Posted on 11/17/2015 3:33:25 AM PST by markomalley
A series of deadly terrorist attacks last week has editorial boards in the United States scrambling for answers and solutions to an increasingly terrifying problem.
Islamic State-affiliated terrorists attacked Paris last Friday, killing 129 and wounding hundreds more. That same week, terrorists with ties to ISIS set off bombs in Beirut, killing 37 and injuring 181.
Before that, a Russian jetliner was downed over the Sinai Peninsula, killing more than 220 passengers, and many suspect ISIS is responsible for that as well.
For the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, the answer to the rise of ISIS is an increased resolve within the military and intelligence communities to stamp out the insurgent terrorist group. For the New York Times, the Chicago-sun Times and the Los Angeles Times, it means guarding against succumbing to anti-Muslim sentiment.
The Washington Post's editorial took another approach, and warned against the danger of Americans elevating 2016 GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson to the Oval Office.
Of these major newspapers, the New York Times and the Chicago-Sun Times were the only ones to hold off on criticizing President Obama's strategy to "contain" ISIS.
"The sort of attacks the Islamic State, or ISIS, has launched are hard to anticipate or prevent, yet in Europe each one intensifies the raucous xenophobia of far Âright nationalists ever ready to demonize Muslim citizens, immigrants and refugees, and shut down Europe's open internal borders," the New York Times' editorial board said this weekend, warning about possible anti-Muslim blowback.
"The Islamic State must be crushed, but that requires patience, determination and the coordination of strategies and goals that has been sorely lacking among countries involved in the war on ISIS, especially the United States and Russia," the Times added.
The board also said in non-specific terms that all countries must take greater precautions to protect against ISIS.
"The attacks in Paris sent a major shockwave around the world, and the Beirut bombings and the downing of the Russian civilian jetliner were every bit as horrific. ISIS has demonstrated that there is no limit to its reach, and no nation is really safe until they all come together to defeat this scourge," the editorial board added.
Halfway across the country, the Chicago-Sun Times also warned against anti-Muslim sentiment in the wake of the Paris slaughter.
"The entire civilized world is infuriated and fed-up. We want nothing more than to strike back at such savagery — and we will," they wrote, adding that they hope anti-Muslim sentiments quiet down "once the heat of the moment has cooled."
"Every terrorist attack is a reminder of precious values to be defended at all costs," it added.
On the West Coast, the Los Angeles Times worried that the attack last week in Paris would lead to hasty changes regarding the United States' policy of accepting refugees who have fled the horrors of ISIS and the Syrian civil war.
"Horrific as Friday's attacks were, they shouldn't lead to a sudden, reactive lurch in U.S. policy," the newspaper's editorial board said.
"That doesn't mean that the U.S. and its allies shouldn't continue to search for ways to recalibrate the current campaign against Islamic State to make it more effective. A new strategy may also require increased vigilance about the infiltration of potential terrorists," it added.
Like the New York Times and the Chicago-Sun Times, the L.A.-based newspaper also warned against anti-Muslim blowback.
"[It] mustn't lead to the scapegoating of refugees who in many cases are fleeing Islamic State. Not for the first time, a small but determined group of terrorists has been able to exploit the openness of Western society to commit murder and mayhem on a monstrous scale," the L.A. Times added. "Nations such as France and the United States need to find a way to respond to that asymmetric threat without curtailing civil liberties or closing their borders."
At USA Today, the tone was a bit different, as the Virginia-based newspaper talked less of compassion and understanding and more of the need for a military response.
"This is a war in which civilians are on the front lines," the newspaper's editorial board said. "It is a war in which it is impossible to protect every 'soft target,' so the international community must take the fight to the enemy, which has established strongholds in Syria and Iraq."
The paper then took a direct shot at President Obama's oft-repeated vow to "contain" ISIS as a global threat.
"It is a war that is likely to be long, and it will be hard to know when it is over. Surrender won't come at a courthouse or on a battleship. It is a war in which there is nothing to negotiate. There are no territorial lines to discuss, no acceptable political compromises. The enemy must be destroyed, using the full array of military, economic and intelligence means. It is a war in which the path to victory will be erratic," they added. "It is a war of modernity against medievalism, of civilization against barbarity."
The Wall Street Journal echoed that call and demanded a renewed resolve worldwide to combat terrorism.
"On Friday, France's freedom of association was under assault, a fresh reminder that what's ultimately at stake isn't French Middle East policy. It's French liberty. What's needed now is a renewed sense of purpose to destroy the barbarians at the gate," they wrote.
Like other editorial boards, the Wall Street Journal is also deeply unimpressed with President Obama's strategy for dealing with the ISIS "infection."
"These attacks are another dreadful reminder that the West's collective failure swiftly to defeat ISIS in its Syrian and Iraqi heartland has allowed this jihadist infection to spread — into Afghanistan, Turkey, Sinai and North Africa," the wrote.
The Washington Post's editorial board took an entirely different approach, and warned of the dangers of Americans choosing as president someone who is wholly unsuited to deal with the threat of international terrorism.
"[W]e hope that Americans — beginning with Republican and Democratic voters in Iowa — learn a particular lesson from this horror. The world is a frighteningly dangerous place, and it should be unthinkable to install as leader of the free world a demagogic carnival barker, or a clueless-on-policy neurosurgeon, or for that matter any politician who thinks the United States can just withdraw from the world and wish its problems away. The United States needs a leader who will recommit to a principled but determined fight for freedom — at home, in Europe and around the world," the Post's editorial board said.
But they also dinged Obama's to-date strategy to "degrade and destroy" and to "contain ISIS."
"[W]hat can containment mean in a war such as this?" they asked.
To assign blame or find base causes, would be to call into question the faith placed in the Current Regime now squatting in the White Hut.
Everybody knows it was ALWAYS “Bush’s fault”. But that excuse is running a little thin after seven years. SOME of it has to be generated or at least severely exacerbated in the intervening period. If these people had been so almighty smart, they would have found a path back to normal relations throughout the world by now.
Instead we have the blind leading the halt and lame. Great for the entertainment factor, but a little hard to deal with in the real world.
Hint to the Current Regime - Iran is not your friend. No matter what Valerie Jarrett whispers in your ear.
Here we go again with “we mustn’t offend the muslims.” The brains of these damned people are not wired to understand reality.
Outlaw Islam
Expel all Muslims
Stop all aid to Muslim lands
Good thing there was no anti-German or anti-Japanese sentiment in World War II.
You must tolerate massacres to promote the agenda.
Pray America wakes
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names - Confucius.
Could there be a more profound assertion of incompetence?
"This is a war in which civilians are on the front lines," the newspaper's editorial board said. "It is a war in which it is impossible to protect every 'soft target,' so the international community must take the fight to the enemy, which has established strongholds in Syria and Iraq."
The paper then took a direct shot at President Obama's oft-repeated vow to "contain" ISIS as a global threat.
~~ Obama's Epitaph ~~Nov 13, 2015, On Friday morning, just hours before Paris turned into ground zero, Obama declared on ABC's "Good Morning America" that ISIS (ISIL, whatever) was not gaining ground and that the US military "has contained" it.
Civilians are on the front lines, so.............
The only solution is the personally-owned and CARRIED handgun available to all and carried by ANYONE at ALL TIMES.
(Glorybee, we can’t DOOO that?!?)
Exactly! Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!
That means you too, Obama.
When a civilization reaches a high enough degree of technology and comfort, a percentage of people living in that society are able to divorce themselves from reality without consequence to their own lives. These people are called Liberals.
They need to employ full-time Apologists. I hear Baghdad Bob is looking for work. And if he’s not available because he’s dead or something, CAIR always has a good pool of spin doctors. And then there’s Dan Rather and Brian Williams and Chris “Tingles” Matthews ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
