After the Paris attacks, will the US and other governments increase their attacks on ISIS? Reuters.

A seagull flies by French troops patrolling near the Eiffel Tower. Reuters. 

After the devastating Paris terror attacks pressure is growing for a more robust response to the Islamic State. Reuters. The US led air war has not contained the terrorist state as it is now expanding its operations to include attacks outside the Middle East. In addition to the attacks in Paris, ISIS has recently bombed Shiite Muslims in Lebanon and blew up a Russian airliner in Egypt. In the past the organization focused on local attacks. France is expected to step up their contributions to the air war. Their only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is already on its way to the Persian Gulf, where it was originally replacing a US carrier. Other allies, including Arab ones, may deploy special forces into Syria and/or Iraq and increase their airstrikes as well. It is unknown if the UK will step up their air campaign due to resistance in their parliament. It is also now possible that the de-facto ISIS capital, Raqqa, may come under bombardment. Until now, the US has largely ignored the city due to fears of civilian casualties. 

My Comment:

I'd like to believe that this attack in France would change things. But experience tells me that it probably won't. If nothing happened after the attacks in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon, I am guessing the attack in France won't change much either. Sure, there may be some larger scale airstrikes, and the French are going to step up their attacks, but I've said many times that air power alone can't win the war against ISIS. What is needed is a ground army. And there isn't one available. 

We aren't going to deploy major forces to Syria or Iraq. Even our small special forces deployment in Syria won't do much and our deployments to assist the Iraqis and the Kurds have been largely useless as well. What is needed are soldiers. Nobody in Europe is going to deploy their troops, and we aren't either. The Iraqi army has been destroyed, Syria's is stuck fighting the rebels and al-Qaeda, and the Kurds have little reason to expand outside of their homelands. The Arab states are bogged down in Yemen and Turkey has it's own insurgency to worry about. And the Russians aren't going to help all that much either because they are limited by the same thing we are. The effectiveness of air power. 

And even if we were able to find some army willing to fight, where would we deploy them? Just Iraq? Then ISIS would be safe in Syria. Deploy to Syria too? Ok, what about Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria, since they all have ISIS or ISIS affiliates fighting there as well? And even if we go into all those countries and rout ISIS, how will that stop the ISIS operatives that are already in Europe or America? 

We can fight ISIS across the world, but it doesn't change the fact that ISIS is more then a terror organization. They are a death cult, and they are seeking to end the world by setting off the Muslim version of Armageddon. Even if we destroy their caliphate, and leave their organization in ashes, they will still have followers. ISIS is inspiring tens of thousands, perhaps even millions, who will hold onto their beliefs even after ISIS is defeated. They are raising a generation of young men who think that the best thing they can do is bring on the end of the world. This is a generational war, and a few airstrikes won't fix the problem. At this point the cancer has spread so far that I am not sure if anything will work. 

The question now becomes how much damage ISIS will do in the near future. With the bombmaker still on the loose, as far as I know, there is an extreme danger of a follow up attack in France. And there will be those who will look at this attack as inspiration and will carry out their own attacks. These attacks, with knives, axes and occasionally guns, will not be nearly as effective as the first attacks were. But much like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, people will still try. Sometimes they will fail, like the attack at the free speech event in Texas. Sometimes they won't. Either way, look for more violence in the future. 

There is some worry that the perpetrators of this attack in Paris came into Europe along with the massive flood of refugees. I tend to believe that is true, given the huge numbers of people coming in the Europe right now. There is very little chance that all of the people coming to Europe are innocent civilians. ISIS is with them, along with members of other radical groups. It's a huge security threat, but it's too late to do something about it. Even massive deportations wouldn't catch them all. And even if the tide of refugees and migrants is turned, there is still going to be a brand new population of Muslims in Europe, ripe for recruitment. My guess is that these refugees are going to be unhappy, if not for Europe not quite being the paradise they were promised, then for the inevitable right wing backlash that is for sure coming after this attack and the ones that will happen in the future.

So what can America do? The obvious solution, to quote Donald Trump, is to bomb the shit out of ISIS. That's not a long term solution, but it would be emotionally satisfying. We could also work a lot closer with Russia. Though they have largely targeted the rebels in Syria, they have as much reason to be angry as France does. They lost more then 200 of their own to ISIS during that plane bombing in Egypt. Though we don't have the same goals in Syria, we both want to see ISIS destroyed. It's time to stop playing politics with Putin and put aside our differences. Obama is going to have to swallow his pride and work with Russia. 

We can also make sure that we aren't having the immigration problems that Europe is having. Though the left in America is bound and determined to take in Syrian refugees, we can stop doing that. Unlike Europe, there is no way for the migrants to get here except if we let them in. Why risk it at this point? We can also take steps to make sure our Muslim population is non-radicalized and happy. For the most part they are, and we should recognize that our Muslims are much less of a risk then Europe's. That isn't to say that there aren't dangerous elements here, but the threat here is a lot less severe. We can still respect their civil liberties. Europe might not be so lucky.

Speaking of civil liberties, I think it is about time that Europe did a complete overhaul of their gun laws. Despite strict gun control in many of their countries, the terrorists don't seem to have a problem getting fully automatic firearms and explosives. Meanwhile, the average European citizen has nothing but harsh language to use in one of these mass shootings. At least in America there is a chance that a civilian can either stop an attack cold by returning fire, or can buy time for police or the military to arrive by using a concealed firearm. My advice to Europe is to seriously consider legalizing concealed carry. They might not have to go as far as the United States has (though that would probably be the best option), but not allowing their citizens to defend themselves does not make any sense whatsoever at this point. 

Finally, I don't think this war against ISIS ends unless we deploy massive armies into Syria and Iraq, and to anywhere else ISIS holds territory. I've already explained that nobody wants to take that option, but what else can be done? Sooner or later someone will have to take the war to ISIS. At this point, sooner is better. In a perfect world, the United States, Europe, Russia and the Arab States would all deploy forces, but in our world, only token deployments and airstrikes will happen. At least until the next terrorist attack...