Moment of silence in France after Paris attacks.

Politics

После Парижа

Nov 16, 2015 Richard Haass

НЬЮ-ЙЮРК – Всего лишь несколько дней после взрывов в Бейруте и крушения российского самолета над Синайским полуостровом, теракты в Париже, организованные лицами связанными с ИГИЛ, лишь усиливают действительность того, что нынешняя террористическая угроза вступила в новую и еще более опасную фазу. Именно почему Исламское Государство решило провести их атаки сейчас остается под вопросом: вполне может быть, что они решили расширить свои глобальные цели для того, чтобы компенсировать свои недавние потери территории в Ираке. Но каким бы ни было обоснование, бесспорным является то, что от нас должен поступить оправданный и четкий ответ.

На самом деле, вызов со стороны ИГИЛ требует множество ответов, так как нет единой политики, которой точно будет достаточно. Множественные усилия необходимы в нескольких сферах.

Первая из них - военная. Более интенсивные авиаудары против военного имущества, нефтегазовой отрасли и руководителей Исламского Государства будут иметь решающее значение. Но никакое количество воздушной силы само по себе не справится с такой задачей. Нам необходим существенный наземной компонент если мы хотим захватить и удержать территории.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Richard Haass

Writing for PS since 2000
162 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior counselor at Centerview Partners, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-03), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (Penguin Press, 2023) and the weekly Substack newsletter Home & Away.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 39 Comments on this article

John Jones Dec 2, 2015

"TO SAVE SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS FROM THE SCOURGE OF WAR"

That was the declared aim of the United Nations Charter as stated in its preamble in 1945. Until now this aim has always been frustrated by the power of veto granted to the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, which effectively prevented the UN from taking strong concerted action whenever needed. In view of the Syrian crisis, the bombing of a Russian airliner, the slaughter of the innocents in Paris, the flood of migrants seeking shelter in Europe, we now at last have a resolution passed unanimously by the UN security council - no vetoes and no abstentions.

This gives us an opportunity we have not had since 1945 to take concerted action to resolve a critically bad situation which can serve as a template for future action wherever there is conflict.

But what sort of action? Yet more bombing? In my view, the case against that is obvious and unanswerable.

So what action? Boots on the ground? Unquestionably YES - but not the boots of soldiers from one nation going to do battle against another nation but the boots of heavily armed multi-national soldiers, flying the UN flag and under UN Command, pledged not to use those arms except to disarm those who refuse to surrender their own arms. They would not be UN Peacekeepers because, in Syria, there is no peace to be kept. They would be something new - a UN PeaceMAKING force.

Such action should be prefaced by a call for a ceasefire on all sides and an end to all air-strikes from whatever source.

When that action has been completed there can be multilateral negotiations to work out a secure, conflict-free future for Syria which safeguards the human rights of all concerned. While these negotiations are being hammered out it will be possible for those who have had to flee to return to their country to rebuild their lives with full UN support.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bala Subramanian Nov 24, 2015

Why not recognize this new state and invite it to join the UN? "Terrorism" has become a legitimate form of war ever since "Counter Terrorism" has been introduced. "Multiple efforts" as well as the "multiple domains" is to recognize that, it is not ISIS asset or ISIS oil,that is being destroyed, it is humanity's asset and humanity's oil that is being destroyed. As long as the heads of "foreign relations councils" believe , there is a foreign and domestic distinction, no problem is likely to solved. The beginning of the end of "terrorism" is to know and accept humanity is one, and administrative distinctions is not distinction of humanities. Mr. Haass may want visit this link: http://synergism-inc.blogspot.com/2014/12/towards-singularity-of-humanities.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard S. Stone Nov 24, 2015

OR, Consider:
Is Paris really a reason to go to war with ISIS, an outcome that they seemingly look forward to? ISIS is essentially begging the West to attack them. And we hope to oblige them? What sense does that make?

But really, aren't we talking about something akin to the school attacks we see in the USA, where alienated and angry young men get guns in their hands and think it would be cool to be famous and go down in a blaze of glory? Sort of the death metal refrain?

And it is great to think in terms that this is a continuing problem that has been with us for a long time and it has to do with Islam and such, so we should deal with the source, and have a comprehensive approach to defeating armed attacks and bad preaching and a bad aspect of a respected (?) religion. Not to mention "defeating" ISIS. It all sounds great.

This entire problem is more about the availability of weapons to crazy/angry people than it is about any guiding philosophy. Still, those crazy/angry/armed young men are being given, or acting in the name of, some guiding creed. Is it then the fault of Islam? Possibly. It seems to fit. But really isn’t ISIS sort of an institutionalized school killer group, with the popular girls in class being given as sex slaves to the crazy young men/killers, sort of their forbidden fantasy? How cool is that?

Alternatively, although I believe more properly concurrently, is it akin to the anarchist movements of many years ago, coupled with some sort of IRA outlook that anyone not with you was against you, so that the perpetrators were bound together in the common joy of killing the oppressor/outsiders? Is that what we are facing? If that is the case, then are these repeated attacks simply a byproduct of civilization and the alienation of those who do not fit into the “productive” group? High school writ large?

All of the above? If so, this is a problem that is not going to go away by itself, if ever. We can deal with the “injustices” we might think are the problem, but really the problem is angry/alienated and armed young men. The claimed “injustices” are not the problem, they are just excuses used by the alienated. The Paris attackers are simply the grown up high school killers after spending some time engaging in petty crimes, being pushed outside the mainstream, and, least of all, being given some guiding creed. Their lives were, and they knew it, essentially without meaning and they might as well be dead. So why not kill their oppressors, the people who are enjoying life (thus Paris, as opposed to Kansas City...) and living well?

It is correct that all these attacks are not something new, but as I see this, the Islamic world is responsible for ISIS on the ground in the Middle East, so let them deal with it. (So long as ISIS terrorizes only the local residents, we know that the local Sunni Arabs support them: Let them suffer if that is the case; it's not our problem.) These armed attacks in Europe (and the rest of the World) are essentially criminal acts by alienated/armed young men. Thus we have bandits acting in the name of religion as in the Abu Sayaef, in the Philippines.
Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/after-paris-strategy-to-fight-islamic-state-by-richard-n--haass-2015-11#lyXp6mH8RHyjU1Zf.99
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Johny Wright Nov 23, 2015

I agree that an all-encompassing comprehensive approach is required to defeat Daesh. However, I have said it before and I’ll say it again:
If your end goal in Syria is stability – and that should be the key determinant across the Middle East – then the Assad regime must be supported. Before the rebellion began Syria was a peaceful, well ordered state where Islamic fundamentalists were kept under control. In a situation like this you need stability – which can only be provided by a non-democratic state which keeps the opposition under control. I have a less than favourable attitude towards the quasi socialist Baath party - however my concern is what would a post Assad Syria look like – even after the defeat of Daesh? My guess would be the current mess that is Libya – awash with arms, no central government and armed factions vying for power and even trying to secede from the state – basically a failed state with little hope of reconstruction. This would be the reality of a Syria of enclaves or cantons. Recent, and indeed past, experience has proved that this is the most fertile of breeding grounds for terrorists. This is not a solution but rather a legitimisation of the problem. The only solution is to ensure the restoration of the strong stable state that previously existed.
It is about time that the West realised the enemy in the Middle East is Islamic fundamentalism – especially, but crucially not limited to, Daesh – and not Assad. You are correct that boots on the ground are indeed required. Air power alone – as the RAF first found out in the 1920s in the North West Frontier Province and in every campaign since – cannot defeat an insurgency. However, a partner force does already exist with boots on the ground – the Syrian Army. I advocate the successful approach initially taken in Afghanistan which supported the Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban – ie Western air and Special Forces support for the Syrian Army. When considering the Syrian case it is essential to note that this early successful Afghanistan approach only fell apart after the assassination of it’s strong man leader Ahmad Shah Massoud. The importance of a strong man leader cannot be over-emphasised in this type of scenario. In the Syrian case the only realistic person available is Assad. Once you accept this unpalatable truth the solution is straightforward. A Western approach of only targeting Daesh and other Islamic fundamentalists and over time rehabilitating Assad is the only solution – and one the Russians are already pursuing. In this case our well founded suspicions of long term Russian intentions should be set aside at this time to defeat the immediate threat of Islamic terrorism and we should work alongside the Russians to pursue a common aim against a common enemy. Arming and training anti-Assad groups does not work – as you correctly point out - and is purely counter-productive. Bottom line is the West does not have a credible example of a recently reconstructed and stabilised country – just examples of failed states. We need to restore a stable state. Let’s ensure we are also on the winning side rather than just the Russians – rather difficult to influence when you are on the losing side. Rehabilitation not reconstruction. Far better the devil you know – providing stability - than the devil you don’t.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thomas G. Stevens Nov 22, 2015

ISiS appears to me to be a threat to the USA. They say so explicitly. Ultimately, what they did in Paris can and probably will be duplicated here sooner or later. That threat needs to be neutralized. I don’t know if the solution I propose will solve the problem long term, but it absolutely will in the short term.
First, ISIS does not manufacture one bullet, truck, gun, or bomb. They cannot have the maintenance facilities to repair the tanks they have stolen. They have no industrial capacity at all so must buy everything. And everything must be transported. And everything bought must be paid for with money, the source of which in large part is apparently the proceeds from the sale of oil. This supply line should be closed off and air power is ideal for that.
Second, ISIS, must be defeated on the ground. I don’t know how many fighters they have in Syria, but it can’t be more than the equivalent of two or three U.S. divisions. I think a coalition of U.S., French, and Russian troops would make short work of iSIS. Any Arab country wishing to participate could join the coalition, of course.
This strategy would require that the U.S. postpone its efforts to remove Assad and to agree to cooperate wth the Russians. To me, though, removing Assad, as bad as he is, should take a back seat to eliminating ISIS. Cooperating with the Russians in this effort would be no worse than cooperating with them in defeating the Nazis, in my judgement.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alamanach . Nov 22, 2015

Doesn't this amount to the exact same strategy we used with Iraq the last two times? Adjust the wording a little bit, and this piece could have been published in 2002 or 1991. What has that strategy gotten us? It's gotten us ISIS, which is the worst version of this problem that we've seen so far. We need to try something new.

I say colonize it. Take over. If France, Russia, and the UK, want to be involved, that's okay; maybe divide up management of the territory like we once did with Germany. Develop the economy in a way that suits the colonizers' purposes, and vigorously defend freedom of religion, including freedom to proselytize. ISIS wants to kill us over religion, fine; help missionaries to plant churches in the (former) ISIS heartland, in re-purposed mosques, under the protection of the US Army. Doing this will so infuriate the crazies, they'll be too busy to bother with attacks in western countries. It will also send an unspoken message to any other ISIS-like groups that if you refuse to live and let live, then the West will plant infidels in your front yard-- so don't mess.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allen Mackenzie Nov 22, 2015

When ISIS or any other radical group can cite the Koran and quote Mohamed ISLAM is the fundamental problem. The solution therefore is to reform Islam.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ahmed Dowish Nov 19, 2015

The truth that may be annoying to most of people around the world including Arab countries and myself! it is difficult to accept that a new reality in this world is being established. similarly to what happened 100 years ago when great empires disappeared and small national states has emerged instead!
when you see how Assad is brutally punishing his people, this gives you indication that a major change would happen whether we accepted or not! because simply the science proved that every action has a reaction equal in the amount and opposite in direction. I believe that at the end of this movie, we would have 4 syrias and maybe 3 Iraqs! not to mention the surrounding areas.
good night
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Nov 18, 2015

Rather cynical pots IMHO, if anything was proved was that the Guns were aimed in the wrong direction after 9/11 and that France was right on that subject.

Nothing can be accomplished by answering violence with only violence . Its time to seek for a long term stable solution for the middle east, a solution that starts by eliminating fundamentalism but has to account to the rise of the well being of the locals and its education.

Enlightenment is the weapon that should be used against religious fundamentalism, not bombs or bullets, and it should be done across the region Saudi Arabia and UAE included.
- Jose araujo Nov 19, 2015
  
  The problem has always been that we put our interests in the region above all, so we intervene and end messing all up.
  
  France has a very large history of wrong doing in North Africa and middle east, starting with the colonization and going up to the support for Arab Spring, all this because they have always placed the interests of the French well above all else, and that's the wrong motivation to solve a problem.
  
  Start thinking of the Syrian people, regular folks that just want to leave in peace and security,and stop thinking for the Syrian people. The only long last solution to the area has to be created by locals.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- jagjeet sinha Nov 18, 2015
  
  Indeed - the cycle of violence needs cessation.
  The enemy is Crystal clear - Religious Sectarianism.
  Religious Fundamentalism often the winner despite all the guns.
  Vacillations - results in obfuscation.
  Easier said than done.
  France in the driver seat - is promising, as Europe needs firmness and clarity.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jose araujo Nov 18, 2015
  
  This is a comment to Mr Sinha's post, not the article
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Nov 18, 2015

When there is a crisis, the Paris massacre being the most recent, the usual response is to seek a short term solution. This is reasonable enough, or seems so - until the next crisis occurs. Certainly an immediate threat demands an immediate response but, if that response just replies in the same coin as its cause, we are no further on in the long run. We may in fact simply have made matters worse because nothing has changed fundamentally. Such a way of responding to a crisis will almost certainly provoke a new and a worse crisis.
The only remedy is to have a comprehensive vision which dictates the best way of reacting to any event which threatens that vision. If we take the Paris attack as an example, the immediate response might well be to regard that attack as an act of war and to declare war in return: the so-called Islamic State is the problem so we must go all-out to liquidate the Islamic State. Of course, this will never happen. We might kill x number of fanatical jihadists (who are in any case seeking martyrdom), but genocide, apart from being barbaric, never actually works, least of all in this case because the "Islamic State" is not recognosed as an actual physical reality but is a mental state,. one that flourishes on a sense of injustice or persecution.
If we have a comprehensive vision, we acknowlege that ruthless random murderers have to be dealt with, not only in Syria but also wherever there is armed conflict which slaughters all and sundry indiscriminately. No nation or individual is innocent. We all have to acknowledge our guilt and resolve that we must ALL submit to a global authority, having command of all legal armed force and pledged to use that force only to disarm those who are illegally armed and secure a peace which upholds the rights of every human being. Those who refuse to allow equal rights to others and are prepared to try to subjugate or even kill those others have to be arrested and sent for trial. This must not be done by citizens of one country against citizens of another country (or imagined country) but by a world body protecting the equal rights of all citizens everywhere.
See http:www.garrettjones.talktalk.net
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Nov 18, 2015

6.12.1941
"The ascent on Mount Katayama begins at dawn" - was a cryptic encoded telegram from Singapore to Simla that reached Churchill in London late evening after working hours. Weary after weeks in vain, since the Fall of Paris 500 days earlier, Sir Winston celebrated that night with an extra large Napoleon, and went to sleep entirely comforted in the outcome of The War.
13.11.2015
As David Cameron ended an evening celebration at Wembley with Prime Minister Narendra Modi pronouncing "Achhe din zaroor aayega" - Good times will certainly come - he was referring to India's hopes from the Modi regime change of 2014. The events in Paris that night perhaps may have comforted Cameron in the outcome for Britain - as French guns would finally change directions, after 200 years.

The course that France will henceforth take in confronting The Mediterranean may indeed become a reminder of Nine Eleven and the American pivot towards the Guns from The Gulf. Whether France leads Europe directly in encountering the menace that is marauding The Mediterranean or will respond with further obfuscation - will finally freeze the profile of An Enemy beyond comprehension. French vacillations in The Gulf have left US/UK often alone in confronting a predicament that needed concerted coordination. Instead of finding faults perennially with the posture that The Anglosphere takes, France would certainly rethink its Strategy in The Mediterranean.
We will never know the truth - of such rethinking - but the steps that follow would define the shape of Europe for most of the next 100 years.
The cycle of violence needs cessation - Guns alone may not provide the answers.
But at least, if the Guns are pointed at the right targets - that should bring comfort both in London and Washington.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jehangir Master Nov 18, 2015

Dear Sir,

I read your article but am not entirely convinced. The measures you have proposed (and that is most likely what the US and European countries will pursue) are a short term solution and will not alter the situation structurally. We i.e. the world has to structurally solve the problem by using global development as an agenda and stop pursuing selfish goals. We must not forget that Saddam, Osama and ISIS were all at some point supported by Europe and US and let loose to create destruction which has now badly backfired. This use and throw policy, divide and rule policy must stop and genuinely pursue peace and development if we want to make the world a better place.
Also attached below is a link which i would like you to go through if you have the time.
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/

Thanks and Best Regards,
Jehangir Master
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michel Bastien Nov 17, 2015

You would agree that the fight against Islamic State is also fight against an idea and a network. Why don't you adress the impact of the worldwide network of madressa spreading the whahabist version of islam, financed by Saudi Arabia. Are Saudis really our allies in that fight?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
eusebio manuel Nov 17, 2015

God Bless europe
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 17, 2015

Here we go again, in times of austerity and financial strangulation, Hollande of France decided to invoke Article 42.7 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, so all EU tax payers pay for his irresponsible actions.
The matters of Syria, ISIS, and the wider ME must be dealt with in the UN forum and any action, if and when agreed upon, could be taken under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, so like this the cost of any war is spread “evenly”….. Where is Schäuble now that he is so badly needed?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Diego Orlandi Nov 17, 2015

I believe that the phrase "coalition of the willing" should be avoided by all means necessary.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 17, 2015

Substantial ground force equals substantial profits for GOP donors. Is that what the article is really all about? You can't effectively fight Guerrilla forces with conventional armies. This has been proved again and again in modern history.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rik Rijs Nov 17, 2015

Amazing how short memory many of these experts seem to have. It was NATO with Sarkozy taking the lead to bring Khadafi down. The result is chaos, civil war and thousands of people killed. Resulting in armed conflicts all over N-Africa. No excuses from these leaders, experts and generals. Same for Iraq. Destabilised by Tony Blair and George Bush who lied against the world about weapons of mass destruction. Bringing down dictators? Than why is NATO siding with SaoudiArabia? With Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the likes of North-Korea ! Western self declared experts, who don't even speak Arab, have failed and should be made accountable. Will the French be so stupid to vote for Sarkozy again? Will they continue to support the brutal Israeli occupation?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Nov 17, 2015

Before Paris and after the 1972 Summer Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes in Munich. After the Marine and French barracks suicide truck bombings in Beirut 1983. After the MS Achilles Lauro cruise liner and TWA Flight 847 hijackings in 1985. After the Israeli embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1992. After the February 1993 bomb attack against the World Trade Center. After the Argentinean Jewish Community Center (AMIA) bombing in 1994. After the US embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania 1998. After the 9/11 multiple attacks in the United States. After the Bali hotel bombing in 2002. After the March 11th 2004 Madrid train bombings. After the Beslan, Russia school siege in September 2004. After the attacks against the public transport system in London 2005. After the November 2005 bombing of hotels in Amman, Jordan. After the April 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon. After the Westgate Mall assault of September 2013 in Kenya. After the Pakistan school massacre in 2014. After the March 2015 attack of the Bardo National Museum in Tunis. After the simultaneous attacks in June 2015 of a Shiite mosque in Kuwait, a factory in France and a beach resort in Tunisia. After the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai in October 2015...and in between thousands of terrorist actions perpetrated by either Sunni or Sunni radical Islamic groups against the liberal world order as well as other perceived enemies. Which leads us to after the November 2015 attacks in the center of Paris…

If one were to analyze the above chronology the conclusion would be that the West has developed a case of collective amnesia or is suffering from a mental numbness at the scale of atrocities being committed on behalf of the jihadist movement. Do our elected officials and their legions of talking heads suffer from an advanced stage of an intellectual arteriosclerosis where the obvious seems far-fetched? Are they delusional as we face an implacable enemy? A clear response to this ominous threat has been needed yet the strategy has mostly been that of a knee-jerk reaction variety. To demonstrate the political absurdity of the times, in a speech just yesterday, French President Francois Hollande declared “war” against ISIS…a strange declaration because if you were to ask the countless victims across the planet they would most certainly express that we have been at war since the early 70’s.

Yes a healthy dose of realism is definitely needed; Mr. Haas gives a slew of solutions as to what can be done but ISIS alone is not the trouble; it is just another symptom of an almost incurable disease along with Hizballah, Hamas, Boko Haram, the Taliban, al-Qaida, Jundallah, Islamic Jihad, al-Nusrah Front, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, the Haqqani network, al-Shabaab and a dozen other groups spread across the globe.

For the West to survive this onslaught it must focus not only on some of Mr. Haas suggestions but also on other issues such as stopping the incendiary sermons that many radicalized mullahs spew from their mosques in western capitals; the closure of hundreds of extremist madrassas where young Muslim children are indoctrinated in the art of martyrdom; the punishment of rogue nations that still utilize proxies (the relationship between Hizballah and Iran are a clear example) to advance their interests; using not only drone attacks to neutralize our foes but also Special Forces or F3EAD teams to take out high value targets (Osama bin Laden would have never been captured if many al-Qaida cadres would have been killed rather than captured and interrogated).

What comes after Paris is anybody’s guess; but it shouldn’t take a terrorist misdeed like the one that recently occurred in France to activate our resolve. The barbarians are not at the gate; they are all around us. Whether we persevere or not will depend on the current generation of our political-military commanders acumen. Unfortunately there are not that many Churchill’s or De Gaulle’s around today to make the harsh decisions to ensure our survival.
- Richard S. Stone Nov 24, 2015
  
  OR, Consider:
  Is Paris really a reason to go to war with ISIS, an outcome that they seemingly look forward to? ISIS is essentially begging the West to attack them. And we hope to oblige them? What sense does that make?
  
  But really, aren't we talking about something akin to the school attacks we see in the USA, where alienated and angry young men get guns in their hands and think it would be cool to be famous and go down in a blaze of glory? Sort of the death metal refrain?
  
  And it is great to think in terms that this is a continuing problem that has been with us for a long time and it has to do with Islam and such, so we should deal with the source, and have a comprehensive approach to defeating armed attacks and bad preaching and a bad aspect of a respected (?) religion. Not to mention "defeating" ISIS. It all sounds great.
  
  This entire problem is more about the availability of weapons to crazy/angry people than it is about any guiding philosophy. Still, those crazy/angry/armed young men are being given, or acting in the name of, some guiding creed. Is it then the fault of Islam? Possibly. It seems to fit. But really isn’t ISIS sort of an institutionalized school killer group, with the popular girls in class being given as sex slaves to the crazy young men/killers, sort of their forbidden fantasy? How cool is that?
  
  Alternatively, although I believe more properly concurrently, is it akin to the anarchist movements of many years ago, coupled with some sort of IRA outlook that anyone not with you was against you, so that the perpetrators were bound together in the common joy of killing the oppressor/outsiders? Is that what we are facing? If that is the case, then are these repeated attacks simply a byproduct of civilization and the alienation of those who do not fit into the “productive” group? High school writ large?
  
  All of the above? If so, this is a problem that is not going to go away by itself, if ever. We can deal with the “injustices” we might think are the problem, but really the problem is angry/alienated and armed young men. The claimed “injustices” are not the problem, they are just excuses used by the alienated. The Paris attackers are simply the grown up high school killers after spending some time engaging in petty crimes, being pushed outside the mainstream, and, least of all, being given some guiding creed. Their lives were, and they knew it, essentially without meaning and they might as well be dead. So why not kill their oppressors, the people who are enjoying life (thus Paris, as opposed to Kansas City...) and living well?
  
  It is correct that all these attacks are not something new, but as I see this, the Islamic world is responsible for ISIS on the ground in the Middle East, so let them deal with it. (So long as ISIS terrorizes only the local residents, we know that the local Sunni Arabs support them: Let them suffer if that is the case; it's not our problem.) These armed attacks in Europe (and the rest of the World) are essentially criminal acts by alienated/armed young men. Thus we have bandits acting in the name of religion as in the Abu Sayaef, in the Philippines.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Nov 17, 2015

The war cry makes a such a stunning connection with the populace, look where the fiscal austerity is headed.

The intransigence we have seen through the past several years to spend anything remotely connected with the public, now makes a sweeping correction. From drones to all kinds of sophisticated gadgets for warfare would now have all the requisite backing it needs, from public money of course.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Akbar Montaser Nov 17, 2015

Mr. Haass seems to be a confused man based on his contradictory counsel in this article. No wonder our country and Middle East is in a dire situation. A diplomat must serve as the President of the Council on Foreign Relation, not Mr. Haass who has persistently served as the confidant of Prime Minister of Israel, not our President.

He states, “Iran-backed militias only make matters worse.” He also avers” “coalition of the willing” must not include Iran. Subsequently, he states, “Moreover, orderly political change can be brought about only with Russian and Iranian support.” Well, good finding!

Does Mr. Haass recognize there is no solution without Iran and Assad. Mr. Haass and neocon stiffs at many warmonger Think Tanks have been prescribing the same medicine from day first when they tried their best to remove Assad only to weaken Iran, and prevent a nuclear deal to support Israel. That did not happen! Finally, President Obama recognized he must negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program!

A colleague of mine at Department of Psychology thought this article is written in a bar by a drunken nut!
- henry bonk Nov 23, 2015
  
  Akbar, do you get your marching orders from Iran or Assad?
  One can't accuse of inebriation, since your your posts are very
  much dictated to you by Iran.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Nov 16, 2015

Here's a radical idea: Make a pledge, that in the next 25 years, we will destabilize no more than one middle eastern country per decade (compared to the current 2-3). That is a goal which is Specific, Measurable, Achievable/Realistic, and Targeted to address the source of the problem.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Nov 16, 2015

- sigh -

Talk of power vacuums, Libya, not being a recruiting tool. Getting warmer. Yes, warmer. Keep going...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Can Calhan Nov 16, 2015

First the ideology should be eradicated. As long as some Muslim states, Muslim organisations, and Muslim institutions promote the ideology, it is less likely to eradicate jihadist organisations. For the time being it is important to physically eradicate ISIS. However, as long as the ideology is not eradicated, tomorrow another one will emerge. The matter of the fact, the potential ideology of ISIS had already existed, although it appears to be more brutal than others.
One of the effective and realistic solution is all countries, institutions and organisations are victims of the ideology have to discuss, criticise, and negotiate the issue with Muslim states, Muslim institutions and Muslim organisations have been supporting this ideology, militarily, financially, institutionally and ideologically. Everyone should show his/her cards holding in the hand. It must be clear the game is over.

The second effective solution is; It is the first duty of Muslim States and Muslim Organisations (have been claiming that ISIS or DAESH doesn’t represent the true Islam) to organise demonstrations condemning ISIS and similar jihadists organisations in the strongest term for what they have been doing. It is not enough to say “sorry”.
Muslim Organisations, institutions and Muslim states claim to be "against" Salafi Sunni ideology are playing a game of hypocrisy. Whenever they are convinced that Islam and/or Prophet is being insulted, they take the street to condemn, in the strongest and most effective term. Not following the same active, determined and effective way of condemnation and critics they don't generate the antidote of ideology.
It is expected from Islamic World and Muslim Organisations to act in same way they had immediately acted by going in to streets to condemn the action they considered offending Islam or Prophet in the past. By doing it, as they would undermine the ISIS and other jihadist organisations, they would at the same time clearly demonstrate who truly represents the Islam.

In this case the legitimate question is: Are Muslim Countries and Muslim Organisations not convinced that ISIS, (which has been raping, enslaving, beheading, burying humans alive, throwing people down from building, and blowing people up), doesn’t offend the Islam enough to take over expected responsibility?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 16, 2015

The money, one should go after the source of the money…The drugs, oil and arms sales, the smuggling of refugees (human trade) and certain commodities. Once one cuts-off their source of funding, one cuts-off their life support machine. It is important to mention though, that if one goes after the source of the money, one might be in for a big chock as well, since this may very well expose the true parties that are actually involved (benefiting) from these conflicts / trades.
- M M Nov 16, 2015
  
  Yes and some others are actually much closer to home. I just read the statement made by Putin today after the G20 meeting. He confirms exactly my earlier comment herein.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- hari naidu Nov 16, 2015
  
  @ MM
  You mean the Saudi's!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Max Isert Nov 16, 2015

You make good points Mr. Haass, this is how I see the situation. A comment of mine from another Project Syndicate article: '' I wrote/commented the following weeks ago here on Project Syndicate: ''Max Isert SEP 30, 2015

What I do not understand is, where NATO is in all of this? If there ever was a case for Article 5, this ''Immigration Invasion'' is one, in my humble opinion.

If there ever was a need for Collective Defence, it is now. Granted this ''Immigration Invasion'', is not an armed attack, yet, but I think it is just a matter of time until it will be.'' - http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/european-solidarity-refugee-crisis-by-joschka-fischer-2015-09

Use NATO forces now, to secure the borders of Europe. Do Not send them to the Middle East. Keep bombarding ISIL from the air and keep supporting the Kurds in the struggle against the extremists, but do not send European troops to the Middle East. I repeat, use NATO troops to lock down Europe and make it the ''Fortress Europa'' now, secure the Schengen area with these troops, patrol the waters in the Mediterranean. Stop the Islamic Immigration Invasion into Europe! This is the only way to stop attacks like this from happening again, and to prevent Europe from collapsing, economically as well as politically.''
Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-attacks-war-with-islamic-state-by-dominique-moisi-2015-11#oHIXsk82GGCV25UX.99
- David Morgan Nov 16, 2015
  
  I agree that we need to defend European borders, as the numbers of Muslims in Europe will exponentially increase with the bringing over of their families and the non use of contraceptives. If we send a European army to fight ISIS we will be feeding into their crusader myth. The Middle East is an Islamic problem which needs an Islamic solution. As a last resort, we do have thermnucear weapons.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Nov 16, 2015

Amazing what this (GOP) hawk is writing after Paris tragedy....
Rhetoric without policy impact or substance. What he refuses to acknowledge is that US policy from Viet Nam to Iraq & Afghanistan is responsible for *war on terror*, as defined by his former boss in WH (GWB).
If he can't decipher the decline of US power, after Paris, I pity him.
- hari naidu Nov 16, 2015
  
  @ Jerry Hough
  I'm a Bay Area graduate long before you're born - ie. Ike's days!
  I know bloody well what I am saying & why. And your GOP candidates will never see the light out of the tunnel - before they are demolished.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jerry hough Nov 16, 2015
  
  Hari Naidu: You are writing about American politics without knowing what you are talking about. The highly probable nominee and next President is John Kasich, conceivably Chris Christie. You have no idea what either's policy will be or whom either will choose as Secretary of State or national security adviser, but they are moderates and so is Haass. With such people, you need to read words and what is said between the words with extreme care.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.