Were the Nov. 13 bombings in Paris a game-changer for the U.S.’s position on the Islamic State? The terrorist attack was highlighted by the U.S. media, and there has been an outpouring of public support for the victims — #prayforparis hashtags, French flags over profile pictures and peace vigils. Many were quick to note the, as Boston Globe columnist Farah Stockman termed it, “terrorist favoritism.” The attacks in Paris considerably overshadowed the suicide bombings in Beirut and Baghdad among others, as well as the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt. There is an explanation for this beyond the fact that the Paris attacks resulted in more casualties. It is one of basic human nature. As trauma specialist Charles Figley said, “The first question we ask ourselves when we hear about a terrorist attack is: Am I in danger?” We live in a world where humanitarian crises are still prioritized according to in-groups, which stems not only from shared commonalities, but from the basic instinct of self-preservation. The Islamic State has demonstrated its willingness and ability to raise the stakes against the West which carries more implications for the U.S.

One could interpret French President Hollande’s declaration, “France is at war,” in several ways. This establishes the Islamic State  as a proto-state against which it is possible to wage war. Hollande has welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer of help to fight against the Islamic State; a stronger allegiance would bring Russia in from the cold and likely require some alleviation of the European sanctions targeting the Kremlin. France has also become the first country to invoke the European Union’s mutual defense clause on Monday, which states that “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power.” Finally, France could be calling on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, putting pressure on the U.S. to get more involved in a conflict against the Islamic State.

France itself has responded to the attacks by dropping 20 bombs on the Islamic State-held city of Raqqa, a purely reflexive revenge tactic. However, for now, there has been  more of an inward systemic approach to the problem. France has declared a state of emergency, and the state is amping up its national security, polls by Le Figaro showing that 84 percent  reported an acceptance for “controls and a certain limitation of liberty in order to guarantee better security.” Police presence has risen considerably — the night of the attacks, French police raided more than 150 locations, and the pursuit of Salah Abdeslam, the alleged leader of the attacks, and several others continues. There has been a call for more recruitment into law enforcement and security service. A statute, only in effect during states of emergency, will grant the government the power to dissolve extremist gatherings, block media that glorifies terrorism and extend use of electronic bracelets and house arrest. There has been a revival of the debate over government access to encrypted data, according to a Nov. 16  New York Times article which reported  on European officials’ suspicions that the Paris attackers had been able to communicate in this way and linking the attacks to Syria.  Finally, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has announced intentions to implement measures that will facilitate the capture and processing of suspects.  

In short, France is on high alert. Many Western states have mirrored France. The U.S., for one, has tightened security in some of its major cities. Thus, even with Hollande’s declaration of war, the Islamic State  is being handled more like an organized crime group, not a proto-state. This disregards the more complicated sectarian struggle in the Middle East and the civil unrest manifested during the Arab Spring. In the wake of the fresh attacks, is there finally enough geostrategic and political interests to compel intervention? In the case of Syria, will the U.S. and EU revisit the concern over Bashar al-Assad to gain more leverage in activity in the Middle East? 

In any case, one thing is certain: air strikes are proving to do more harm than good and are responsible for increased refugee flows. Another reaction of the Paris attacks has been Islamophobia and growing anti-refugee hysteria, but where are these people supposed to go with the U.S., Russia and now France dropping bombs on them from the sky? Western politicians’ anti-refugee rhetoric is especially disgusting. Not only is it doing nothing to abate fear, it is a cheap bid at domestic popularity, conveniently ignoring that much of the strife in the Middle East is on the western world. Border security should be increased and vetting processes re-examined to quell domestic concern, but going back on the promise of accepting refugees or making the screening process so overly extensive that it effectively deters entry (H.R.4038) is retroactive. This increases the threat of homegrown terrorism and hate crimes, as well as causes civil divides. Hollande has reaffirmed France’s commitment to receiving 30,000 refugees from Syria. It will be interesting to see the decision the U.S. makes. 

Paris has been a game-changer, reflecting most on the Western psyche. The Islamic State  is proving successful in its goal of spreading terror and provoking aggression. Bombing them legitimizes their power, and scapegoating refugees distracts from the problem.  Maybe “the first question we ask ourselves when we hear about a terrorist attack is: Am I in danger?” However, should we not live above primal instinct and recognize its effect on our judgement? It is time to rise above fear and think rationally.