During the Paris attacks, I sat helplessly watching on social media as people that could have been me, my wife or my son were slaughtered ruthlessly. I was up late that night doing what little I could to help, and getting more and more angry.
The next morning I hammered out a piece that ran that afternoon in US News & World Report.
The piece takes issue with President Obama’s take on the attacks. After all, if Paris was “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share” it would never have happened. Only because some of humanity does NOT share Western values did Islamist murderers think they were doing the Prophet’s work by killing more innocents.
It goes further, suggesting a series of policy changes aimed at making the U.S. homeland safer. One of them was to “Stop chain migration that immigration forces dub “family reunification”” – including restricting the K-1 visa that Tashfeen Malik had used to enter the country. Another was to “Follow the lead of then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who once proposed eliminating citizenship for those who join foreign terror organizations” – as Tashfeen Malik allegedly did moments before the San Bernardino strike.
Neither change would have prevented San Bernardino, but that attack proved they were directionally correct.
Unfortunately, Congress has passed its Omnibus including only a modest attempt at reforming the visa waiver program. And that was after San Bernardino, with 20-20 hindsight.
Worse, many seem to be digging in on the side of the jihadis, focusing on limiting speech rather than on stemming the avalanche of global violence political Islam has precipitated.
The Cold War was a long war, and the war against the Global Jihad Movement appears to be one as well. And just as in the Cold War, we’ll have the blame-America-first crowd – in this case watching what you say more closely than what the terrorists do.