One of the first things you learn in law school is that, when analyzing a problem, you must first identify the issue. While there are points awarded for identifying "an" issue, or "some issues," the result of your analysis is almost entirely dependent on identifying "the" issue. "The" issue is the single, overarching factor either fueling the problem or upon which its resolution is dependent. If you fail to identify and negotiate this one issue, your analysis will fail. If your analysis fails, then you will construct a failing strategy for resolving the problem.
It is true that many problems are complex. They require the identification of multiple issues and it is sometimes very difficult to determine which issue is "the" issue and which issues, while important to your analysis, are not the fulcrum upon which your analysis hinges. It is the responsibility of the analyst to sift through those issues, discarding those that are largely unimportant and narrowing them down to a manageable handful. From that handful, theories are tested, additional factual information may be requested, and additional data may be analyzed. Once the issue has been identified, the other issues seem to fall into place like so many building blocks. You can then build a successful strategy.
Or you can miss the point altogether. You can believe that a massive, militarized assault on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi was because of an "inflammatory" film. You can believe that the assassinations and killing spree in Paris last week was because of "offensive cartoons." You can believe that jihadism is because of poverty, or something Israel has done, or American imperialism.
Another common error is to outright ignore the issue. People who ignore the issue tend to do so out of a deep sense of discomfort with the required resolution. For some, admitting that something is in fact the issue may shake the very foundations of their belief systems. We've all known someone who is willing to admit that they have a problem, but then refuses to look at the obvious cause of that problem. For that person, the problem usually continues to grow until resolving it becomes so unpalatable that hopelessness sets in. In the case of national policy, the result is catastrophic.
The attacks in Paris this week should not come as a surprise. After 9/11, most serious analysts believed that it was only a matter of time before Jihadis would sneak into the country, smuggle some weapons, and start shooting. Massive attacks are hard to plan and execute. There are many moving parts and the plot is more easily discovered. Smaller attacks are much easier to execute, require little planning, and have a devastating impact on modern western communities. In Boston, for example, one of our nation's largest cities was virtually shut down for days following the marathon bombing. Two young men with a backpack wrought havoc, took lives, cost individuals and businesses millions in lost productivity, and damaged our collective psyche. Last week, four individuals with guns shut down Paris, one of the largest cities in the world. The city is still on high alert. When you look at our response to these kinds of attacks, you would think that we were under siege from an organized army. They are very effective.
These attacks are, in part, the result of decades of poor analysis and poor execution. Even now, in the aftermath of these attacks, and with the promise of more to come, many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge the central component, common in all of the attackers. They follow a particularly violent sect of Islam. That is the issue. It is not poverty. Many impoverished peoples do not export terrorism. It is not Israel. Many nations hate Israel and do not export terrorism. It is not mocking. Many groups are publicly mocked and do not export terrorism. It is not American imperialism. Many nations have felt the brunt of American power and do not export terrorism. These are excuses, used by the Jihadis and their apologists to obfuscate the real goal, which is the extermination of all those who do not follow their religious doctrine.
These men and women do not fear death. They recruit others who have given up on life, or who also do not fear death. There is a sense of safety and invincibility in numbers. They congregate in groups and those who are least afraid of death bolster the faith of those less resolved. They use coercion and fear to force others to at least remain neutral in the fight, and they have no compunction about policing their own ranks for non-believers.
There is only one realistic strategy for dealing with such fanatics. Since they cannot be deterred, they must be killed. Most people agree with this. But, there is another obvious component to this strategy. We must first find them and for that, we require the help of other Islamic nations. This is where we have truly failed.
After every attack, the chorus of apologists begin their chants. "Islam is a peaceful religion." "Muslims are a peaceful people." "We should not brand all muslims as terrorists." "We cannot blame the innocent muslims for the actions of a few radicals." And all of this is true, but ultimately irrelevant. Muslims are a peaceful people, but some are not. Not all muslims are terrorists, but some are. Some sects of Islam are peaceful, some are not. But, what we cannot ignore is the simple fact that almost all of the organized terrorist attacks against the west over the last thirty years have been perpetrated by muslims claiming to do so because of their faith. It is an uncomfortable truth, but we ignore it to our peril.
Because of that, muslim nations have a unique responsibility to condemn and thwart attacks. Many of these radicals have been funded over the years by our so called "allies" in the middle east. The Wahhabi sect of Islam, from which many of these terrorists draw inspiration, was founded in Saudi Arabia and has been financially supported by the Saudi royal family. They have done so more out of a sense of self preservation than ideology, but they bear significant responsibility for the problem. The Taliban was given significant financial and military support from Pakistan, making it possible for Al Qaeda and other groups to thrive. Iran, of course, is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. When muslim nations stand by and fail to capture or kill the Jihadis in their midst, the responsibility falls to the victim nations to do so. The western powers then invade, we meet resistance, resistance turns into resentment, which turns into more radicalization, which perpetuates a vicious cycle. Of course, since we are only engaged in a "limited war" with these "terrorist safe havens," we never entirely defeat the ideology or its supporters. They regroup and we do the whole thing again in ten years. Mission failed.
We are headed toward an inevitable conflagration in the middle east. It really is only a matter of time before the serpent that these "peaceful muslim nations" so carefully hold turns and bites. Whether it's ISIS or some other group, the radical islamists are better organized and have greater resolve than these peaceful nations that would rather not get involved.
As for the west, we are probably at a crossroads. The Paris attacks likely signal a shift in emphasis from the massive 9/11 style attacks to lower intensity attacks designed to disrupt the everyday lives of as many people as possible. Soft targets like shopping malls, schools and office buildings will be the most likely targets. However, what the muslim nations of the world should recognize is, we Americans will be far more likely to project power indiscriminately when our families are being attacked. For example, one month after 9/11, Gallop reported that 34% of Americans favored the use of nuclear weapons against terrorist facilities. I am not advocating nuclear war, but I do think it is worth pointing out that, if enough of our children begin to die in low intensity attacks, our nation may become less restrained. "Hearts and minds" may no longer be a strategy that is tolerated.
Part of good leadership is calling out poor performance and misconduct. It is incumbent on muslim leaders to call out the radicals in their midst and hold them to account. It is incumbent on the western nations to call out our supposed allies in the middle east for funding and ignoring these radicals. If we refuse to accept that this is the issue, then the road to war will be short and brutal.
