As the West encounters the havoc wrought by Islamic terrorism, there are two schools of thought as to how to react:
The first idea is to fight back. That includes devastating ISIS strongholds in the Middle East and utilizing the sophisticated national security apparatuses we all have been building in recent decades. And yes, that includes refusing the import potential terrorists via refugee programs.
The second idea is to cower, to assert that nothing is as important as social justice and that accepting Shariah and the proponents of it are moral imperatives. This ideology also maintains that if we are to engage militarily in the Middle East, we should do so in the most delicate and ineffective fashions possible so as to not anger those who already view it as their duty to Allah to murder non-Muslims.
Sadly, the latter position seems to be the view held by the plurality of Western governments, including the U.S.
On Tuesday, Thomas Jensen opined in The Washington Post that combatting Islamic terrorism may actually lead to… wait for it… Islamic terrorism.
Without directly saying as such, Jensen’s main underlying contention appears to be geared towards appeasement- the nauseatingly weak idea that maybe if we let jihadists do whatever they want, they won’t want to kill us.
“Days before the Brussels attacks on March 22, Belgian authorities raided the attackers’ safe houses and arrested Salah Abdeslam, who had helped organize the Paris attacks in November. Because of the raids, according to media reports, the attackers struck sooner than they’d originally planned.
Here’s what that shows: Terrorists are rational actors in many ways. They react predictably when circumstances change. To be effective, anti-terrorism authorities need to better understand how terrorists respond when the government acts.
In a recently published research paper, “The timing of terrorist attacks: An optimal stopping approach,” I use a simple mathematical model to study the decision making of autonomous terrorist units. And what we’ve just seen in Brussels illustrates the main finding. As authorities close in on terrorists, uncovering plots and arresting suspects, they will attack sooner so that they’re not caught first. Unfortunately, increasing efforts against terrorism may, in the short term, increase the risk of attacks.”
Jensen explains that these anti-terrorist effort are not necessarily wasted as they are effective in stopping attacks and that conducting a raid on one cell may prompt another cell to hurry and rush an operation that is more likely to end in failure.
Jensen’s piece hinges on an analysis that may be true; busting terrorist cells may prompt other terrorist cells to activate.
However, these cells were always going to activate. The purpose of Islamic jihad is to kill in the name of Allah and the only means of stopping the eventual slaughter of innocents is to preclude such events through investigative and tactical means.
And, of course, by not allowing millions of unvetted Muslims into the interior of Central Europe…
Jensen’s analysis if indicative of the kind of weakling foreign policy that has invited continued terrorism in the West. These savages understand only power and what the U.S. and many of her allies have telegraphed to jihadists around the globe is anything but a fierce resolve to do absolutely everything necessary to eradicate Islamic jihad.
Raids on terrorist cells are great, but if the West is going to win this fight, our conversations should be geared towards the best carpet-bombing strategies, not raids and polite, scheduled bombings of ISIS strongholds.