We won't see any leadership from the Obama Administration, as our dear leader remains as clueless and dangerously delusional as ever. Mark Steyn notes that just yesterday morning, Obama said in an interview that ISIS was contained. Within hours, ISIS mocked his words. After the attack, Obama recited his now tired phrases that this attack was "an attack not just on Paris, it's an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share". Except, as Steyn points out, this attack is because a large portion of humanity holds values inimical to Western Judeo-Christian civilization. Until our political and military leaders understand this, there will be no progress in this indeterminate "war on terror."
There is some hope that Europe, generally, and France in particular, might wake up to the fact of what needs to be done. There are some early signs that France might not go down quietly into that long night: In response to the assault, France closed its borders, declared a state of emergency and declared a curfew--it has not done all three since World War 2.French President Francois Hollande promised early Saturday morning that "we are going to lead a war which will be pitiless." However grand it may sound, though, it not very different from Prime Minister Manuel Valls's statements in January following the Charlie Hebdo attack, that "It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity." Yet those were just hollow threats, soon to be followed by Europe throwing its doors wide open to the very people/culture engaged in jihadism. And it is not just France that needs to worry. As the Powerline Blog points out:
No one can seriously doubt that ISIS, and other Muslim terrorist groups, are doing all they can to attack the United States. We, meanwhile, are welcoming enormous numbers of immigrants from Islamic countries, and have gone “open borders” so that anyone can enter the United States from the south. What reason is there to think that Islamic terrorists will not enter across our unguarded borders and organize attacks similar to, or worse than, what France experienced tonight? None.I think the first question that needs to be asked is why did the terrorists carry out such an attack in France? Islam raises bullying cowards: their fighters are killers of women, old men, and helpless prisoners; their terrorists are rapers of children; they hide in hospitals and elementary schools. Yet they provoked an attack by a still fairly strong European nation. What was their objective? It is not enough to say that the attack was to demonstrate that to the French people that the French police and security services cannot protect the French people. There are only two reasons that cowards such as these would risk such a provocative attack: (1) they do not believe that France is capable (physically or morally) of striking back; or (2) their message was aimed at the Muslims already in France--to encourage their supporters and cow those that might otherwise be in a position to help French authorities.
In either case, the solution is clear. The war must be brought against not the terrorists (although they are the natural object of such a conflict) but also against the culture that produced the terrorists--Islam. Cultures are memes--viruses of a sort--that are carried around in individuals. So, the first step will be expelling those that continue to practice and profess Islam (I don't think Syrian Christians or Yazidis pose a threat and can be safely admitted). This may not be easy. First, it necessarily involved rounding up Muslims and placing them in interment camps until they can be returned to their native countries: i.e., barbed wire enclosures and cattle cars full of people. This is what is necessary, but France has imbibed of the poison of multiculturalism for so long that I believe that it will be impossible for them to do what needs to be done. Even those not completely blinded by political correctness will be repelled by this solution because they will believe that it punishes the guilty with the innocent.
And this is where the gravest error lies--in believing that the majority of Muslims are opposed to the acts of the terrorists. Just because Muslims do not engage in acts of terror does not mean that they are opposed to what the terrorists are doing. As Mark Steyn points out in the article cited above:
And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don't want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live - modern, pluralist, western societies and those "universal values" of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who's been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.Second, even if France could had the will to actually expel the immigrants, there is another barrier: it will require that the native countries of these migrants and refugees be willing to take them back. However, Europe tried this recently with East African immigrants, and the native countries refused to accept them back even with the promises of billions of Euros in development funds. Apparently, once these countries get rid of their "tired, ... poor, ... huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and the wretched refuse of [their] teeming shore," they don't want them back. Strange, isn't it.
An alternative strategy is to attempt to destroy (or weaken) the religion directly. Islam has an Achilles heal, which is its idol worship of the Kaaba at Mecca, and other important shrines. It has a nucleus that can be destroyed. I don't believe that destruction of Mecca would end Islam immediately, but it would be such a terrible psychological blow to Islam, that it would disillusion nearly all Muslims. Of course, other important shrines as Medina and Dome of the Rock would also need to be destroyed to protect against cults arguing that the worship should be transferred to another site.
However, I don't expect any of this to happen. As Richard Fernandez writes:
The dilemma the West now faces is that it cannot survive on the basis of the platform which its elites have carefully constructed since WW2. They are being beaten to death with their own lofty statements. They must either continue to uphold the vision of open borders, multiculturalism, declining birthrates, unilateral disarmament and a growing state sector at all costs — in other words continue on the road to suicide — or retreat. As recent events at American campuses have shown, when faced with the choice of saving the Left and saving the actual world, the odds are that “the world” goes over the side first.There will be war, soon or later. As John T. Bennett recently wrote at The American Thinker, while refugees and migrants flee their native countries for Europe and North America, there are no places where European and American refugees can flee to protect their native cultures. Of course, this was the whole point of cultural Marxism.
In short, I do not believe that France will be serious about killing the serpent in its bosom until it seeks to expel or destroy Islam.