Paris massacre exonerates the murderer, condemns the victim
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/November 21/15
As expected it didn’t take ISIS long to claim responsibility for the Paris terrorist mass murders.
The evening of ‘Friday the 13th’ of November 2015 is not a date the people of France will forget. I dare say too, it will neither be forgotten by every Arab and Muslim living in France, nor any Syrian still waiting in vain for some justice. The heinous massacre that killed and injured hundreds of innocent people is the product of the ‘inverted logic’ of a suspect organization, horrible in choosing its targets, and even more horrible in timing and executing its carnage. This ‘inverted logic’ does not harm anyone except the groups that it claims to defend and uphold, and benefits none but those that it claims to be its enemies.
Indeed, if we review what ISIS has done so far we find that both in Iraq and Syria its prime victims have been – next to innocent geographically isolated minorities – the Sunni Arab regions of northern and north-western Iraq and northern Syria as well as its major cities; which has been politically, economically and demographically ruined by ISIS.
ISIS’ inverted logic
These Sunni Arab regions have been the targets of assaults from Iran’s expansionist project, Kurdish secessionist ambitions, and Russia’s full cover for and sponsorship of the sectarian sedition instigated by Syria’s regimes and its backers, against virtual disinterest from Israel, the U.S. and the European Union with one exception .. France! Yes, France; Europe’s bravest and most sincere supporter of the Syrian popular uprising, the most consistent in seeking an end to Bashar Assad’s dictatorship, and the most honest backers of legitimacy in Yemen. Yet, despite all this, France was and still is ISIS’ prime target! Conspiracy theory aside, only through ISIS’ ‘inverted logic’ choosing France makes sense. Firstly, France is a major country in the heart of Europe that was a founding member of both the European Union and NATO, and home to the largest Arab and Muslim communities – mainly, from West Africa. Thus, if ISIS aim is embroiling Islam – as a global religion – in a suicidal war against the West; indeed, against the whole humanity, then France becomes a suitable target.
The ‘war against ISIS’, if the international community is truly serious about it, needs to be carried out differently
Secondly, France has powerful extreme right wing political parties that are a serious challenge for power, and get ever more popular whenever they get the chance to be belligerent against Arabs and Muslims. These parties are the ideal ‘detonators’ that speed up this suicidal war that ISIS discourse is striving to launch. It is obvious that those who planned the Paris massacre knew beforehand the likely political, social and cultural consequences of their outrage, but in their calculations the more ‘racist’ or xenophobic the reaction against the French Arabs and Muslims gets the more frustrated and wronged gangs would emerge from their communities, thus, making easier the job of recruiting extremists and terrorists for their future ‘grand war’. Thirdly, if one does not discount the conspiracy theory, let’s go no further than the main beneficiary from the timing of the Paris massacre. It was committed a few hours before the convening of the ‘Vienna 2’ meeting aimed at finding a solution to the Syrian crisis. This act of awful violence serves first and foremost the interests of those who have insisted in shifting the ‘Vienna 2’ meeting away from finding a political solution for Syria based on President Bashar al-Assad stepping down. It is a well-known fact that the Assad’s main backers, Russia and Iran, are still calling to regard the Syrian crisis merely as a ‘war against terrorism’, and see Assad as an integral part of it. Reports that one of the assailants in Paris mentioned the word ‘Syria’, and then that a Syrian passport (anybody can buy a fake passport) was found near an assailant’s body means that the suspect had intelligence-inspired intentions to link responsibility to the Syrian people’s uprising, although the carnage took place without its knowledge or blessings.
Fourthly, a well-coordinated and logistically perfected murderous operation like the Paris massacre totally rules out the notion of naïveté or stupidity, at least at the planners’ level, even though those who executed it were willing to become ‘human bombs’ and were brain-washed and dehumanized individuals. Here we are confronting a highly organized network led by sophisticated and knowledgeable authorities that pulls its strings and manages its budget, in a way similar to someone trading in oils and antiquities; buying brand new Toyota trucks and advanced weapons, and successfully handling smuggling, training, media and publishing. Thus the ‘war against ISIS’, if the international community is truly serious about it, needs to be carried out differently. The suspect role played out by ISIS’ actions and battles – both genuine and theatrical – deserves to be encountered in a way congruent with international pronouncements, instead of turning a blind eye to the tragic realities the extremist organization is forcing on the ground through a frightening partition, that sooner or later will destroy the Near East’s political entities, and sow the seeds of endless animosities and catastrophes.
Major landmarks
The Paris massacre, as well as any crime perpetrated by terrorist ‘sleeping cells’ or ‘lone wolves’ in Europe, or any other place on Earth in the name of Islam, is a major landmark in the war against terrorism. However, it is incumbent on any serious analyst to study past incidents of this nature.
In Lebanon particularly, there are amazing examples. Terrorist acts, as well as aborted acts, whose perpetrators – from various religious sects –were discovered, were indeed linked to certain intelligence agencies. Perhaps the most infamous of those were the so-called ‘Abu Adas case’ intended to divert the investigation of the Rafiq Hariri assassination, and ‘the Michel Samaha scandal’ pertaining to attempts to carry out explosions and political assassination with the intention of causing a bloody sectarian conflict. The Syrian regime’s intelligence agencies were later uncovered to be behind both.
Thus, with regards to the cleansing intended to facilitate redrawing of the political maps of the Region, some observers link the recent terrorist explosions in Lebanon – the latest of which was carried out in the Beirut Shiite suburb of Burj al-Barajeneh – to justifying the long term plan of uprooting the populations of Sunni towns that are as yet delaying the emergence of one of the desired maps. This is, actually, what was exposed by Iran’s push for population exchange between the Sunni population of the town Zabadani and neighbouring towns and villages west of Damascus and the population of the Shiite enclaves in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib in northern Syria. One last note; ISIS and those who have created and are now exploiting it are two faces of the same coin!
Will Obama be a hawk or a dove after Paris?
Andrew Bowen/Al Arabiya/November 21/15
U.S. President Barack Obama entered office with a commitment to end his country’s over-expansive involvement in the Middle East. In the twilight months of his presidency, however, he faces the stark reality that the United States and its partners’ security cannot be guaranteed with a hands-off approach to regional problems. Obama’s legacy may not be so much defined by a rapprochement with Iran or a free-trade tilt to Asia, but how he responds to the challenge of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the wake of the Paris attacks, and what risks he is willing to take to secure America’s future and prosperity. Events, which often shape opinion polls and drive Obama’s foreign policy more than strategic design and intent, may force him to take more risks than he initially expected.
Wrong bet
While it is too early to say to what degree he will go to respond, it is hard to see how, with deepening Russian and French involvement in the anti-ISIS campaign and a public outcry at home, Obama could sit on the sidelines when the security of the United States and its allies is threatened.
Obama risks leaving a legacy defined more by inaction than pro-active and sustained American leadership to confront common global challenges. The most hawkish response so far has been a call to send U.S. ground forces into Syria and Iraq. For Obama, who has defined his legacy on ending two wars in the Middle East, he is unlikely to take such an option – even if it is necessary – based on his stated proclivity against such an option, and the risks he faces in response from his Democratic Party base. Washington arguably has placed too big a bet on trying to suspend Iran’s nuclear program without investing time and resources to confront larger challenges to international security: ISIS and Iran’s regional behavior. These two challenges are arguably interrelated. Tehran’s expansive behavior, from Yemen to Syria, helped stoke the sectarianism that has helped fuel ISIS. Iran’s mismanagement of Iraq, and its support of the Syrian regime, have enabled ISIS to form a state in both countries.
Sustainable path
A more sustainable path would be to reinvigorate ties with regional and international partners, and enhance current assets employed, including expanding military options. One critical area is the need to rebuild and strengthen the critical alliances that have underwritten security in the region since the end of the Cold War. Obama has devoted too many resources and time to building new relations with Iran, at the expense of maintaining strong partnerships with America’s longstanding regional allies. In the aftermath of Paris, Obama should reinvigorate cooperation with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Jordan against the common threat of global extremism. Washington should enhance its support for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in its efforts to resolve Yemen’s civil war. Yemen’s future stability is essential for ensuring that the state does not become a deepening outpost for ISIS.
Washington should more robustly support Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in his efforts to bring stability and economic prosperity to his country, and also to address the deepening crisis in the Sinai. The United States should also continue to back efforts to resolve Libya’s civil war, and work with Egypt and the UAE to roll back ISIS’s territorial expansion. Washington should increase diplomatic pressure to make the Vienna talks a sustainable path for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual departure from power. Equally, more pressure needs to be put on Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi’s government to make meaningful reforms to empower Sunni communities in Iraq. Without inclusive governance in Syria or Iraq, ISIS’s reign of terror will be seen by some as a better alternative to sectarian rule from Damascus and Baghdad. Washington needs to deepen its support for GCC security through enhanced military cooperation and deepening investment in member states’ counter-insurgency capabilities. Without such action, Obama risks leaving a legacy defined more by inaction than pro-active and sustained American leadership to confront common global challenges.
