proponents of nuclear proliferation and have been a haven to terrorists, internal and otherwise. Time to cut the cord.
39
We aren't happy to wink at Pakistan's support of terrorism -- we just don't have a choice, inasmuch as we require Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan. The only thing worse than the two-faced, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a Pakistan that is completely in the hands of the radicals and over whom we have no influence at all.
Remember that Pakistan is responsible for the death of many American troops and our inability to finish the war in Afghanistan. Remember that Pakistan sheltered Bin Laden, even set him up in style. Pakistan is one of the world's most repulsive states, but our current arrangement, in which we are free to launch drone attacks against Al Qaeda and to supply Afghan troops, is better than no arrangement at all.
Remember that Pakistan is responsible for the death of many American troops and our inability to finish the war in Afghanistan. Remember that Pakistan sheltered Bin Laden, even set him up in style. Pakistan is one of the world's most repulsive states, but our current arrangement, in which we are free to launch drone attacks against Al Qaeda and to supply Afghan troops, is better than no arrangement at all.
12
One would hope that better relations with India will reduce the U.S. from being conned by Pakistan, which has gone on for decades. People should read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars.
1
"Sorry, conservatives: when President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he’s exactly right. Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might."
Funny, that's exactly what Bernie Sanders said during the debate and Ezra Klein, via Brad Plumer, said Sanders is off base. I guess he'd say that about Professor Krugman, too. Both Professor Krugman and Bernie Sanders are right. ISIS, as horrific and barbaric as it is, is a short term problem in the grand scheme of things. An international consortium of nations, led by the Muslim nations and aided by the US and its European allies can take care of most of ISIS in short order. On the other hand, a hot, dry planet won't be nursed back to health in a matter of a few years and global warming of catastrophic magnitude will cause fierce competition for resources and worse. Senator Sanders quoted the same CIA report President Obama relies on when he talks about global warming. Senator Sanders' approach to dealing with ISIS is also the better one. In stark contrast, Hillary Clinton sounded more hawkish.
The US must step back into a supportive role and let Muslim nations deal with this among themselves. One way we should take the lead in helping Syria rebuild, once it is safe again, by providing support in the way of healthcare resources for millions of traumatized people.
What we should fear is the consequences of warmongering and greed.
---
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1Lr
Funny, that's exactly what Bernie Sanders said during the debate and Ezra Klein, via Brad Plumer, said Sanders is off base. I guess he'd say that about Professor Krugman, too. Both Professor Krugman and Bernie Sanders are right. ISIS, as horrific and barbaric as it is, is a short term problem in the grand scheme of things. An international consortium of nations, led by the Muslim nations and aided by the US and its European allies can take care of most of ISIS in short order. On the other hand, a hot, dry planet won't be nursed back to health in a matter of a few years and global warming of catastrophic magnitude will cause fierce competition for resources and worse. Senator Sanders quoted the same CIA report President Obama relies on when he talks about global warming. Senator Sanders' approach to dealing with ISIS is also the better one. In stark contrast, Hillary Clinton sounded more hawkish.
The US must step back into a supportive role and let Muslim nations deal with this among themselves. One way we should take the lead in helping Syria rebuild, once it is safe again, by providing support in the way of healthcare resources for millions of traumatized people.
What we should fear is the consequences of warmongering and greed.
---
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1Lr
694
Rima,
What we should fear is people who haven't read history or have such "ideological blinders" on that they can't see what's going on. No one except you and the Professor are suggesting that ISIS can defeat France tomorrow. France can, however defeat itself and is well on the way to doing so.
The current French population is 7.5% Muslim. However the Muslims are young and the French are old. It won't take long for Muslims to increase their percentage,
To date France has failed to intrigrate it's Muslims into its workforce or to consider them "French". This supplies ISIS with a good place to recrute Terrorists. France can fail to respond to its known problems and bring itself down for ISIS just as it did for Germany in WW2.
What we should fear is people who haven't read history or have such "ideological blinders" on that they can't see what's going on. No one except you and the Professor are suggesting that ISIS can defeat France tomorrow. France can, however defeat itself and is well on the way to doing so.
The current French population is 7.5% Muslim. However the Muslims are young and the French are old. It won't take long for Muslims to increase their percentage,
To date France has failed to intrigrate it's Muslims into its workforce or to consider them "French". This supplies ISIS with a good place to recrute Terrorists. France can fail to respond to its known problems and bring itself down for ISIS just as it did for Germany in WW2.
5
I wish I could believe that the Muslim nations will take care of this. But aside from some very bad actors, Iran and Hezbollah, they don't seem to have the will or resources to do so, any more than we do. And part of the problem is that like the Russians and the West, they are working at cross purposes. In that, I think, ISIS is making a very big mistake -- the attacks on France and Russia will have the effect of forcing reluctant cooperators to put aside their differences over e.g. the role of Assad and choose an effective, coordinated course of action.
13
Josh,
I am certain they'll require alternating doses of charm and persuasion.
I am certain they'll require alternating doses of charm and persuasion.
3
Patrick Behzad points out elsewhere ( http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/11/paris-attacks... ) that in the 1995 Islamic bombings of France, the 1998 plot to bomb the soccer world cup, the terrorist cell taken out by Belgian police in January, the terrorist on the train disarmed by two US servicemen, and the latest atrocity in Paris, all have its roots in Belgium, and specifically Molenbeek stands out.
Why isn't it being cleaned up? Appeasement or incompetence or apathy?
Why isn't it being cleaned up? Appeasement or incompetence or apathy?
67
Perhaps because the muslims of Molenbeek do the jobs the belgians don't want to do.
2
For one thing, the America people are very tired of fighting wars in the middle east, and have lacked the political will to fully engage or defend a region where colonial nation states, which were divided up without reference to the realities on the ground, especially religion. The Brits got it wrong when they drew the lines and tried to enforce them, and we got it wrong by using dictators to maintain the stability in those lines, and misunderstanding the religions and history of the area as then we invaded and tried to reinforce these artificial nation states. It's why no one wants to fight for Iraq, but do for the Kurdish region, the Shiite militias, and now the Sunni's ISIS.
We can't reinforce a structure that exists only on paper, and not the realities of citizens lives. Somehow, sometime, THEY will have to re-figure where to draw the lines of association, and not defend the lines of colonization, and perhaps then they have no need for ISIS, when their own current Shiite government won't be pushing them around. We already know that an Army can't do it, you can't kill them all.
It's not appeasement, or apathy, but you can't put a genie back in a malformed bottle.
We can't reinforce a structure that exists only on paper, and not the realities of citizens lives. Somehow, sometime, THEY will have to re-figure where to draw the lines of association, and not defend the lines of colonization, and perhaps then they have no need for ISIS, when their own current Shiite government won't be pushing them around. We already know that an Army can't do it, you can't kill them all.
It's not appeasement, or apathy, but you can't put a genie back in a malformed bottle.
7
"But real-world examples of mainstream politicians, let alone governments, knuckling under to terrorist demands are hard to find. "
Really? Why was London termed "Londonistan" for a long, long time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonistan_%28term%29
"Londonistan is a pejorative sobriquet in use by parts of the media referring to the British capital of London and the British Government's tolerance of the presence of various Islamic groups in London and other major cities of Britain as long as they carry out their controversial agendas, ideologies or terror campaigns outside Britain."
Really? Why was London termed "Londonistan" for a long, long time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonistan_%28term%29
"Londonistan is a pejorative sobriquet in use by parts of the media referring to the British capital of London and the British Government's tolerance of the presence of various Islamic groups in London and other major cities of Britain as long as they carry out their controversial agendas, ideologies or terror campaigns outside Britain."
17
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/multiculturalism-as...
Multiculturist Britain and Assimilationist France. "Why should we have a homogenous society, why should we not accept diversity? These are basic questions every citizen of every country needs to ask."
Multiculturist Britain and Assimilationist France. "Why should we have a homogenous society, why should we not accept diversity? These are basic questions every citizen of every country needs to ask."
1
Londonistan has not been used here for a long time. It was only used by the most rabid, prejudiced and hate filled tabloids. These sensationalist rags know only to incite violence hatred, sex and celebrity. They should not be taken seriously. London is a delightful tolerant and open society.
13
"Why was London termed 'Londonistan' for a long, long time?"
Because it was a nice bit of propaganda noise for some people?
Because it was a nice bit of propaganda noise for some people?
10