Quote:

 

In his address to the nation on Friday night, French President François Hollande said: "This is a terrible ordeal which once again assails us. We know where it comes from, who these criminals are, who these terrorists are."

On Saturday morning he identified the source as the Islamic State, also known by its Arabic acronym Daesh. Even at this early stage we can draw some reasonable conclusions about IS just from the nature of the attacks. We can speculate equally reasonably about their motives and goals, and our wisest response.

First, this was a highly professional operation. The only recent attack like Paris was in Mumbai in 2008, when a handful of young Pakistanis, trained by Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI, assaulted a city of 12 million and sustained the attack for four days. That operation took years of planning and training.

So if IS is in fact the instigator, it has serious resources and skills. Many groups in the Middle East and South Asia have had over 30 years' practical experience in both combat and terrorist action. The Islamic State didn't come out of nowhere; its roots go back to the "Arab Afghans" who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That it evaded Western intelligence eavesdropping suggests very sophisticated communications ability.

A strategic attack

Second, the planning means it was highly premeditated, not just retaliation for some recent insult to the Islamic State or another group -- like the Charlie Hebdo killings almost a year ago. That means it's a serious provocation, strategic rather than tactical. The attackers chose Paris not because of any particular French offence, but because when Paris is attacked the entire West feels attacked. The entire West, not just France, can be expected to react.

Third, the reaction will punish the innocent more than the guilty. A routine terrorist goal is to delegitimize its enemy by goading it into violent repression. European Muslims in general, and refugees in particular, will suffer for this attack. Some on Twitter have pointed out that the terrorists are exactly what the refugees are running from, but the tweets are already lost in the firestorm.

Anti-Muslim backlash in turn will stress all the countries now dealing with refugees, from Italy and Greece to Sweden and Finland. European racists will be emboldened to attack the refugees and their shelters. Sweden has already seen numerous arson attacks against refugees.

Those still in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan will stay where they are, putting more stress on their hosts. Turkey alone has 650,000 refugees in camps, and Jordan almost as many. Lebanon has 1.5 million. (And we think 25,000 would be a burden.)

Fourth, we could see an international demand for a kind of world war against Islamic radicalism. With Europe, the United States, Canada, and many Muslim nations dragged into a serious counterattack, the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda would welcome the opportunity for martyrdom.

But before martyrdom they could hope to see other Muslim nations’ current governments -- all of them betrayers of true Islam, in Islamist eyes -- shaken and perhaps overthrown, from Morocco to Indonesia. That would leave ordinary Muslims with no choice but to side with the extremists or flee.

Weakening all Western nations

Not only the Muslim governments would suffer. The French government will go through a major upheaval, with a purge of its intelligence service. Other European Union and North American governments will be equally furious with their spies' failure to spot the Paris attacks.

Meanwhile, our governments are likely to stress and divide their own people, whether they punish their local Muslims or protect them. Politically divided, Western nations will be less of a threat to the Islamists.

Fifth, we'd better recognize our own part in this mess. Many books, including the recent Black Flags: The Rise of Isis, have documented the opportunity George W. Bush gave the Islamists by his invasion of Iraq and utter lack of postwar planning.

Thanks to Bush, a Jordanian street thug named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could recruit thousands of Iraqi soldiers and bureaucrats who'd been sacked by the American occupiers. Zarqawi orchestrated the Iraqi insurgency that continues to this day, and which has now migrated into Syria as the Islamic State.

Canada, thanks to Jean Chretien, stayed out of that obvious quagmire, and Stephen Harper nudged us into it. Now Justin Trudeau wants to get us out yet again, which has suddenly become a much harder job than it was last week. When you find yourself in a stampede, you've got to move or be trampled underfoot.

Or you somehow keep the stampede from even starting. Surely by now even the most narcissistic Western governments must understand how well the Islamists have taken our measure. They know just how to drive us crazy. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, they can predict we'll end up on our asses.

So the right response is not to take their bait. Hunt down the attackers, interrogate the survivors, and put serious pressure on any government that in any way aided the attacks.

Ferociously suppress anti-Muslim, anti-refugee agitation. Invite local Muslims to cooperate in identifying Islamic extremism's supporters -- they are ordinary Muslims' worst enemies, after all. Find the attackers' sources of funding, and choke them off.

Then remember that revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

Bitsy

Nov 17 2015, 08:12 AM

Durgan

Nov 17 2015, 08:07 AM

Appeasement not an option from where I sit. Hug a Muslim has it limits.

What do you see as appeasement to Muslims?

Durgan

Nov 17 2015, 10:50 AM

Appeasement:If we do this, ISIS will do that, as most of the posts indicate.



.

Quote:

 

First ISIS is not even defined. My information is that they are not a single identity, but a conglomeration of smaller organizations

Quote:

 

Second their aims of violent actions appears to be without a meaningful purpose(s).

Quote:

 

We, the targets, cannot tolerate such behavior and indeed will not do so at least judging about the throwing about of the rhetoric.

Quote:

 

How does one go about defeating a ghost? I am sure ISIS in Syria are not conglomerating in areas where they can be taken out by air power without much collateral damage, meaning destruction of innocents assuming there is such. I assume there is really no-one to bring to a conference due to ISIS being such a scattered organization

Delphi51

Nov 17 2015, 11:41 AM

Same as in the 1930s before the invasion of Poland - let them take over every region they choose to without objection. Czechoslovakia was the most costly - a fully industrialized economy with a major arms industry. But the best time to stop it was when the German army marched into the French occupied Ruhr valley arms industrial region - unopposed - at a time when the French army was far stronger than the German one. I bet the French remember their biggest mistake and are not keen to do it again.

Quote:

 

In American political oratory, a Nazi or Hitler comparison is the ultimate in establishing an enemy in need of fighting. After all, who could turn a blind eye to the Nazis?

But an invocation of the Nazis or Hitler is a political act that goes beyond a description: It's an inexorable call to arms

friendshipgal

Nov 17 2015, 12:11 PM

The M.E. now has a very large business in arms with yearly output at more than 4 billions and growing.

Quote:

 

Forty years ago, arms production in the Middle East was limited to a few small factories producing rifles and ammunition. Today, arms production has become a very big business in the region, with annual output worth more than $4 billion and rising. Of the 23 Third World countries with extensive military production, five are in the Middle East. One Middle Eastern state, Israel, is the largest Third World arms exporter and has one of the largest arms industries in the world. Egypt and Turkey are the other two major arms producers in the region, followed by Iran and Pakistan. Munitions and small arms producers include Algeria, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan and Tunisia.

The Middle East is not the only region of the world where military expenditures have soared and military industries grown considerably. But relative to population, militarization in the Middle East is especially pronounced. The region’s geopolitical importance and its oil resources have given rise to wars and threats of wars throughout the period since World War II. Countries establish weapons industries for a variety of reasons. On the political side, regimes seek reduced dependence on outside suppliers, local prestige and regional status. Economically such enterprises may reduce foreign exchange needs, and contribute to the development of an industrial base. In fact, dependence on outside suppliers is only modified: few countries can reduce the import content of their military production below 30 percent.

Turkey, Egypt and Israel need to increase export earnings. Local arms production can replace arms imports and thus save on foreign exchange. Arms companies in the developed countries are ready to shift part of their production overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor costs and to gain access to local markets. Production is often licensed through foreign firms. Weapons systems designed domestically are usually modeled on systems previously imported. The US, Britain, France, West Germany and Soviet Union account for some 85 percent of all licenses. Of these, the US has provided the most, the Soviet Union the least

Trotsky

Nov 17 2015, 11:20 AM

For the record:
A defense department spokesmen just said the United Ststes has executed 1800 bombing missions in Syria in the last 15 months.

Bitsy

Nov 17 2015, 12:23 PM

friendshipgal

Nov 17 2015, 12:11 PM

The M.E. now has a very large business in arms with yearly output at more than 4 billions and growing.

About that ME arms business.

Quote:

 

Forty years ago, arms production in the Middle East was limited to a few small factories producing rifles and ammunition. Today, arms production has become a very big business in the region, with annual output worth more than $4 billion and rising. Of the 23 Third World countries with extensive military production, five are in the Middle East. One Middle Eastern state, Israel, is the largest Third World arms exporter and has one of the largest arms industries in the world. Egypt and Turkey are the other two major arms producers in the region, followed by Iran and Pakistan. Munitions and small arms producers include Algeria, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan and Tunisia.

The Middle East is not the only region of the world where military expenditures have soared and military industries grown considerably. But relative to population, militarization in the Middle East is especially pronounced. The region’s geopolitical importance and its oil resources have given rise to wars and threats of wars throughout the period since World War II. Countries establish weapons industries for a variety of reasons. On the political side, regimes seek reduced dependence on outside suppliers, local prestige and regional status. Economically such enterprises may reduce foreign exchange needs, and contribute to the development of an industrial base. In fact, dependence on outside suppliers is only modified: few countries can reduce the import content of their military production below 30 percent.

Turkey, Egypt and Israel need to increase export earnings. Local arms production can replace arms imports and thus save on foreign exchange. Arms companies in the developed countries are ready to shift part of their production overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor costs and to gain access to local markets. Production is often licensed through foreign firms. Weapons systems designed domestically are usually modeled on systems previously imported. The US, Britain, France, West Germany and Soviet Union account for some 85 percent of all licenses. Of these, the US has provided the most, the Soviet Union the least

.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer144/arms-industries-middle-east

Quote:

 

Arms companies in the developed countries are ready to shift part of their production overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor costs and to gain access to local markets. Production is often licensed through foreign firms.

Quote:

 

Remember, Syria produced a lot of poison gas, as did Iraq.

Quote:

 

Same as in the 1930s before the invasion of Poland - let them take over every region they choose to without objection.

Trotsky

Nov 17 2015, 03:57 PM

One must be very careful when making an analogy of Hitler invading Poland because it sounds too much like Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

wildie

Nov 17 2015, 03:08 PM

Trotsky

Nov 17 2015, 11:20 AM

For the record:
A defense department spokesmen just said the United Ststes has executed 1800 bombing missions in Syria in the last 15 months.

Even Canada's six F18's could fly a large number of sorties! Perhaps 5/day. 25/week? 100/month? Over 6 months this could work out to 600 bombing raids.
If somebody happened to be on the receiving end of these, they would be very uncomfortable.

Quote:

 

Canadian fighter jets have stepped up airstrikes in northern and central Iraq as Iraqi government forces struggle to contain advances by Islamic State militants, bombing 18 targets in the past four weeks.

snip

Since Operation IMPACT began in October 2014, the military says Canadian F-18 fighter jets have flown roughly 360 combat missions, and have dropped bombs on ISIS “fighting positions” — combatants, vehicles, buildings or compounds — in 122 cases, or about 30 per cent of the time. In some cases, Iraqi forces call off the airstrike, or a Canadian pilot may deem the mission too “dangerous” or at risk of civilian casualties.

Quote:

 

Putin said at the G20 summit that Russia has presented examples of terrorism financing by individual businessmen from 40 countries, including from member states of the G20.

David

Nov 17 2015, 11:18 AM

Quote:

 

The current President is effectively allied with ISIL.

This is an effectively ridiculous statement.

Quote:

 

As far as I know IS is Iraqis and Syrians taking over Iraq and Syria, civil wars. All outside invasions of any countries in question have come only from the United States. One must be very careful when making an analogy of Hitler invading Poland because it sounds too much like Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan.