ISIS visits NY

Yet another vehicular terror attack was visited upon the West, this time in New York City.

A radical Uzbekitani here on a "Diversity Visa" rented a truck and plowed through pedestrians and cyclists in lower Manhattan, killing 8 and injuring 15 while exclaiming "Allahu Akbar."

The attack provoked the usual empty words from leaders like New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio, "Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence."  Some see this as inspirational.   I see it as tepid and hackneyed and precisely the opposite of what should be said.  Our spirit SHOULD be moved by an act of violence.  A wanton act of violence DEMANDS that it be moved.  We should be roused to anger and firmness of purpose to do what needs to be done to protect our citizens from this savagery.  

President Donald Trump at least tweeted out his response which called for the stepping up of extreme vetting, to which foreign policy expert Richard Haas responded, "Potus call for extreme vetting irrelevant to radicalization via Internet; worse, his policies could add to likelihood of radicalization."

I take issue with Dr. Haass on two fronts.  First, while his first statement is technically true, we do not know how this terrorist was radicalized (in person or via Internet).  Second, his assertion that Trump's policies could add to the likelihood of radicalization has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.  This is the same rationalization that led Obama to conclude that the closing of Gitmo was required because it led to increased radicalization.  That thinking ultimately led to the release of unreformed terrorists and the ill-conceived Bowie Bergdahl swap.  As between the views of Dr. Haass (which contemplates no action) and President Trump (which responds with action), I come down on the side of action.  

But the reality is that Islamic terror remains a very, very difficult problem to solve.   Even my old professor, the usual clear eyed Daniel Pipes struggles with it.  He once stated that we need to permit Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. but not Islamists.  That is not a very helpful statement because it leaves unanswered the obvious question, "How do you tell the difference?"  And, to Dr. Haass's point, it does not address the issue of radicalization once they are here.

Unfortunately, the debate on social media seems to be binary; that is, between those that favor severely restricting or banning Muslim immigration, or the European model, which is a nearly free flow of Muslim immigrants, and accepting as London mayor Khan, that terror is now "part and parcel of daily life." 

Neither choice is a good one.   As with North Korea, we don't have good choices available to us at the moment.   A Muslim ban (which Trump has not suggested) is inconsistent with our core values of religious freedom and freedom from religious bigotry.  An open policy leaves us vulnerable to the kind of terror and social problems Muslim immigration has created in Europe.  The undeniable fact is that while we may wish to tolerate Islam, there are parts of Islam that are not yet fully prepared to reciprocate.

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to put together a commission of experts to address the problem.  That is one campaign promise that he has yet to fulfill.  We need to create realistic and concrete policy choices that help us reduce the risk of these attacks.   And accepting these attacks as "part and parcel" of modern life can't be one of them.

It needs to focus squarely on risk assessment and tolerance and empirical evidence and not brush it away with meaningless labels like Islamophobia.  No one, for instance, would decry a Catholic for having reservations about sending their 10 year old boy away on a woodlands religious retreat staffed with only Catholic priests and no other supervision.   No one would dismiss it by claiming, "Well, only a minority of priests engage in unseemly behavior."   Radical Islamic terrorism needs to be addressed in the same cold, sober light, without using labels such as "lone wolf," "Islamophobia," "Xenophobia" which serve generally only to cut off real factual analysis and risk assessment.