is almost exactly wrong in a key regard. Reflecting on the New Orleans killings, he contends: “The most effective antidote to attacks like this is probably just to do what the United States” has done in the past: work to “to dismantle the Islamic State and relegate it to obscurity…” First, which IS is the target? It’s a brand name with many and various groups adopting its flag. Strike at all of them everywhere? That approach has killed many innocents and has failed to stem terrorism generally. It just mutates and/or relocates. Second, disgruntled and deranged individuals like Jabbar and Livelsberger don’t need IS. Al Qaeda will do. Or Boko Haram. Or the Symbionese Liberation Army. Or the Unabomber’s manifesto. The link is usually opportunistic and psychological. It’s seldom organizational… and when it has been in the past (usually thinly or remotely), it’s homeland security efforts and domestic law enforcement not the US armed forces overseas that provide the surest block.