The editors of the Wall Street Journal have addressed the Orlando tragedy in two
editorials; one just hours after the event, the other the next day. They
quickly jumped to the conclusion that it was an act of Jihad, thus titled the
June 13, 2016 editorial “Jihad in Orlando ” and
gave it the subtitle: “Islamic State appears to have struck the U.S. homeland
again”.
Even though enough information was available the next day as
to the complexity of what happened, the editors did not correct themselves.
Instead, they built on the fallacy they had perpetrated the day before, and
titled the second editorial: “America Deserves Better,” followed by the
subtitle: “Neither Trump nor Clinton
are rising to the Islamic State threat.” It was published on June 14, 2016.
While calling on the political class – especially those
running to be president – to come up with solutions, the editors of the Journal
let it be known they favor two courses of action based on the vision they have
of what's happening. Domestically, they want to see the widespread use of
surveillance and entrapment. Internationally, they want to see robust military
action aimed at the destruction of the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
First, let's address the matter of entrapment. The
information that's now coming to light is to the effect that for a decade or
so, the individual responsible for the Orlando
tragedy was a regular patron of the bar where he committed the violence. There
is no indication yet that he was anything other than heterosexual, but whether
or not he was bisexual or otherwise, to have turned against a place that's
familiar to him is reminiscent of other incidents of mass-shootings in America .
From Colombine to Fort Hood, to Orlando, the mass shootings
that have occurred in a schoolyard, a university campus, a movie theater, a
military base, a Christmas party and a gay nightclub – all have the common
element that their perpetrators were homegrown terrorists who decided to kill
the people with whom they were familiar in the places that they knew best … and
for which they must have developed a most intense antipathy.
So the question that comes to mind is this: How many of
these mass-shooters would have been caught by the method of entrapment? The
answer is one at best. It would be the Fort
Hood individual who shouted “allahu
Akbar” because he wanted to communicate he was avenging America 's
killing of “his people” and meant it. As to the Orlando shooter, it was reported that he went
out of his way in trying to establish a link between himself and the Islamic
Caliphate, but sounded more like a publicity seeking nutcase than a gay Muslim
who suddenly discovered religion and decided to kill in its name. All the other
shooters had nothing to motivate them but the bad relation they developed with
their environment.
Another thing we should keep in mind is that when you start
a trend, there is no telling where it will end. In fact, everything that was
started – and whose declared purpose was to protect America
from foreigners or foreign-inspired Americans – turned out to have harmed America more
than protect it from foreigners. The massive surveillance apparatus that was
created for the purpose is one such example. In short, if they start entrapping
people they'll catch no Muslim trying to harm America
anymore than they did under Operation Abscam, but they'll catch Jews galore
trying to embezzle America
or sell its military secrets to its enemies or sell its commercial secrets to
its economic rivals. That is just the reality of things in America today.
We now address the matter of military action abroad. Since
the heroic engagements that America
undertook during the Second World War in both Europe and the Pacific, there
seems to have been only one military action that America took legitimately
subsequent to that time, and achieved the desired goal. That would be the first
Gulf War in which America
was invited by the Arab League to chase the Iraqi army of occupation out of Kuwait , with the proviso of not toppling the
regime there, and America
completed the job successfully. With the regime in Iraq remaining intact, the result
was that the region enjoyed a long period of calm.
Later, another leader misbehaved, and there was pressure on
the Arab League to accept America 's
offer to intervene in Libya .
After a period of hesitation, the Arabs relented but placed the proviso of not
doing more than prevent Gaddafi from completely destroying the rebellious
faction that had risen against him. The Americans accepted the proviso but then
violated it by toppling the regime in Libya . The result was a mess as
horrifying as the one generated by the Second Gulf War when America went against the grain and toppled the
regime in Iraq .
Does this mean America must never again intervene
anywhere? No, it does not mean that. America will certainly intervene if
and when the homeland is harmed or threatened. It can also intervene when it is
invited by the nations of a region who might be threatened by someone too
powerful for them to beat back alone. And when it does, America must
neither go beyond the mandate set for it, nor topple a regime that no longer
poses a threat to the local population or the neighboring states.
Given these parameters, and in view of America 's unwanted involvement in the Middle
East and North Africa during the past few
decades, the country has the obligation to help clear up the mess it created in
many places. It must be ready to assist those who need training, temporary
American leadership, defensive weapons, communication and surveillance
equipment, or offensive weapons if and when it is absolutely necessary. This
will help the countries of the region deal with the military threat that is ISIS . As to the terrorist ideology, the countries of the
region know what to do to defeat it, and need no lesson from anyone.
As to America ,
it has nothing to fear from the military might of ISIS .
The problem is what to do with the ideology that's spreading among its young
population. The approach here should not be to waste time trying to undo what
was done. While coping the best it can with those who have been radicalized, America
must make sure that others will not follow in their footsteps. The way to do
this is to be vocal, very loud and very clear when repudiating the opportunistic
loose lips that slander the Arabs and/or the Muslims for the purpose of
provoking them.