Return to Transcripts main page


Interview with Leon Panetta; Muslims in Europe; Theory of Broken Windows and Reality of Reducing Crime

Aired January 18, 2015 - 10:00   ET


FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

We'll begin today's show with questions from Paris, questions on the minds of all of us. How in the world do we protect against the next of these attacks? Is there any real way to thwart this kind of terrorism?

I'll have an exclusive conversation with Leon Panetta, former CIA director, former secretary of Defense.

Also, has Europe been flooded with masses of hate-filled Muslims? If you listen to the airwaves this week.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Prayer rugs in just about every hotel.


ZAKARIA: The answer was yes.

I'll introduce to you a man who disagrees and says he has the numbers to prove it.

And the economy. In 2015, who will be the winners and losers? What do we need to watch out for? I'll tell you.

Then from (INAUDIBLE) Paris to New York's finest, an important question, should police focus on minor quality of life arrests -- littering, loitering and the like? Or just focus on terror and murder and major crimes?

We'll have a debate on the famous broken windows theory of policing with Nathan Gladwell.

But first here's my take. The Paris terror attacks were barbaric but also startling leaving many to ask, what could be done to prevent this kind of terrorism in the future?

Well, one man has a clear answer. "That attack you saw in Paris, you'll see an attack in the United States," Senator John McCain told the "New York Times." Elaborating on how to stop this from happening, he explained to the "Times" and to CNN that it would require a more aggressive American military strategy across the greater Middle East with a no-fly zone and ground troops in Syria and more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This theory was sometimes described during the Iraq war as, quote, "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," unquote. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Other politicians and commentators have noted that many jihadists have connections to new badlands of the Middle East. Places like Yemen and Syria, where order has collapsed, a civil war is under way, and Islamic terror groups have staked out safe havens.

This is the blowback from the chaos in Syria. It has become conventional wisdom that if only Washington had gotten more involved there earlier, we would be safer.

But what do the jihadists themselves say. Well, CNN reports that in a 2007 court deposition, Cherif Kouachi, one of the Paris terrorists, made clear the source of his radicalization. Quote, "I was ready to go and die in battle," he said. "I got this idea when I saw the injustices shown by television on what was going on over there in Iraq. I am speaking about the torture that the Americans have inflicted on the Iraqis," end quote.

So in the actual case of the French terrorist, it was American intervention in the Middle East that caused him to become a jihadi. But apparently more intervention would somehow have had the opposite effect.

The scholars Robert Pape and James Feldman have analyzed all cases of suicide bombings from 1980 to 2009 and concluded that the vast majority of the terrorists behind these attacks were acting in response to American intervention and involvement in the Middle East rather than out of a religious or ideological motivation.

In their book, "Cutting the Fuse," Pape and Feldman note that the only spectacular Western plots after 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings, were, quote, "specifically inspired by the invasion of Iraq," unquote.

Let's review the record. America's non-intervention in Bosnia in the early 1990s is said to have produced Islamic radicalism, as did the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s as did the partnership with Pakistan's military, as did the drone strikes against Pakistan and Yemen, as did the surge in Afghanistan, as did the withdrawal of troops from that country.

It seems that no matter what the United States has done over the last two decades, Islamic radicalism has been on the rise, often directed against America and its Western allies, and it has found a few alienated young men who then act on these ugly ideas.

To argue that the only way to stop terrorism at home is for the United States to intervene militarily and stabilize the many unstable parts of the Middle East is to commit Washington to a fool's errand for decades. The scholar Andrew Bacevich has pointed out that before Syria,

Washington had already launched interventions in 13 countries in the Islamic world since 1980.

Will one more really do the trick?

For more go to and read my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

You've heard my take on what will not thwart the terror threat, now let's hear a most expert opinion on what will.

Leon Panetta has been many things in many administrations but the most pertinent today is his two plus years as director of Central Intelligence from February 2009 to June 2011.

He talked to me exclusively earlier this week. I was in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and he was at the Panetta Institute near Monterey Bay.


ZAKARIA: Secretary Panetta, thanks for joining us.


ZAKARIA: When you first heard about these attacks, what was your thought?

PANETTA: You know, I think that what we've seen happening over these last few weeks, between what happened in Ottawa, what's happened in Paris, and now what's happened in Belgium, is that we're entering a new and perhaps more dangerous chapter in the war on terrorism.

You've got terrorists coming at us from a lot of different directions, from ISIS, from Boko Haram, from al-Shabaab, from AQAP, from other elements of al Qaeda. They are recruiting like crazy from these various wars in Syria and Iraq and Yemen. And they seem to be involved in more planning and more weapons in terms of the types of attacks that they are working on.

So I think it's pretty clear from what we're seeing that we are entering a more threatening and more dangerous period in this war on terrorism.

ZAKARIA: From the point of view of policing, you know, looking at it from a city like New York or Washington or London or Paris's perspective, what can you do?

These are locals. They often have local passports and they seem to have radicalized kind of themselves in some ways. They've gotten a bit of training.

How do you deal with this kind of threat?

PANETTA: You have to be very aggressive in confronting this more dangerous threat in terms of terrorism. You have to do it with increasing our basic intelligence because obviously, whether it's human intelligence or technical intelligence, getting the right intelligence gives you at least a chance to avoid these kinds of attacks.

Secondly, I think we have to continue to stress our counterterrorism operations, both our intelligence operations, our special forces operations, to be able to use our capabilities to target their leadership and their command and control.

And thirdly, you've got to build partnerships with the countries abroad that are confronting terrorism. We've got to be able to share intelligence, share operations, and be able to work together to go after this broad array of threats, because these individuals as they come back -- I think, you know, we're probably in a pretty good position with our watch list and with our defenses that have been set up to be able to check them.

But the problem is in Europe, that there frankly is a greater capability to be able to move from country to country without being detected. So somehow working with other countries we've got to be able to share intelligence and improve our capability to track these foreign nationals that in one way or another are coming back to these countries and trying to conduct these attacks.

ZAKARIA: What was your sense of the quality of French intelligence? I mean, one often hears that not only are they pretty good but they're pretty aggressive. Would that be your sense?

PANETTA: Well, there's no question that I think the failure to be able to have prevented the attack that took place in Paris was an intelligence failure. And I know they had these individuals on watch lists. I know that in some ways they were tracking them but because of priorities or because of resources, obviously, they were not aware that these attacks were going to be conducted.

I do believe, and certainly my dealings with the French that they have good capabilities in terms of their intelligence, they have good capabilities in terms of their law enforcement to be able to go after these individuals. So I believe that there is a good opportunity here to learn from the mistakes that have been made and try to improve our intelligence gathering capability and intelligence sharing capability to make sure that we try to get ahead of these kinds of attacks.

ZAKARIA: There are a lot of people who feel that the United States does not face quite the same danger partly because, as you say, we've got oceans and watch lists but also because the Muslim population in the United States is much more thoroughly assimilated than in -- than in Europe.

Would you agree with that?

PANETTA: Well, you know, I think obviously that since 9/11 we have done a very good job of being able to improve our intelligence gathering capabilities, our law enforcement capabilities, our intelligence in terms of being able to track the particular threats that are out there. And clearly our Muslim population has the opportunity to become citizens in this country, to integrate more fully into our society. And that gives us an advantage.

But having said that, the reality is that when these foreign nationals are able to come back into our country, and there are thousands of these nationals that are overseas in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, I think it still represents a real danger in terms of the United States.

I don't think we can take anything for granted. I think we are dealing with a much more aggressive form of terrorism coming at us in a number of different directions, as I said. And the United States ought to continue to remain very vigilant and very aggressive in going after this kind of terrorism.

ZAKARIA: Would you expand the no-fly list, the watch list? Would you put in place new procedures for even more intrusive intelligence -- intelligence gathering?

PANETTA: You know, one thing I learned as CIA director is that you can always improve what you're doing in terms of being able to develop not only the list but develop the intelligence that is needed in order to make sure that we're able to track these individuals. I mean, we do have the watch list. We have pretty good security with regards to those coming into this country. We're -- I think we have a good capability there.

The problem is in dealing with those in the various European areas where there is frankly less aggressiveness at going after these individuals when they return. So the real challenge here is going to be for the United States to work very closely with our counterparts in Europe to make sure that these watch lists are shared, that we are working together to make sure that these individuals are being trapped when they try to come back into -- to the various countries.

And that we work together operationally to be able to go after them once that happens. So there is room for a great deal of improvement here in order to make sure that we're at the top of our game in terms of trying to protect our country.

ZAKARIA: But you're saying that the French and -- I've heard that the Germans are really, I mean, to put it bluntly, too soft on these -- on these potential terrorists.

PANETTA: I think that the European countries, you know, particularly in light of the attacks that we've seen, understand that it is extremely important for them to work together to try to provide good intelligence, good security, good defenses here to try to deal with these threats.

We cannot do this alone. The United States can't do this alone. We've got to be working with our partners both in Europe and frankly the intelligence services in Germany and France and Britain in other countries, you know, they're very capable. And we have worked closely together, we share intelligence together, and I'm sure we're continuing to do that. But we also have to work with the moderate Arab countries as well.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Jordan, others that maintain a good intelligence. Egypt. The ability for those countries to work together with the intelligence operations in the United States and in these other countries. If you can form that kind of strong coalition, you can really develop the kind of defense capability we need if we're going to confront this myriad threat that we're facing now.


ZAKARIA: When we come back, I'm going to ask Leon Panetta much more about the Paris attacks and the aftermath. I'm going to ask him whether President Obama should have gone to that rally.



ZAKARIA: And we are back with Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense, former director of the CIA.

Secretary Panetta, a lot of people have criticized President Obama for not attending that Paris rally. What do you think was going on? How did they make that mistake?

PANETTA: Well, Fareed, to the credit of the White House, they admitted that they had made a mistake. And it was a mistake. Because we missed an opportunity to show solidarity with the leadership in the world that is confronting this terrorism threat that we all face. It was a missed opportunity we should have had. If not the president, certainly the vice president or secretary of state should have attended.

As far as what went on in the White House, all I can say is when I was chief of staff, the National Security adviser and the chief of staff usually presented these kinds of issues directly to the president and the president then made the ultimate decision as to what happened. Whether or not that happened here, I just don't know.

ZAKARIA: President Obama has himself said that he spends a lot of time trying to get the policy right but sometimes doesn't think enough about the optics.

Do you think this was one of those cases?

PANETTA: Well, you know, as we all know, the presidency is not just about policy and substance, it's also about the optics of leadership. All of those are part of what makes the president able to provide the kind of leadership that is necessary.

This president, certainly during the time I was there, was fully committed to supporting the war against terrorism. He supported what we were doing at the CIA and supported what we were doing at the Defense Department. So he clearly understands the nature of the threat. I think it's really important that the president working with other

countries, working in solidarity with other countries, provide a common front that makes very clear to the terrorist threat that we're dealing with that they are not going to succeed. And that we will ultimately achieve the kind of victory we have to achieve with regards to this war on terrorism.

ZAKARIA: It sounds like, Secretary Panetta, you are more worried based on what has happened over the last few weeks and particularly in Paris, and you feel that, you know, this could happen in New York, this could happen in many, many places in the world.

PANETTA: I don't -- I don't think there's any question. I think -- I think what we're seeing, as I said, is a much more aggressive chapter and a much more dangerous chapter in terms of the war on terrorism. And what has happened in Paris, what happened in Ottawa, what has happened in Belgium, is something that we need to understand that these terrorist are now engaged in a much more aggressive effort based on their recruiting, based on what's happening in Syria and Iraq and Yemen.

They are engaged in a much more aggressive effort to conduct violence not only in Europe, but I think it's a matter of time before they direct it at the United States as well. This is a real threat and we've got to be prepared to confront that.

ZAKARIA: Leon Panetta, a pleasure to have you on, sir.

PANETTA: Thank you very much, Fareed.


ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, predictions. We will gaze into the future and tell you about the economic outlook for the world in 2015. Is there good news or bad news?

When we come back.


ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment.

Around this time of year many people in the financial industry are making forecasts about the year ahead. We thought we'd use some of these predictions, ideas and alarms, combined with our own two cents worth, and give you GPS "Economic Roadmap for 2015."

The first big question -- will the world experience another global recession? Believe it or not, it's possible. Maybe more than you might think.

Ruchir Sharma of Morgan Stanley reminded us recently on Indie TV in India that in 2014 the world was perilously close to recession. Achieving less than 2 percent growth is a generally accepted benchmark for a global recession he says and the world economy grew only 2.6 percent. What's more, Sharma points out, that global recessions happen pretty

regularly. There was the recession in the early 1980s, two recessions in the 1990s, the dot-com collapse recession in the early 2000s, and the great financial crisis recession which began seven years ago.

We're about due for one. The catalyst could be China, Sharma says, which now contributes a larger share of growth to the global economy than any other country. In 1994 it represented only 8 percent of global growth compared to the U.S. at 33 percent and the European Union at 26 percent according to Morgan Stanley.

But in 2014, China contributed 38 percent of global growth compared to 20 percent from the U.S. and just 13 percent from the European Union. Since China is already slowing down, this is not a happy thought.

And that leads to question number two. Which nations will be winners in 2015 and which will be losers?

The U.S. is looking good. One of the only bright spots among the world's big economies. PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts faster economic growth compared to any year since 2005 at over 3 percent, thanks to a continuing fall in unemployment.

India also looks promising thanks in part to its reform minded prime minister Narendra Modi. 2015 could be the year that India turns the corner, says PricewaterhouseCoopers, predicting a growth rate that could rival China.

Indonesia is also looking good. Like India, they have a big population of consumers. So even if slow economies in other parts of the world keep their export profits down, people will still buy things at home.

Then you've got the losers. Experts say Europe will continue to lag behind without needed reforms. Japan is still in a bind despite "Abenomics."

The real losers, of course, are the big oil producers, especially those with large populations, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria and Russia. Those countries need their oil profits to give subsidies to their people. And when you have over 140 million people as Russia does, it gets expensive. Things could get ugly in some of these places if and when cash runs low.

That brings us to our last question. The big wild card. Will the price of oil continue to stay low? That could make a huge difference for everyone. Potentially growing the global economy by nearly a full percentage point according to IMF. Much will depend on whether OPEC decides to cut its production.

But persistent low oil prices can signal weak demands, says Sharma from Morgan Stanley. And that could be a bad sign for everyone. Perhaps a leading indicator of that next global recession.

So be careful what you wish for, I suppose.

Next on GPS, are Muslims taking over Europe? That's what some would have you believe. We will do a reality check.


ZAKARIA: A refrain is emerging both in Europe and the United States that is, perhaps, exemplified by something said this week on another cable news channel.


SEAN HANNITY: It's not just France, but all of Europe. There's been a major influx, immigration, people from Muslim countries. They have even - and they've not assimilated. They have separated. They have no-go zones. If you're non-Muslim, you're not allowed. No police, not even the fire department if there's a fire. Sharia courts have been allowed to be established. Prayer rugs in just about every hotel.


ZAKARIA: Is Sean Hannity right? Has there been a major influx of Muslims? Are they not assimilating? Are there prayer rugs in just about every hotel? Well, my next guest says don't believe it. Doug Saunders, he's an international affairs columnist for "The Globe and Mail." And he's the author of "The Myth of the Muslim Tide: Do Immigrants Threaten the West?" Doug, first, can I ask you why did you write this book?

DOUG SAUNDERS, AUTHOR, "THE MYTH OF THE MUSLIM TIDE": I'm a nonreligious person who lived in Europe for quite some time. And I myself had my worries after the September 11th attacks about my neighbors from Pakistan, from Turkey, from North Africa.

Did they have some association in their beliefs and their practices with the extremist things that were happening in the cities that I've lived in?

And I set out to research it. I assembled a team of researchers to look at Muslim minorities in Europe and North America, how they are integrating into the population, what their beliefs are, what their practices are and how they compared to other religious minorities that have moved into Europe and North America over the past century.

ZAKARIA: So let's go through some of the claims one by one. So, Muslims are swarming in. What were you able to find out about, you know, the claims that Europe is going to become almost Muslim majority in some decades or, you know, that this wave of immigration is swarming - is sort of overwhelming Europe?

SAUNDERS: The facts on this are very solid. Muslim minorities in European countries have grown during the last 20 years or so, in places like France during the last 50 years. France has the largest numbers where they have almost eight percent of the population who are Muslim. In other European countries it's generally between about one and four or five percent.

At most, in a couple of countries in Europe, Muslims could number around ten percent of the population within the next 20 or 30 years, but are likely to peak at that. So, in no country in Europe is there any chance of Muslims becoming a majority or even the largest minority except a couple of countries where they might become the second largest religion, which aren't very religious countries and so on. So, the idea of population takeover, it's simply mathematically impossible.

ZAKARIA: What about the argument, this is a familiar argument made about immigrant in general. But what about the argument that these immigrants are basically more loyal to their countries of origin than they are to the countries that they settle down in?

SAUNDERS: This has been very well measured. And what's interesting actually is that even some of the Muslim populations who are not integrating well in terms of things like their beliefs about the rights of women and so on or their political beliefs are extremely loyal to the countries they are in and their institutions. Interesting to see the Pakistanis of northern England who are often pointed to as an integration failure story. They have done very poor economically and their values often resemble those of the rural villages they come from more than of the country they live in.

Nevertheless, many times they've been studied by different groups with different backgrounds. And every study of loyalty and patriotism show that these Pakistanis of Northern England are actually by some measures more loyal to Britain and its institutions, including the military than the Anglican population of Britain is. Loyalty isn't a big problem. You do get Muslims who say that they value their religion above their country. But what's interesting about that, is that it tends to be about the same rate as Christians in those countries.

ZAKARIA: What about the general idea that these immigrants, Muslim immigrants in Europe are angry? That they are angry with the world, angry with the fact that the world is not of their making, that the West is sort of the dominant power? That they have - there is a kind of rage, a Muslim rage in Europe.

SAUNDERS: No. We do need to understand that there obviously are some people among that community who are very angry. The people who are committing anti-Semitic attacks and attacks on journalists and at the terrorism. These are obviously individuals who are motivated by anger. The question is, does that reflect the community around them? Is that born out of the community around them or is that something that's imported, that's a foreign value that they have adopted as a political movement. And what's interesting is that Muslim communities in Europe despite being marginalized economically and educationally tend to be among the most contented with their lives of any minority group, often more so than the general population. There's not a measurable level of discontentment with the society around them or with the lives they lead among Muslims in Europe compared to other groups. It simply isn't something that exists in the larger population.

ZAKARIA: So, let me then finally ask you about Sean Hannity's specific claims, which, again, are often mentioned by others as well. You have no-go zones where not even the police or the fire department is allowed. Sharia courts have been established, there are prayer rugs in every hotel. Are any of those things true?

SAUNDERS: This is the sort of urban myth that could only occur from somebody who hasn't spent much time in these cities or in the immigrant districts of these cities. There are poor neighborhoods in European cities, some of which have crime problems and so on. There is not a single one that anybody could describe as a no-go zone by the police or by anyone. Not in east London, not in Brussels, not in (INAUDIBLE) Sweden or anything. So we have to understand, there is not some European phenomenon of sharia law zones or something like that. You might find the odd extremist mullah who would like that idea but it simply does not exist.

ZAKARIA: Have you ever seen a prayer rug in every room in a hotel?

SAUNDERS: I've never seen a prayer mat - an Islamic prayer mat in any hotel in Europe and I've stayed at hundreds and hundreds of hotels. I've seen them in hotels in the Middle East, which is fully understandable. But, no, in fact, I've seen various types of bibles but I've never even seen a Koran.

ZAKARIA: Doug Saunders, pleasure to have you on.

SAUNDERS: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, from terror to jaywalking. In this troubling age should police officers bother writing tickets for smaller, so- called quality of life crimes or should they be focused on the big stuff? The broken windows theory of policing. We have a great debate with Malcolm Gladwell.


ZAKARIA: In the week that straddled the New Year according to "The New York Times," the New York Police Department issued 347 criminal summonses, a year ago that number was 4,077. That's an astonishing 91 percent drop in arrest from year to year. New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton told NPR that the cause of such a dramatic drop was a work slowdown by the cops on the beat. They were ignoring the small stuff.

And it raises a fascinating question. Do so-called quality of life crimes, writing graffiti, littering, not picking up after your dog, vandalism, if unattended lead to bigger crimes in social breakdown? Bratton was an architect of the broken windows theory of policing that said arrest for these minor crimes keep major crime rates down, too. Is it true? Well, I invited on the show the bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell who wrote in support of the broken windows theory in his famous book "The Tipping Point" and Bernard Harcourt who wrote a book called "Illusion of Order, the False Premise of Broken Windows Policing." Listen in and see what you think?

Malcolm, explain what is broken windows mean?

MALCOLM GLADWELL, STAFF WRITER, "THE NEW YORKER": Well, it was an idea that grew out of the '70s, which said that criminals take their cues -- would be criminals, potential criminals, take their cues from the environment. And when they are in an environment that appears to them disorderly, they see that as permission to behave in disorderly ways themselves. And that led to a focus in places like New York in the 1980s when there was that renewed push to try and bring down crime rates that said that part of that anti-crime strategy ought to be - ought to be paying attention to symbols of disorder in the environment. Things like remember the famous squeegee men in New York or panhandling in the street or trash on the sidewalk. If it looked clean, people might behave differently.

ZAKARIA: And what happens is this policing that you describe, this new policing starts up, and it does correlate, it does seem to coincide with a very dramatic long time reduction in crime that has gone on and on and on. And crime is now down, way down.

GLADWELL: Yeah. I don't know. I mean one of the things that's happened since I wrote about "Broken Windows and Tipping Point" is that I've become a little bit of a skeptic. I do think there's something to this idea, but I think it was probably oversold by many in the law enforcement community and by me 15 years ago. And that the story of why crime underwent this dramatic drop in this city and others, particularly this city, is more complicated than simply an attention to visible signs of disorder.

ZAKARIA: So, what is your reaction or response to, you know, that idea? Because it does feel intuitively also right that if you don't have disorderly environment, if there isn't graffiti on the streets, criminals are going to be less likely to take advantage of it. You know, they did put in place these kind of policing and it is true that crime went down. So, prima facie, there is a correlation. Explain why that's wrong.

BERNARD HARCOURT, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: OK, so crime went down from across the country from heights in 1990s, early 1990s. And it went down remarkably in numbers of jurisdictions, which didn't do anything like broken windows policing. Some of the slicing and some of the timing, you can see that it went down more in some areas than in New York. Overall, New York did see a huge drop in crime. But really, the reason for that is what's called reversion to the mean, or the fact that what goes up a lot goes down a lot. And New York was one of the greatest - you know, was homicide center during the period of 1970s, '80s, and early '90s. Three crime epidemics, three drug epidemics, really, the last one being crack cocaine where it was the heart of it was in New York. And so, when you run the analysis and include this idea of like how much did crime go up in the particular area, it actually goes down more in those areas when there's a crime drop. This is a familiar concept for a lot of investment, investors and Wall Street types, reversion to the mean. And it's just the idea that, you know, what goes up more is going to come down more.

ZAKARIA: But the most powerful piece, at least, from what I've seen is the argument that the places which did not do any kind of broken windows type policing also had reductions.

HARCOURT: Right. So, that's a fact. So San Diego, for instance, during this period had a very different policing approach, less arrests, less incarceration and crimes dropped the same amounts if you looked at '91 to '98, for instance. So, it was a national trend and with variations. But the variations that were seen in New York if you look precinct by precinct, it's actually the places where the was the highest crime, homicides related to often crack cocaine were the precincts that saw the greatest drop.

GLADWELL: And I would add to what Bernard just said, is that New York isn't exceptional case, so you see crime reductions in cities around this country. Crime has continued to fall in this city year in year out long after it stabilized in other major - other similar major cities in this country. Part of what happened in this city was a very powerful psychological transition happened in the 1980s, which was New Yorkers -- law abiding New Yorkers who felt the city had been taken away from them got it back. Remember driving around Bed Sty ten years ago in a police car, in the police officer, rolling down the windows at 11:00 at night and saying what do you hear? And I said, I hear nothing. And he said, exactly. Five years ago at this hour, you would have heard gunshots. Right? And then he's - he's like, see that child over there? That kid wouldn't have been on the street five years ago.

So, that's there's something in that that is a primary importance. Maybe it doesn't show up clearly and immediately in crime statistics. But that notion of people owning their city once again, part of that process, I think, involved people lowering their tolerance for these kinds of signs of disorder, which are part of what causes you to give up and move to the suburbs, right?

ZAKARIA: That's surely true. Which is that part of the flight of middle class families that have taken place in the '60s and '70s was related to not always big crimes, but the sense of unruliness and the - so reconstitution of that kind of order surely helps.

HARCOURT: Right, well, I think it's important to understand kind of how order is constituted in a city like New York. And I think Times Square is a good example. If we think about how Times Square has become orderly in New York. A lot of times broken windows proponents will talk about the policing, but truth is, Times Square has changed not because of broken windows policing, but because of real estate redevelopment, redevelopment that was planned in the 1970s basically.

ZAKARIA: Final thought. Malcolm Gladwell.

GLADWELL: In my last book "David and Goliath" I returned to the question of crime in New York and talk about it. Very, very different strategy that I think is far more successful in bringing down crime, which is one based on police trying to establish real ties with the communities that they are policing, to win the trust of families. And that - that excites me in a way that this old idea of broken windows no longer does. You just can't have a situation where you're locking up an entire generation because they have loosies or they are shoplifting. I mean that's just an absurd over-application of what I think the core was - might have been a useful idea.

ZAKARIA: Pleasure to have you guys on. GLADWELL: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, images of last week's terror attacks were followed by scenes of passionate patriotism in unlikely places. I will show you when we come back.


ZAKARIA: Boko Haram massacred as many as 2,000 people in early January, according to local government officials in Nigeria, and it brings me to my question of the week, what does Boko Haram translate into? A, the greatness of faith, B, devotion to the prophet, C, Western education is forbidden, or D, down with the great Satan. Stay tuned. And we'll tell you the correct answer.

This week's book of the week is "@War" by Shane Harris. Cyberwar is the next frontier, for better or worse, and we all need to understand it much more deeply than we do. This might be the best guide, a spirited and well based account of the challenges we face and how to counter them. The correct answer to the GPS challenge question is C, Boko Haram loosely translates to "Western education is forbidden." The group's official name is actually much longer, it means "People committed to the propagation of the prophet's teaching and jihad."

And now for the last look. The terrorist takeover of a kosher supermarket in Paris was another in a series of attacks on Jews in France. Some may not stay for the next one. Twice as many Jews left France for Israel in 2014 than did in the previous year. But many, most French Jews, are deeply patriotic. Something we were reminded of last week. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech at the Grand Synagogue of Paris and promised that France's Jews who immigrate to Israel would be welcomed with open arms and warm and accepting hearts. And then he sang along to Israel's national anthem.

And then the congregation broke into an impromptu chorus of "La Marceillaise," France's national anthem.





ZAKARIA: Synagogue goers weren't the only group expressing impromptu patriotism. Listen to what happened in France's parliament on Tuesday following a moment of silence honoring the victims of the attack.




ZAKARIA: According to the French government, this has not happened in the national assembly since the end of World War I.

Throughout Paris last week, we saw extraordinary moments of passionate patriotism. All these spontaneous outbursts recall one of the most famous movie scenes in history, in "Casablanca," when German soldiers start singing patriotically.




ZAKARIA: A defined Victor Laslo (ph) leads a spontaneous rendition of the Marceillaise.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Viva la France, viva la democracy!



ZAKARIA: Vive la France! Vive la democrace! Thanks to all of you for being a part of my program this week. I'll see you next week.