FERGUSON: Is ISIS a problem that can be solved?

I'm a worrier. Sometimes it seems that not a moment goes by that I'm not fretting about something, and I've been that way for as long as I can remember. I have been trying to get better about it. Keeping things in their proper perspective seems to help.

When I find myself stressing out about something, I ask myself if the thing I am dreading is really a problem or not. In this case I define a "problem" as some current situation or possible future event that might make me unhappy, but it's only a real problem (and this is the important part) if that situation or future event is something that my action or inaction might influence to a significant degree.

For example, if I have a fight with a friend and we aren't speaking anymore, that might be termed a problem. I have to decide if I want to take action to repair the friendship or just let it go and no longer be friends with the person.

But let's say that same friend gets a job in another town and is going to move. That turn of events might upset me, but there wouldn't really be anything I could do about it. Since the situation is out of my hands I wouldn't call that a problem. It's just something that is going to happen that I don't like and I'll have to accept it move on.

So now I try to make this distinction when I feel myself getting stressed out about something -- is it really a problem, or is it just a part of life I don't like but can't do anything about? I found myself considering that distinction when I heard the news about the string of terrorist attacks in Paris and listened to the debate about how America should respond to it.

Republicans predictably used the attacks as a vehicle to attack President Obama for doing too little to combat ISIS and for pulling out of Iraq too soon, leaving a void which ISIS quickly filled. Democrats counter that President Bush's war in Iraq destabilized the region with no realistic plan to deal with the long-standing sectarian conflicts that it unleashed, leaving a void that ISIS quickly filled.

Both arguments actually seem somewhat convincing, leaving me to wonder if anyone has any idea what we should do next. Both engagement and non-engagement seem to have arguably made things worse at different points in time.

Still, doing nothing isn't a viable option. People are scared and upset and politicians have to respond to that somehow. For now it appears there will be more bombings in ISIS-held territory and a roiling debate over whether to allow Syrian refugees (some of whom people fear may be terrorists-in-refugee-clothing) to enter the country as planned. Some governors (including Georgia's Nathan Deal) have issued statements saying they will bar these refugees from entering their state, something they apparently have no legal standing to do.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that we can resolve the centuries-old conflicts that plague the Middle East or completely "win the war" against terrorism, but there are certainly options for us to consider. It is a problem, but one that we need to realize we can only hope to mitigate to some extent, not completely resolve. We should be wary of people who suggest that they have simple solutions to an incredibly complex issue.

We should also strive to keep the situation in perspective. Keep in mind that the chances of any individual American meeting their end at the hands of an Islamic jihadist are extremely remote. Concern is justified, mindless panic is not.

Because in the end that is what their goal is, to terrorize us. Recognizing that they are much less threatening to us than car accidents, the flu, or falling off a ladder, might help us act with sober resolve and not xenophobic outrage.

Bill Ferguson is a resident of Warner Robins. Readers can write him at fergcolumn@hotmail.com.

This story was originally published November 19, 2015 at 9:58 PM with the headline "FERGUSON: Is ISIS a problem that can be solved? ."