The Attacks in Paris and California

The attacks by Muslims in Paris and California have had strong effects  on politics and public opinion. Perhaps the most beneficial effect is that more people realize the absurdity of the claim that Islam is no different from any other present day  religion in terms of violent aggression toward nonbelievers  and are willing to say so and to question the desirability of admitting large numbers of lower class,  un-Westernized, fundamentalist Muslims into this country.   Liberal, civilized societies are better off without large, cohesive, anti-assimilationist   minorities of people who reject liberal and civilized values on principle.  It may be that enough Americans are starting to accept that fact to cause  changes in the policies and activities of the  government.

The worst effect of the attacks is the overreaction  to them, particularly among politicians. The actions of Muslim fanatics in this country are often brutal and terrible, but, except for the attacks on September 11, 2001, they are also statistically insignificant in relation to the totality of violent crimes or the routine risks of life.  It is often  unclear whether foreign Islamic groups or governments had anything to do with causing or organizing the attacks. Yet people are scared and jumpy, and some politicians are calling for an invasion of Syria and a third invasion of Iraq.

Besides the issue  of whether what happened in California is sufficient reason to go to war even if we could find some foreign enemy to pin it on, there are the practical questions of whether such a war would do much or anything to make such attacks less likely and of whether it would have beneficial or harmful geopolitical results for the United States.   The last such venture was a disaster. It seems to me we should not risk a repetition without better reasons than we have seen so far.