The most used word is “war”. But are we sure this is the right word? And anyway, what do we mean, really? We also spoke of "war", of terror, after the attack by Al-Qaida, on September 11, 2001, so much so that the allies offered the United States the solidarity of article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the mobilization of NATO.
Then the Americans preferred to follow other paths to conduct their attack on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which offered terrorists refuge and aid. NATO intervened in that country only later, to lead a stabilization and state-building process that is still in doubt today.
La Turkey he asked for the solidarity of NATO, on the basis of art. 5, against the terrorist attacks, not only by ISIS and Al-Qaida, but also, according to Ankara, by the Kurds of the PKK and, indirectly, by the government of Bashar El Assad, in Syria. The allies have expressed solidarity, but have not initiated a collective mobilization.
No one has yet officially spoken of the art. 5 and of NATO to respond to terrorist attacks by Paris, but many voices have been raised to argue that the war against ISIS should become NATO's task. It is not clear whether this responsibility of the Alliance should extend only to Iraq, also to Syria and finally to all or some of the other territories controlled by affiliates of theIsis such as in Libya, Sinai, Yemen, Nigeria or elsewhere.
The two faces of terrorism
The problem has two faces, one internal and one international. They are connected, but remain very different and autonomous from each other. On the one hand there are the terrorists who hit the France and which could tomorrow hit other countries, European and non-European. These terrorists pose a major internal security problem, but not a military threat.
They are inspired by Isis, but they are also autonomous, and their recruitment is generally the work of preachers and "bad teachers" settled in Europe, even if they feed on the proclamations and slogans circulating on the Internet and which are elaborated and disseminated by the ISIS propaganda centre.
With some forcing, wanting to remain in the logic of "war", we could define them as one "fifth column". The fight against them requires intense investigative and intelligence action as well as a strong work of counter-propaganda and social mobilization, especially within the ethnic and religious communities of origin.
Framework of alliances suitable for our purposes
On the other hand, there is Isis and the territories controlled by its gangs and those affiliated to it. In these cases, a military intervention, to break the initiative and to deny them control of the territory. This could also become the task of NATO, but only on condition that the arrival of the Alliance does not complicate the political-strategic conduct of operations, instead of simplifying it (as it would certainly happen on a purely operational and tactical level).
In other words, it is necessary to evaluate what is the framework of alliances which we deem most suitable for our purposes and, on this basis, also decide on the role and responsibilities of NATO.
So, for example, who will our regional allies be? There are many, perhaps too many, from Turkey to Iran, from Saudi Arabia to Israel, from Egypt to Russia, in addition to the Kurds (of various backgrounds and political faiths), the government of Baghdad and the many Syrian factions. Many of them are mutually incompatible and each has its own priorities and objectives, different from each other, and often from ours.
It is clear that it is necessary to exert severe military pressure on ISIS by undoing its current "winning" image - which fuels its international recruitment - and by destroying as much of its military, financial and propaganda capabilities as possible.
However it is clear that this can only be successful by ensuring a realistic and stable control of the territories that will gradually be "liberated": driving him out of those territories is the first necessary step, preventing him from returning is the second, and it is here that the choice becomes decisive of allies, since no one thinks of putting a colonial system.
Talking about "war" can give simplistic and wrong ideas. Thus, for example, there are those who think that a possible allied intervention in Syria and Iraq could be analogous to the allied intervention in Germany during World War II, which ended with the division of Germany into territories entrusted to the primary responsibility of one of the victorious powers, which rapidly led to the creation of two Germanys, the western democratic and the eastern communist one and, after the collapse of the Berlin wall and the communist bloc, to their eventual reunification.
Fight against brigandage, not war
In this hypothesis one would proceed (a bit like what happened for theformer Yugoslav federation) to entrust portions of territory to the self-government of the dominant factions or ethnic groups in that area at the end of the military operations, perhaps under the protective control of the United Nations or of the allies.
However, this situation is very different from those, and we are also seeing in Europe the problems that the growing fragmentation of nation states, from the United Kingdom to Spain, risks posing. Let's multiply them by a hundred and see what could happen throughout the Middle East and in Africa. Who thinks he can govern such a process?
And finally, we really want to give these terrorists and these gangs of bloodthirsty assassins, who respect neither the laws of war nor the same humanitarian precepts of their religion, the dignity of defining them as a enemy legitimate? Should we perhaps send a formal declaration of war on ISIS, or should we not rather conduct a muscular and decisive international police operation to put an end to the control of large territories by gangs of brigands?
This is fight against brigandagenot war.
Attachments: 3229
