Yes, the cycles of warfare and despotism in the Middle East have been a breeding ground for beliefs that motivate people to do horrible deeds. But no one seems to have the knowledge or will to take the steps needed to pacify and establish legitimate governments in the region.

Yes, many of the nation’s Governors have warned, and Federal authorities know, resettling refugees from war-torn regions to the United States is risky. But traditions, laws, and humanitarian instincts, here and elsewhere, mean that restrictive immigration policies are not likely to get very far, no matter how much anxious publics want them.

In any case, such policies would create a false sense of security. For the attacks in Paris, as well as those recently in the United States, were largely the work of home-grown extremists, legal residents, part of the societies in which they lived. However, they used the liberal values these countries embrace – freedom of speech, religion, privacy rights, and the like – to pursue decidedly illiberal ends.

Neither military action abroad nor tougher immigration rules at home will prevent that. If they want to avoid a repeat of what happened in Paris, the United States, France and other countries will once again have to confront the challenge of deciding how much freedom more security is worth.

Sources

Bret Stephens, “The Islamist Tantrum,” The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2015.

Michael Schmidt et. al., “ U. S. Investigators Struggle to Track Homegrown ISIS Suspects,” The New York Times, November 19, 2015.

The publication in “Charlie Hebdo” of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed raises issues beyond free speech. The violent murder of staff at “Charlie Hebdo” is rightly condemned.

These events in Paris raise the issue of the power of words. Words and images can hurt, insult and deeply offend. They are sometimes powerful in the feelings they evoke. But that is the point—they evoke feelings but do not harm the way physical assault does.

Words and images arise from thoughts and feelings that will not go away because we try to outlaw their use. Banning words and images does not work any better than banning thoughts.

As I’ve said, some words and images evoke very strong negative reactions in others. This means that I should not say everything I may think or feel. Self-restraint in my expression is important in family life as well as in the Public Square.

Of course, there will always be those who will not or cannot resist saying offensive and hurtful things. When this happens the perpetrator should be subject to harsh social, but not legal, sanction.

Some say certain words should be banned in public because they give extreme offense or may incite violence. The power of such words is actually reduced if we realize that we will sometimes feel offended in life but that we do not have to react with violent action. This realization reduces the power of the words and enhances our sense of personal power and control. Once we realize this then we can again say “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.”

Senator Richard Russell once observed: “If we can go anywhere and do anything, we’ll be going everywhere and doing everything.” What mission do hawks propose: Invade Iran, a nation of 70 million? Fight in Ukraine, on the border of Russia? Join an increasingly militarist Japan to fight China over disputed islands that are bits of rock? Put American ground troops in the middle of Africa’s tragic civil wars?

If we have learned anything from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is that hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and massively superior military hardware often fail to produce a favorable long term political solution. In 2011, the United States spent more on the military than the next 13 countries combined, and 20 times more than we spent on diplomacy. We maintain nuclear forces of apocalyptic destructiveness. The military and the CIA are deploying drones and developing offensive cyberwar.

A rethink is long overdue. Today’s global problems—from terrorism to inequality to climate change—will be solved by cooperation or not at all. We need to work with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals, with China to combat global warming, and with Iran for Middle East peace. Saber rattling on behalf of the military industrial complex is archaic and dangerous.

Sources

U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending (Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

“America’s Orphaned Diplomacy” (Foreign Policy In Focus)

Former Senator Sam Nunn, in a conversation with former Senator Richard Lugar, moderated by Steve Inskeep. University of Indianapolis, February 25, 2014.

National Intelligence director, James Clapper, testified last month that in his 50-year career in intelligence, he had not “experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”

Yet, in its new budget, the Obama Administration is proposing deep cuts in defense spending. Not since before World War 2 will the Army be as small. The number of Navy ships will drop to World War 1 levels. The Air Force is slated to lose several aircraft, including the famous spy plane, the U-2.

Congress is unlikely to approve all these proposals. But with the world in such a mess, why are they even being considered?

The across-the-board spending cuts Congress enacted in 2012, when it could not agree on how to trim the Federal budget, are one reason. While many worried about their impact on social programs and public services, defense programs were targeted for half the reductions. The results are now evident.

In addition, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates notes in his memoir, Duty, the military itself has long resisted modernizing its forces. The President and his staff, he also writes, have little background or interest in defense policy. Other than as a source of money for their districts, neither do many members of Congress. The result: sharp cutbacks.

Nonetheless, the world is still a dangerous place. And if the United States is not prepared to respond to crises, who will be?

Sources

“Worldwide Threat Assessment to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence” (Office of the Director of National Intelligence)

“Winners, Losers in Pentagon’s New Budget” (NBC News)

Gates, Robert M. Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War. (Knopf, 2014)