Terror as political instrument – Who is behind?
Stop discussing about the roots of terrorism, stop discussing our policies in the Middle East (and all the Third World, but those are anyway not discussed long ago), stop protesting the curtailing of civic liberties or the uncontrolled activities of the secret services, stop any self-critique in the West.
Now it is time for war. We are already at war. War against Islamists, if not against Islam itself. And we have to win this war. It is not the right time to discuss about freedoms and principles. It is time to fight. You want to demonstrate against policies leading to climatic change, like it happened recently in Paris? It is forbidden. Of course you have the right. It would be better to let governments take care of the survival of the planet. But if you insist, ok, you may demonstrate. But please, wait until the fight with terror is over!
But, of course, the war on terror will never end, it is not even meant to end. Except if we do something serious to uproot its causes.
This is the political atmosphere in Europe, in the aftermath of the terror attacks which made Brussels live, for one day, what half of the Middle East is living through most of the time, without provoking any … excessive emotion. But it is different when the unfortunate victims are Western Europeans!
A European September 11th?
What is happening now in the European political landscape is very much reminiscent of what has happened in the US after the 9.11 attacks. Let us hope it will not have the same results.
The refugees, you said? They are already classified bu some as the Enemy No1, they are not even refugees. Forget about big international banks and other financial institutions, which dominate European Union, European governments and all the “globalization” structures. Forget about NATO, USA and Neoconservatives, who control, as never before, much of Europe and who are threatening with war Russia and, indirectly, China.
After all, it seems more promising and safe for European politicians to invest in “war with Islam”, than to find the courage needed to defy the real Masters of Globalization!
As far as it concerns refugees themselves, even before the terror attacks in Brussels, the shifting of the tone was evident. Ok, it is tragic, it was said. But, after all, it is not our problem. Our problem is to defend ourselves. A member of Parliament, in a central European country, went as far as to describe refugees as “Neanderthal men”. He seems convinced that Homo Sapiens, like we call ourselves, is really better than the Neanderthal Man. Personally, I have strong doubts about the idea, especially every time I watch evening TV news.
Many European politicians and media are adopting now, with fifteen years of delay, the political discourse which prevailed in the United States after September 11th. “Forgetting”, in the same time, the direct, causal link between US political discourse after 9.11 and the terrorist attacks in Brussels! They know that Europeans are deeply dissatisfied with their lives. They “bomb” now their minds with chaotic, disorganizing signals, about refugees and terrorism, probably hoping to exploit the confusion they themselves create and the deep emotional shock after the attacks.
Erasing main Arab countries
Fifteen years ago, on the aftermath of 9.11, Bush and the neoconservatives behind (and inside!) him and his government launched the so-called “war on terror”. The armed forces of USA and Britain, then of NATO, and, under Sarkozy, also the French forces, or their friendly countries in the Middle East and local proxies, have completely destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. The situation in Afghanistan remains, 15 years after, absolutely disastrous. Not to speak about Bahrain, Egypt or the destabilization of a large part of sub-saharian Africa, as a result of the attack against Libya orchestrated by Nicolas Sarkozy.
It was only because of the strong resistance by Presidents Obama and Putin (and also because of the opposition of a part of US and Israeli defense and services establishment, conscious of the extremely dangerous character of the neoconservative project), that a war with Iran was averted. Such a war could potentially lead to the first use of “tactical” nukes after Hiroshima and Nagashaki, because it was clear from the very beginning that western conventional forces had not the possibility to overcome Iranian defense and, especially, destroy underground bunkers.
The “campaign against terror” and “the axis of evil” in the Middle East has not many precedents in the history of imperialism and colonialism. It was not a war of conquest or control, like the ones we knew. It was a war of deliberate destruction reflecting a strategy of Chaos. It is not strange that it has provoked terror in Paris, Brussels or elsewhere. What is rather strange is that it has not provoked much more terror and that seems to vindicate the “theorists of conspiracies”. It has done nothing to stop development of terrorism and extreme Islamism. It has greatly helped them.
There is something even more deeply astonishing about what is happening. If you examine more closely the facts, you will often discover the footprint of the same forces behind both terror and anti-terror, behind both the refugee flows and reactions to them!
Take for example ISIS. We have a lot of indications, sometimes even proofs, that it was created and supported with the help of western, Israeli and the secret services of Sunni, pro-western Middle Eastern countries. Even Iraqi Kurds seem to have somehow cooperated in this project, at least in the beginning (they have denied it, but, according to some publications they “took” full control of Kirkuk, “in exchange” for Mosul). Now we can argue if all of them anticipated or not, from the very beginning, where this would lead. What we have to exclude in any case, is that these forces, which helped, funded and cooperated closely with ISIS, have no information on its operational planning. Did they do anything to deter terrorism?
By the way the fact that Sunnis resisting, very bravely, US agression in Iraq, have finally acquired a “leadership” in the form of ISIS, may be considered one of the biggest triumphs of colonialism. The only comparable situations were probably in the Soviet Union, when the leader of “world communism” became fun of Reagan and Thatcher, believing they would help him reform his country (!) or in Greece, with a party supposedly of the “radical left”, accepting and trying to apply an economic policy that even serious neoliberals would consider an aberration. There is no more full victory than to be able to shape your own adversaries!
Preparing post-liberal order
Now, many European politicians and commentators are behaving like new-born babies, who opened their eyes last Monday and see around them people exploding themselves and millions of refugees wondering around. They don't know anything about what was done in the Middle East, but they are ready to go to war with Islam (and also Russia or China if they are ordered to do it). They are also ready to support any authoritarian measure in Europe, in order to “fight against terrorism”. We know since a long time, that such measures probably will be needed for very different reasons than fight against terrorism, like imposing much more draconian economic and social policies in Western Europe and USA or wage war against Russia or China. But to impose such measures, they need a serious pretext and a new ideology.
This totalitarian “Globalization Empire”, emerging from the collapse of the USSR, from the Maasricht Treaty, the Wasington consensus etc., is still defending the (neo)liberal post – Cold War new order. But, its motivation is not ideological. They are not bound by any ideology, their aim is just to keep and enlarge their power. They know they have to prepare from now their post-liberal options, if the liberal ones cannot fulfill the “mission”.
It is like Churchill and the vice President of USA during the 2nd World War. They were fighting against Germany, they were fully collaborating with Soviet Russia, but, in the same time, they were fighting in such a way as to make possible a third world war against their ally immediately after. Unable to go on with a “hot”, they launched finally a “cold” war against Moscow, their yesterday's ally.
The fact that somebody is profiting from a crime is not a proof that he has commited it or that he helped somebody else to commit it, by acts or omissions. Still, no policeman would be considered serious, if he did not begin the investigation of any crime by putting the question “who profits?”
Counter-terrorism officials and politicians would be better advised to look more closely behind the “international relations” of groups like ISIS. I am not sure they will like what they will find there. But if they don't do it, we are probably not far away from a chemical or other unconventional attack in a European city.