There is indeed a police problem – one above all of capacity and coordination – but the solution to Europe’s security crisis can never simply be more security. That has to be combined with more imaginative efforts to look at the origins of the problems. And that of course means that Europeans need to look at themselves and the societies they inhabit.But no word of blame is attached to the cultural or religious background of the terrorists or those that harbor them (and let there be no mistake, these terrorists are evading capture because there is a larger corps of sympathizers willing to hide, feed, clothe, and otherwise support them). The same explanations that the terrorists acted only because of feelings of alienation came after the Paris attacks, as well.
If there is alienation, it is because of the political correctness strangling the world. Assimilation requires that the immigrants become more like Europeans: adopting customs, world views, language, dress, and other aspects of culture. In the past, this would largely have been forced on the immigrants through social pressure and direct government action (for instance, not allowing use of native tongues or dress while at school; requiring language ability and citizenship tests). Public expression of the immigrants' culture would have been limited. There would have also been some effort to weed out those simply seeking free and easy resources, such as requiring employment before allowing entry.
This was not done ... because it would not have been politically correct.
But I question the basic premise that alienation lies at the root of the problem. In a separate article entitled "Brussels attacks: how radicalization happens and who is at risk," the author writes:
A recent report published by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University provides troubling statistics on Islamic State (ISIS) support in America:(Underline added). The underlined portion is significant because, historically, left-wing terrorist groups have largely drawn from middle and upper-middle class, while right-wing groups are typically made up of working class or the working poor. This suggests that, at least in the United States, ISIS terrorists are not the socially or economically dispossessed, but must have another motivation. In this case, the obvious motivation is the tenants of Islam and philosophy of jihad.
As of the fall of 2015, US authorities speak of some 250 Americans who have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria/Iraq to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
The report goes on to say there are some 900 active investigations against ISIS sympathizers in all 50 states. As a result of these active investigations, 71 suspects have been charged for terrorism-related activities – and those charged share some interesting characteristics.
The average age of the suspects is 26 years, and the vast majority of them (86 percent) are male. About 27 percent were involved in a plot to carry out violence on U.S. territory. The suspects are diverse in terms of race, social class, education and family history. Forty percent of those arrested are converts to Islam. A large majority – 58 out of 71 – are American citizens.
In any event, Europe faces a choice, and it does not include the useless soul searching of what could have been. The reality facing Europe is "Jihadi Musab al Suri's strategy for fanning the flames of insurgency along the classic playbook. Kill the infidel and so provoke a response which can be used to recruit even more adherents. Create a European intifada, in a united front with the old continent's well-established Leftist radicals, and rip the continent apart." Also, "European security has collapsed, perhaps irretrievably. So many prospective terrorists are now operating in Europe that security services have lost the capacity to monitor potential threats. There is no historical yardstick against which to gauge the breakdown of law enforcement in Europe." David P. Goldman believes that the choice facing Europe, now, is "allowing humanitarian disasters to occur on its borders, or losing control of its own security." Which is just a nice way of saying that Europe has a choice of keeping the foxes out of the hen house, even if it means letting the foxes starve to death, or letting the foxes come in and suffer the slaughter of the hens.
In the case of Germany (and most of the rest of Western Europe, I would add), the choice has already been made: to let the foxes in. Now the foxes are in, to shut the door to trap the hens in with the foxes is only an incomplete solution. The foxes will have to be hunted and destroyed. Those that supported them, provided aid and comfort to them, will have to be hunted as well. Because Europe was lenient in the past, it now faces a future where it will have to be brutal. How brutal? Maybe something in line with the mass deportation of peoples from various countries at the end of WWII, which, distasteful as it was, probably was instrumental in establishing the long peace that followed.
I've noted before that liberals don't care about the consequences of their actions so long as whatever they are doing makes them feel good about themselves--part of their general addiction to "virtue signaling." Bringing millions of refugees into Europe made the liberals (especially the elite) feel good about themselves. But now the consequences of their thoughtlessness and selfishness have arrived.
Europe's political correctness has left them with horrible choices. Maybe the situation can be diffused without resort to the ugliness which seems to be approaching--I pray that it can--but I am not hopeful.