On December 6, 2015, President Obama addressed the American public in the aftermath of the San Bernardino terrorist attack carried out by Tashfeen Malik and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook that killed 14 and wounded 21.

The President had much to say about what his administration was doing to protect against ISIS attacks, but what I found most important was what he had to say to the Muslim community in America:

“But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West,” was how President Obama characterized the actions of the shooters. The President added later that while all Americans must do a better job of eliminating anti-Muslim rhetoric, Muslim Americans must do more to address extremism in our communities.

To many Muslims like myself, it is clear that extremists prey on the vulnerable void created by identity politics. The radicalized are not all irrational actors with histories of mental illness. Nor, are they one-dimensional fundamentalists. Many are only one generation away from homelands still burning in violence – Somalia, Pakistan, the entire Middle East. They identify as Muslims, as a cultural identity, as a supra-national identity, irrespective of their level of piety or lack thereof.  These same young men and women see their fellow Muslims dying every day, but are unaware of the complicated local histories that have created the current maelstrom and Islam’s own complicated history and ideological diversity; yet they crave a greater understanding of their faith – their main identity marker.

This is what Islamist extremists, recruiters, and social media propagandists prey on when they peddle an oversimplified diatribe that the West is against Islam. These same young men and women want to help Muslims they see suffering around the world and many were attracted to ISIS because of its perceived opposition to the Assad regime, under whose watch approximately half the Syrian population has either been killed or fled the country as refugees.

Islamist groups like the British-born and subsequently banned al-Muhajiroun seek to start a political movement based on Islam but grounded in an anti-colonial, anti-western interpretation of events, past and present. A startling number of terror plots in the UK have been attributed to the group. Self-styled peaceful Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, however, espouse the same ideology. To some, they are a “conveyer belt” to jihadism. HT is also allegedly connected to the murders of secular bloggers in Bangladesh, and a lone wolf killing at a police station in Australia this past October carried out by a high school student. The group regularly holds pro-Khilafah (Islamic state or caliphate) conferences throughout the United States.

Worse, by conflating religion with politics, legitimate criticism of the latter is smeared as criticism of the former, creating a chilling effect on speech. This allows the unbalanced Muslim victimhood narrative to spread without pushback, even from Muslims. 

Yet, Islamist violence continues. While a complete picture of Tashfeen Malik, remains under investigation, her connections to extremism are apparent. Whether she was radicalized as student at al-Huda in Multan, Pakistan, as a visitor to the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad, or in a school in Saudi Arabia, Tashfeen became a victim to the same predatory message Islamism spreads without contest. Following the attack in San Bernardino, even some Muslim American organizations, when interviewed by local media, echoed that anti-Western trope by suggesting that the attack was the natural result of western foreign policy.

A true pro-Muslim response to San Bernardino would attempt to reconcile being American and being Muslim as two sides of the same coin, rather than treating this dual identity as a marriage between oil and water. More importantly, a pro-Muslim group would acknowledge the legitimate concerns, fears and anxieties of youth for the world they live in, and stress our duty as a community to create a path for them to channel these negative feelings toward positive non-violent actions for change.

One such movement that was actually born a day after the San Bernardino shootings is the Muslim Reform Movement, in which I participated. A declaration and a press conference followed the gathering.  The movement was featured in a segment on Meet the Press.  The Muslim Reform Movement hopes to build broader coalitions with a diverse Muslim American body that includes all sects, feminists, and others who acknowledge the complex issues within the faith, but want to remain a part of the community.

More can still be done. The broader American community has a duty to support that re-direction by being more responsible in their analysis of Islamist extremism. Give Islamist sympathizers less media time, and instead support the small grass-roots efforts of Muslims who want to push our communities towards a more peaceful, human rights oriented path. 

Call it l’année de la terreur. The coordinated ISIS assault on Paris November 13 marks a grisly continuation of the terror campaign that the French republic has endured this year. This campaign began in earnest in January with joint attacks on the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo and a kosher grocery store that killed 17 people. In August, a planned terror attack on a train from Amsterdam to Paris was prevented when unarmed passengers (including three Americans)  bravely charged at the heavily armed attacker and subdued him before the shooting spree could begin.  

This time France was not so fortunate and a massacre unfolded on the streets of Paris. The plan of attack was as sophisticated in its precision as it was lethal in effect. In its diffuse nature - six nearly simultaneous shootings and bombings and hostage-takings across the city - it has been compared to the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India. The number of casualties was staggering;129 dead and more than 350 wounded, ranking it as the largest terrorist attack in the West since the March 2004 Madrid bombings.

The immediate government response was to declare a state of emergency, reinforce the nation's borders and deploy armored military units throughout the capital. A curfew was imposed for the first time since Paris was under German occupation. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the City of Light was effectively, albeit briefly, under martial law. President Francois Hollande has proposed extending France’s emergency domestic security posture for three months.

Such extreme defensive measures are important in the short term in order to restore a sense of calm and control to a French citizenry reeling from shock and a sense of vulnerability. In the longer term, a robust response to the “root causes” of jihadist violence is long overdue. To be credible, any strategy must include at least two components: military force and ideological pressure. 

The French president has declared the random slaughter in Paris to be "an act of war," which it plainly is. Mr. Hollande also vowed to be “unforgiving with the barbarians,” as he ordered retaliatory airstrikes on ISIS’s de facto capital, Raqqa, Syria. Reportedly, at least six of the eight Paris attackers trained in Syria, including the alleged "mastermind," Belgian Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was killed in a November 18 police raid. 

Increased bombing raids, especially belatedly targeting assets like oil production that directly harm ISIS’s bottom line, are important. However, more than a year of mostly American airstrikes has barely managed to “contain” ISIS in its strategic heartland – let alone to diminish its global reach. The restrictive rules of engagement that have marked the anti-ISIS campaign, including the near-total prohibition on ground troops (even as tactical air controllers), must be reconsidered if ISIS is to be decisively deprived of its safe havens and the ability plot attacks and generate income.

President Hollande, in an address before the country’s Senate and National Assembly, outlined a series of potential measures to combat terror, including the ability to quickly expel foreigners and strip dual-nationals of their French nationality, which may require changing the French constitution.  He also proposed expanding executive powers without having to prolong the state of emergency indefinitely.

The other necessity is to prosecute the battle of ideas against militant Islamists, which is not only the job of governments. Political leaders should not be reluctant to identify the problem by its proper name. They should seriously engage civil society both in the West and in Muslim-majority countries and strengthen Muslim voices being raised, often with little support and at great personal risk, to resist the forces of medievalism in their own communities. For a proper “counter narrative” to take hold, the entrenched forces spreading intolerance and inciting violence on social media platforms must be challenged.

The murderous assault on November 13 in Paris reminds us that the essential precondition of liberté – to say nothing of égalité or fraternité – is sécurité. The Paris horrors should finally galvanize the world community around a strategy that can defeat ISIS both militarily and ideologically. Paris should not become the new normal, it should be the beginning of the end of ISIS.