the terror war might take a while . . .

Unite to Defeat Radical Jihadism

. . . this is mostly because our allies in Europe cannot integrate a muslim to save their soul's.

Peggy lays this out in simple easy to understand terms, "These things are obvious after the Brussels bombings:

In striking at the political heart of Europe, home of the European Union, the ISIS jihadists were delivering a message: They will not be stopped.

What we are seeing now is not radical jihadist Islam versus the West but, increasingly, radical jihadist Islam versus the world. They are on the move in Africa, parts of Asia and of course throughout the Mideast.

Radical jihadism is not going to go away, not for a long time, probably decades. For 15 years it has in significant ways shaped our lives, and it will shape our children’s too. They will have to win the war.

It will not be effectively fought with guilt, ambivalence or double-mindedness. That, in the West, will have to change."

She notes that President Golf Pants had something to say, "The usual glib talk of politicians—calls for unity, vows that we will not give in to fear—will produce in the future what they’ve produced in the past: nothing. “The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium,” said the president, vigorously refusing to dodge clichés. “We must unite and be together, regardless of nationality, race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.” It is not an “existential threat,” he noted, as he does. But if you were at San Bernardino or Fort Hood, the Paris concert hall or the Brussels subway, it would feel pretty existential to you."

True. He cannot pass a cliche without stopping to make its acquaintance. So, if we are to unify to stop this threat, how? First we must understand what causes all mass movements.

"There are many books, magazine long-reads and online symposia on the subject of violent Islam. I have written of my admiration for “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood, published a year ago in the Atlantic. ISIS supporters have tried hard to make their project knowable and understood, Mr. Wood reported: “We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change . . . and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.” ISIS is essentially “medieval” in its religious nature, and “committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people.” They intend to eliminate the infidel and raise up the caliphate—one like the Ottoman empire, which peaked in the 16th century and then began its decline."

This doesn't really answer the question does it? This does. The short answer here is hatred of self, of religion, and of nationality. 

This is a festering sore, which is worsened if the adopted nation treats the individual as second class.

Here are a large number of opinion polls which show the extent of muslim extremism. 

Muslim Opinion Polls

On the other hand, I agree with this analysis as well:

Labor Market Rigidity and the Disaffection of European Muslim Youth - Marginal REVOLUTION

America does a better job at integrating immigrants than Europe. That should not surprise, Europe spent the past 150 years torn between sending waves of immigrants to the US or fighting internecine wars. It has no experience with emigration. Perhaps the key reason America does so well is we allow quick and complete economic integration of individuals. This ties them to the community economically, and whatever other negative feelings they may have, are muted by the strength of the economic tie. 

Europe on the other hand does what Europe always does, it ghettoizes the other, and economically marginalizes them.. 

"In Belgium high unemployment and crime-ridden Muslim ghettos have fomented radicalism but as Jeff Jacoby writes:

Muslims in the United States…have had no problem acclimating to mainstream norms. In a detailed 2011 survey, the Pew Research Center found that Muslim Americans are “highly assimilated into American society and . . . largely content with their lives.” More than 80 percent of US Muslims expressed satisfaction with life in America, and 63 percent said they felt no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” The rates at which they participate in various everyday American activities — from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV — are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car.

Jacoby, however, doesn’t explain why these differences exist. One reason is the greater flexibility of American labor markets compared to those in Europe.

Institutions that make it more difficult to hire and fire workers or adjust wages can increase unemployment and reduce employment, especially among immigrant youth. Firms will be less willing to hire if it is very costly to fire. As Tyler and I put it in Modern Principles, How many people will want to go on a date if every date requires a marriage? The hiring hurdle is especially burdensome for immigrants given the additional real or perceived uncertainty from hiring immigrants. One of the few ways that immigrants can compete in these situations is by offering to work for lower wages. But if that route is blocked by minimum wages or requirements that every worker receive significant non-wage benefits then unemployment and non-employment among immigrants will be high generating disaffection, especially among the young.

Huber, for example, (see also Angrist and Kugler) finds:

Countries with more centralized wage bargaining, stricter product market regulation and countries with a higher union density, have worse labour market outcomes for their immigrants relative to natives even after controlling for compositional effects.

The problem of labor market rigidity is especially acute in Belgium where the differences between native and immigrant unemployment, employment and wages are among the highest in the OECD. Language difficulties and skills are one reason but labor market rigidity is another, as this OECD report makes clear:

Belgian labour market settings are generally unfavourable to the employment outcomes of low-skilled workers. Reduced employment rates stem from high labour costs, which deter demand for low-productivity workers…Furthermore, labour market segmentation and rigidity weigh on the wages and progression prospects of outsiders. With immigrants over-represented among low-wage, vulnerable workers, labour market settings likely hurt the foreign-born disproportionately.

…Minimum wages can create a barrier to employment of low-skilled immigrants, especially for youth. As a proportion of the median wage, the Belgian statutory minimum wage is on the high side in international comparison and sectoral agreements generally provide for even higher minima. This helps to prevent in-work poverty…but risks pricing low-skilled workers out of the labour market (Neumark and Wascher, 2006). Groups with further real or perceived productivity handicaps, such as youth or immigrants, will be among the most affected.

In 2012, the overall unemployment rate in Belgium was 7.6% (15-64 age group), rising to 19.8% for those in the labour force aged under 25, and, among these, reaching 29.3% and 27.9% for immigrants and their native-born offspring, respectively.

Immigration can benefit both immigrants and natives but achieving those benefits requires the appropriate institutions especially open and flexible labor markets."

Young American muslims will still be potential recruits to Islamism, but the ability of the radicals to find converts will be lessened by economic opportunity.

This is a key reason why continuing to follow the dying progressive system is not just folly but dangerous. The progressive belief structure will mire the employment relationship in 19th century goals and ideals. We know this will slow economic growth, and do nothing to further the needs and desires of either the workers, or the employers. This will hurt the immigrant more than the native.

The best mechanism to fight Islamic terror is rapid, inclusive economic growth, not slowed growth, and stagnation. Bad ideas are myriad, but should be eschewed. 

The other battlefield for this fight will need to be the Middle East itself, through the Islamic Reformation. The West cannot  be involved in this war. If it is, the battle will surely spill into the West. This will be difficult but necessary. Ultimately this needs to be a war for reformation fought only by the parties to the reformation.

Our current political class is not up to this.