WarSclerotic

If, during the Cold War, research credits for social and political studies were oriented towards the study of «totalitarism» – in other words, the assimilation of Nazism and Stalinism – they were reoriented towards «terrorism» just after the attacks of the 11 September 2001. Suddenly, thousands of experts appeared, all financed in order to justify, a posteriori, the official version of the attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the proclamation of the Patriot Act.

Thirteen years later, the phenomen repeated itself on the occasion of the proclamation of the Caliphate by Daesh. It was now less a question of fighting a vague terrorist threat than engaging in a war against a genuine though unrecognised state, and anticipating the transfer of arms, money and combatants that it generates.

Two intergovernmental organisations, the UNO and the European Union, have accomplished a colossal job of work defining a strategy for the «prevention of violent extremism» and the fight against Daesh. The General Assembly of the United Nations will examine this work on the 30 June and the 1 July. Obviously, one may fear that the «prevention of violent extremism» may be no more than a justification for the repression of any form of opposition.

When we read the available documents — those (1) of the Secretary General of the UNO [1], (2) the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (Resolution 1373), (3) the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team [2], and (4) the European Union External Action Service [3] — we are overcome with vertigo at what looks less like a battle plan than an elaboration of politically correct rhetoric.

The UNO and the EU base their work exclusively on Western sources which are far removed from the terrain – not only do they never make a single mention of the information transmitted by Iraq, Syria and Russia, but seem to ignore the very existence of such information. And yet it was handed to the Security Council by ambassadors Mohamed Ali Alhakim, Bachar Ja’afari and Vitali Tchourkine. The documents are freely available.

Syria, and to a far lesser degree, Iraq, furnished information concerning the transfer of money, arms and jihadists on a day-to-day basis, while Russia distributed five thematic reports concerning
 1. the illegal commerce of hydrocarbons [4];
 2. the recruiting of foreign terrorist combatants [5];
 3. the trafficking of antiques [6];
 4. the deliveries of arms and ammunition [7];
 5. the components intended for the fabrication of improvised explosive devices [8].

All these documents directly implicate Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. These three states – allies of Washington – have all responded with generalised denials without ever discussing the slightest element of the charges.

Daesh is functional on the four strategic objectives of the United States, namely the fomenting of a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq, the project for the partition of Iraq into three federalised parts, the project for cutting the road linking Iran and Lebanon, and the project for the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic. To the point where we might ask ourselves – if Daesh didn’t exist, would Washington have had to invent it?

It would be a mistake to believe that the occulting of the documents mentioned above is the result of anti-Iraqi, anti-Syrian or anti-Russian prejudice. Indeed, the Western sources, both public and private, which support their evidence are also ignored. For example, declassified documents from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency [9], or the articles in Jane’s, the favourite magazine of NATO officers [10]. No, the UNO and the EU approach the question of Daesh with one clear and simple a priori – this state popped up quite spontaneously, without any help whatsoever.

The UNO’s blindness is such that its Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, attributes to the International Coalition led by Washington the victories obtained through the sacrifices made by the Iraqi and Syrian Arab armies, the Lebanese Resistance, as well as the massive engagement of the Russian army.

The «result» of fifteen years of the «war against terror», we are assured, is to have killed more than a million and a half civilians in order to eliminate 65,000 to 90,000 presumed terrorists, and to have moved from an obscure terrorist threat (Al-Qaïda) directly to a terrorist state (Daesh)! After having explained that fifteen member-states of the UNO have «failed» (Failed States) despite years of international aid, we are supposed to believe that within a few months a group of illiterate conscripts has managed, on its own, to create a state and threaten world peace.

Al-Qaïda has moved quietly from the status of «threat» to that of «ally», depending on the situation. It was able to finance the AKP in Turkey [11], help NATO overthrow Mouamar el-Kadhafi in Libya and do a «good job» in Syria, while still being listed by the UNO as a terrorist organisation. No-one has judged it constructive to explain this evolution and this contradiction. In any case, it doesn’t matter any more, since the status of «enemy» is now occupied by Daesh.

Over the last fifteen years, we have watched the Western camp develop its theory about 9/11 and the threat of Al-Qaïda. After the publication of my critisism of this cock and bull fable [12], and despite the fact that terrorist attacks have multiplied, we have seen public opinion begin to doubt the sincerity of their governments, then move gradually away from their official declarations to the point of not believing them at all any more. All this while certain heads of state – in Cuba, Iran [13], and Venezuela – have publicly declared that they are not falling for it.

Given that this time, the opposition point of view is defended from the beginning by numerous states, including two permanent members of the Security Council – Russia and China – are we going to spend the next fifteen years becoming schizophrenic about the «danger of Daesh»?