Like
millions of people, I’ve been obsessively following the news from
Paris, putting aside other things to focus on the horror. It’s the
natural human reaction. But let’s be clear: it’s also the reaction the
terrorists want. And that’s something not everyone seems to understand.
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. And remarks like that, which blur
that distinction and make terrorists seem more powerful than they are,
just help the jihadists’ cause.
Think,
for a moment, about what France is and what it represents. It has its
problems — what nation doesn’t? — but it’s a robust democracy with a
deep well of popular legitimacy. Its defense budget is small compared
with ours, but it nonetheless retains a powerful military, and has the
resources to make that military much stronger if it chooses. (France’s
economy is around 20 times the size of Syria’s.) France is not going to
be conquered by ISIS, now or ever. Destroy Western civilization? Not a
chance.
So
what was Friday’s attack about? Killing random people in restaurants
and at concerts is a strategy that reflects its perpetrators’
fundamental weakness. It isn’t going to establish a caliphate in Paris.
What it can do, however, is inspire fear — which is why we call it
terrorism, and shouldn’t dignify it with the name of war.
The
point is not to minimize the horror. 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. And it’s crucial to realize that there are multiple ways the
response can go wrong.
It
would certainly be a very bad thing if France or other democracies
responded to terrorism with appeasement — if, for example, the French
were to withdraw from the international effort against ISIS in the vain
hope that jihadists would leave them alone. 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.
But
real-world examples of mainstream politicians, let alone governments,
knuckling under to terrorist demands are hard to find. Most accusations
of appeasement in America seem to be aimed at liberals who don’t use
what conservatives consider tough enough language.
A
much bigger risk, in practice, is that the targets of terrorism will
try to achieve perfect security by eliminating every conceivable threat —
a response that inevitably makes things worse, because it’s a big,
complicated world, and even superpowers can’t set everything right. On
9/11 Donald Rumsfeld
told his aides: “Sweep it up. Related and not,” and immediately
suggested using the attack as an excuse to invade Iraq. The result was a
disastrous war that actually empowered terrorists, and set the stage
for the rise of ISIS.
And
let’s be clear: this wasn’t just a matter of bad judgment. Yes,
Virginia, 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.
Oh, and whatever people like Ted Cruz
may imagine, ending our reluctance to kill innocent civilians wouldn’t
remove the limits to American power. It would, however, do wonders for
terrorist recruitment.
Finally,
terrorism is just one of many dangers in the world, and shouldn’t be
allowed to divert our attention from other issues. 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.
So
what can we say about how to respond to terrorism? Before the
atrocities in Paris, the West’s general response involved a mix of
policing, precaution, and military action. All involved difficult
tradeoffs: surveillance versus privacy, protection versus freedom of
movement, denying terrorists safe havens versus the costs and dangers of
waging war abroad. And it was always obvious that sometimes a terrorist
attack would slip through.
Paris
may have changed that calculus a bit, especially when it comes to
Europe’s handling of refugees, an agonizing issue that has now gotten
even more fraught. And there will have to be a post-mortem on why such
an elaborate plot wasn’t spotted. But do you remember all the
pronouncements that 9/11 would change everything? Well, it didn’t — and
neither will this atrocity.
Read Paul Krugman’s blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow him on Twitter.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
No comments:
Post a Comment