Focus

Thousands of words have already been written and said responding to the terrorist attacks in Paris, for which the group known as ISIL and a half dozen other names has claimed responsibility.

But going forward, I find this essay in Newsweek to be the most sensible and comprehensive.

Despite whatever historical precedents and causes, or more recent policies and outcome that might have contributed, there appear to be two new elements in this attack.  First, that ISIL is engaging in terrorist attacks outside the Middle Eastern territories it claims for itself.  Second, the nature of those attacks--small arms used in unguarded public places to maximize casualties--so-called soft targets.

The sensible response is to quickly develop and/or deploy strategies to deal with these changes. This may well involve public debate over policies and proposals, but as Kurt Eichenwald notes, strength lies in unity.  He notes that terrorists closely observe political responses, and suggests that making the terrorist attacks in the Benghazi a partisan political issue, especially without foundation, conveys an inability to seriously develop and deploy a unified response.

The difference is the political attacks that tend to de-legitimize the national leadership, adding to confusion and fear.  Sure enough, as he points out, rabid right Republicans were quick to do so, attacking President Obama for what happened in France.

But according to news reports, the nature of attacks by two of the Democratic candidates against the frontrunner in Saturday's debate were too close to being of the same type.  Instead of discussing the way forward for the nation, there were attacks on past votes and policies.  At this moment, when Americans are looking for leadership, such attacks are dispiriting and inappropriate.  Disagree with proposals for action, certainly.  But political sniping misreads the moment and damages everyone.

This is especially true when everyone knows that Secretary Clinton is the person most likely to be elected President of the United States in a year's time.  It's not that she can't be politically opposed.  But it is her proposals that are to be debated, and the proposals of others, especially on the response to terrorist acts and threats.
We need that level of focus and seriousness, particularly when the Republican candidates' "proposals" vary from ignorant bluster to more sophisticated warmongering.

Senator Sanders was certainly correct, however mockingly the question was meant, that the climate crisis is the most serious problem facing the world, in part because it is a source of conflict and chaos that leads to war and terrorism, including much that is going on right now.  That needs to be kept in mind, because this terrorist act does not diminish the urgency for what nations will gather to do in a few weeks, in Paris.