The message of these most recent attacks is universal: every person should be afraid. Our responses to that message, however, need not accept the invitation to fear. Rejecting fear gives us space to think rationally about the responses that will ensure our collective safety over the long term.

As the news from Paris unfolded, we were all Parisians, as we were all Lebanese a few days before when suicide bombs killed 43 and wounded 240 more, as we were all Kenyans last April when 147 college students were killed.

The Power of Fear

Our hearts are bound to those who lost their lives and to their families and friends in each of these and previous terrorist attacks. But sorrow and friendship does not need to lead to fear.

These attacks were calculated to terrorize the population – in France, Lebanon, and Kenya – and around the world. The attacks came in random places – an open-air market, a college, a theater, restaurants, a sports arena. Community gathering places for relaxation and friendship felt suddenly unsafe.

Some Parisians are deciding not to buy into the “business model” of terrorism. A sign on the door of a restaurant that was attacked by gunmen says: “You won’t get my France, you won’t get my liberty, you won’t get my humanity. No fear.” Some call for tolerance and peace; but all seem united in their resolve to find a way to end the power of terrorism.

The message of the attacks is universal: every person should be afraid – on the street, in communities, in college hallways, and in each of our homes. Our responses to that message, however, need not accept the invitation to fear. Accepting fear gives power to the terrorizer. Rejecting fear leaves room in the mind and the soul for our own transforming power. It gives us space to think rationally about the responses that will ensure our collective safety over the long term.

Fear makes fiery headlines and sells newspapers – and so the merest rumors can be fanned into greatness without rational reflection. But fear does not make for good governance. Plans made in fear are irrational – and they can divert attention from more effective responses.

Planning for Peace

World leaders stood with France at the G-20 talks, but while France’s President called for war against ISIL and sent bombers to destroy ISIL headquarters in Syria, other leaders also looked at deeper ways to diminish ISIL’s power. These other methods, powerful when fully coordinated, include

• better exchange of information to help cut off funding for violent extremists,
• tackling the black market for oil that is key to ISIL funding,
• preventing the exploitation of technology, communications, and resources to incite and coordinate acts of terrorism, and
• a comprehensive approach to address “conditions conducive to terrorism.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that he expects to submit a comprehensive plan soon to the U.N. general assembly. He is right to do so. The problem of terrorism has reached global proportions, and effective responses require global cooperation.

These actions of extreme violence are not actions of governments. They do not fit within the known definitions of war and military response. There is no unified enemy or defined battleground. The so-called war on terror is a military response to an ideology which cannot be bombed out of existence. Military responses only magnify the power of the criminal actions of individuals and groups.

The perpetrators of these crimes must be held accountable for their actions. The crimes can and should be investigated and there should be trials to determine the facts and relative culpability. But justice for these crimes should come through the rule of law. The machine that funds and organizes the criminal activities can and should be dismantled – by removing and diminishing the tools of its power.

The U.S. Role in Solving Problems

To end terrorism, the United States should examine its own contributions to the recruitment of individuals – especially youth – to acts of extreme violence. The U.S. should end the indiscriminate executions of individuals by drone strikes and special forces, without accusations or trials. The U.S. should end the indefinite imprisonment of people identified as “enemy combatants” with no charges brought, and no release, even when years-delayed hearings finally determine that there is no cause for incarceration. And the U.S. should join with other nations to take control of the arms trade, which shares the power of death with so many, when we could share instead the support of life. Moreover, the U.S. should not act in fear and close its borders to those fleeing this same violence in Syria.

France, Britain, the United States and others have stated confidently that we, as nations, are stronger than terrorism and that we can solve this problem. This firm resolve, clearly based in fact, will falter only if the nations are distracted by fear into the business plan of terrorism. We all share a life-giving vision that supports and is supported by a concern and respect for each life on this planet. We won’t realize that vision with fear.