U.S. confronts the test of terrorism

People in Paris are petrified. Americans are anxious, too.

We saw the carnage wrought by the Islamic State on Friday. And we know authorities here are no more capable of protecting every restaurant, nightclub and public space where people gather.

We know the attacks required lots of planning. Yet officials apparently knew nothing of them in advance.

We know U.S. law enforcement agencies are monitoring many people they suspect are threats. So were the French.

We know the Islamic State has encouraged its followers to strike around the globe, and Monday threatened to strike America at "its center in Washington." And we know of at least 16 terrorist plots against New York City since 9/11.

We know, in other words, that we are targets as Paris was, that the assailants are likely to be home-grown and not trained in Middle East war zones, that the randomness of these assaults is chilling, and that stopping them is extraordinarily difficult. President Barack Obama addressed that Monday when he characterized the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 as "two brothers and a Crock-Pot."

The nation struggles to reconcile its immediate fears with a complex strategy that can bring lasting results. It does so against a backdrop of the politics of a presidential race, the explosive question of how to deal with Syrian refugees, an American president with critics in many corners, and a debate over cracking open communications technology used by terrorists -- a proxy fight over balancing civil liberties.

The pendulum is in motion again over how deeply America wants to get involved in foreign intervention, how much money it is willing to commit to that effort, and which personal freedoms it's willing to sacrifice for security. Our safety is of the utmost importance, but at times our nation has gone too far in trying to guarantee it, trampling the rights of our own citizens. Constantly calibrating the proper balance, even in an age of terrorism, is critical.

The president

In remarks at the G-20 conference in Turkey, Obama made clear what he is and is not willing to do. Basically, he wants to stay the course -- and, largely, that's the right call: No American troops on the ground; all the logistical support, intelligence sharing, coordination, and air power we can muster; and diplomacy to end the civil war in Syria. We understand his frustration at political rivals who seem to be asking him to do things already being done, or simply to talk tougher. We hope he heeds French President Francois Hollande's call for the United States and Russia to work together on a solution, but the reality is that all of the region's major players have different goals in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, Obama did not adequately channel the mood of America and the world. He did not reflect the awful truth that the attacks in France were a failure of foreign and domestic efforts to rid the country of radical Islamists. Calling the attacks a "setback" minimized their psychic impact. His matter-of-fact-ness might have been calculated to calm troubled waters, but sometimes empathy and inspiration are required.

The politics

It's no longer the economy, stupid. At least not now. The 2016 presidential campaign has temporarily been turned on its head. National security and, yes, immigration of a different kind are dominating the conversation. Unfortunately, grandstanding has torpedoed any inkling of substantive discussion, and analysis has given way to increased demonization.

GOP contender Donald Trump says Parisians should have been armed, rivals Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush say only Syrian refugees who are Christians should be allowed into the United States, and numerous candidates simply want to close our borders. Some of what's being said gets close to what Obama warned against -- feeding our darkest impulses.

The refugees

Syrian refugees are the flashpoint of the political debate, and the metaphor for our real fears. Most flee the same terror at home that they're blamed for creating in Paris. There are legitimate concerns about accepting Syrian refugees, but the United States has a thorough vetting process that takes up to two years and includes overseas interviews.

But Sen. Rand Paul is offering a bill to halt visas for refugees. More than 20 governors say they won't accept anyone from Syria. It's a thin line between honest worries and prejudice, one the Islamic State wants us to cross. It wants us to turn on Muslims and it wants America to produce more disaffected youth, the very fodder for its fanaticism.

The technology

New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton is worried that law enforcement has been rendered blind, that terrorists are discussing plots through encrypted communications on cellphones that can't be accessed by either the hardware manufacturer or investigators. This presents a challenge for government and technology companies: Find a way to let law enforcement access specific communications, with warrants based on proper cause and with court supervision, without also providing access for spies, criminals and hackers. Without, in other words, a "back door" quick fix.

Obama should summon the heads of the U.S. technology sector to the White House to discuss the urgency of finding a workable solution. Our security could depend on having this information.

These are difficult and challenging times. Paris was attacked. American anxiety is growing. People understandably demand a strong response. But we must balance that strength with wisdom, and make sure that we continue to live by the principles that have made this nation a bastion of freedom.