Brussels attacks: Is this the new normal?

With today’s terrorist attacks at the Brussels airport and metro station coming a little over four months after the attacks in Paris, the question that has to be asked is, “Is this the new normal?”

The answer of course is that we don’t know. But given the previous attacks in Europe and aimed at Europeans over the past two years (including the attack at the Jewish museum in Brussels, on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, at the Tunisian national museum, at the factory at Lyon, and on the beaches at the Tunisian resort site of Sousse), it may well be the case.

Europeans certainly hope not. Already, for safety’s sake, planes are being grounded, trains stopped at borders, and thousands of police and military are being deployed on the streets of Europe’s capitals. Europe’s goal is to be “whole and free.” But can it be “whole” when its internal borders are closing; and can it be “free” when it’s no longer safe?

Belgian police and emergency personnel work near the Maalbeek metro station following an explosion in Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2016. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler.

So, what’s to be done?

The first and most obvious step is to recognize that Belgium is a weak link in European security. Divided politically, ethnically, linguistically, and bureaucratically, it’s no surprise that Brussels was chosen as the base of operations for the Paris attackers and the cells that both hid them and carried out today’s attacks; they could operate much more effectively in and around Brussels than in Paris itself. Although French security and intelligence officials have felt overwhelmed the past two years in keeping track of 1,200 or so ISIS-inspired French nationals who have returned from Syria, French domestic intelligence and French counterterrorism capabilities are far superior to anything the Belgians can put on the street. Helping Belgium fix the gaps in its security system is a must.

Second, recognize that intelligence collection — human and technical — isn’t a luxury but a necessity. Privacy is an important right but so too are life and the liberty to live in a secure, peaceful state. If privacy is made into an absolute, as many in Europe seem to want, then Europe will need to live with the deadly consequences that terrorists are increasingly effective in hiding their plotting by “going dark.”

Finally, if this is “war,” as the President of France declared in the wake of the November terrorist attack, then Europe will need to act like it. That means taking the fight to ISIS and the jihadists in Iraq, Syria, and Libya in a more serious fashion. What the United States and its European allies are doing now is not and cannot be strategically decisive. As long as ISIS is seen by young Muslims as “winning,” as long as ISIS is seen as providing a movement that gives them an effective sense of identity, it will continue to recruit among disaffected European Muslims. Dying for a winning cause is one thing; dying for a losing cause is something altogether different.

Gary Schmitt is the editor and contributing author of Safety, Liberty and Islamist Terrorism: American and European Approaches to Domestic Counterterrorism (AEI Press, 2010).