For most Americans, heightened security and travel warnings in the Middle East have become the norm, but threats have recently reached beyond the Middle East’s borders.

Over the weekend, the U.S. State Department issued a travel alert for U.S. citizens throughout Europe. The State Department’s actions don’t come as a surprise because similar alerts have been issued after attacks like the London bombing. The unique part of the story is the style of attack that may possibly take place and the reasons behind it.

For present security measures, the U.S. acted appropriately in issuing a travel alert. The severity of the threat level can still be contested, but the government finally did something right that won’t cause a heated debate. If it was up to me, we’d go back to an isolationist state until everything blows over — but that’s not feasible and is a little cowardly for a hegemonic state.

If you remember anything about the Mumbai attack in 2008, you’ll remember it left 174 people dead, including nine of the gunmen. The attack captured the world as its audience and utilized the media attention to pass a message along to everyday civilians.

The State Department is saying that could happen again in multiple locations or a major city. An actual location hasn’t been discovered, but the volume of intelligence being reviewed is what caused security forces to take an attack as a high possibility.

The particular Islamist extremists behind the Mumbai attack were not a rare breed, and they are plenty willing to do the same thing.

According to CNN, a unique aspect to what people are calling the possible Mumbai-style attack is that it could be because of France — not the U.S. France certainly outdid the U.S. this time, and retaliation should have been expected.

France recently issued a law that bans the covering of the face, which hinders the wearing of the veil for many. Their reasoning is connected to the security element of the country, but many think otherwise.

I stand neutral on the veil law because it has its rights and wrongs, but could no other security plan be implemented?

I wanted to know what other SU students thought about the issue, so I interrogated graduate education student Tyrone Shaw on the travel alert and the French ban on face covering. Shaw stated, ‘I think it is wise for the U.S. to warn its citizens. I trust American intelligence.’

When questioned on the French law, Shaw said, ‘This is a much more complex issue. I understand where the French are coming from, but it is kind of disrespectful toward the Islamic religion. However, if they are in France, they should abide by French law.’

Agreeing with Shaw, the issue is complex, and a lot of thought has to go into making future decisions. This could be a turning point in the ‘West against the rest’ theory that people seem to abide by in today’s political thought systems.

If we are to present a different political viewpoint on Islam, laws hindering those who practice the faith need to be strongly considered. Nations need to build a dialogue not just about politics, but about religion as well. President Barack Obama should probably let someone else take to the plate first, though.

John Sumpter is a senior political science major. His column appears every Monday, and he can be reached at jsumpte@syr.edu.

 

Published on October 3, 2010 at 12:00 pm