Well-Ordered Philanthropy …

At the start of the weekend, the U.S. president stepped up the tone, donning his war chief uniform and declaring “war without mercy” against Islamic State. He said he was “determined” to “destroy” it. Note that the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, who intended to put an end to the misguided ways of the United States and its military interventions in the four corners of the world, has been doing “better” since then, although arguably worse than his predecessor, George W. Bush, when we acknowledge that the latter made no secret of his projects for the Middle East. Obama, for his part, has distinguished himself by his good looks and dishonestly naive declarations about peace. He has thus shown himself to be a formidably calculating person, capable of doing an about-face without any qualms. In 2011, from the rostrum of the United Nations General Assembly, he wished for Palestine’s accession to the U.N.; the following year, he was the fiercest to oppose it. Since then, he has learned to recognize which “red lines” not to cross.

The handling of terrorism in general, and the jihadi question in particular, show how much the American president has persisted in looking through the wrong end of the telescope. He only saw what he wanted to see, all while trying to make the facts fit his biased reading of them, only partially taking account of the jihadi reality. Barack Obama knows — or should at the very least know — this reality, one to which American leaders are not complete strangers; they even contributed to its genesis.

In 2001, there was only one organized jihadi presence in Afghanistan. In 2014, 13 years later, according to experts, there are some 15 or so jihadi groups operating across several continents. And yet, the Americans are the most responsible for the proliferation of terrorist groups, especially since their invasion of Iraq. The terrorist phenomenon was previously unknown in the Middle East. Yet, in only a few years, with frantic proselytizing and support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, this region has experienced a considerable geopolitical upheaval. The United States, which had plans to divide Arab countries into ethnic and religious states, strongly approved and supported the policies of fundamentalist monarchies in the Gulf. In fact, two fundamentalisms met: that of U.S. hegemony, which wanted to establish “moderate” states in the Arab world — that is, states which aren’t hostile to either the U.S. or Israel — and monarchies, which wanted Arab partners conforming to their own image.

What happened in Syria, and the so-called “Arab Spring,” fully entered into this policy of “reconverting” and “reconfiguring” the Arab world. Without commenting on the chaos that characterizes Libya after the Western military intervention, let’s nonetheless mention that the so-called “revolution” organized by the U.S. and Gulf monarchies against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad is turning into a nightmare for them. When the White House supported, even indirectly, the jihadi against the Syrian regime, it made a strategic choice. Between an undoubtedly despicable dictatorship and jihadi who wanted to impose their dogma through violence and brutality, Obama chose the latter. Yet, the jihadi were far better organized, trained and financed than the ragtag group known under the name of the Free Syrian Army. Indeed, this quickly manifested itself on the ground, all the more so as the so-called “moderate opposition,” largely made up of stateless Syrians, lost ground on all fronts. In Syria, it was really the various jihadi groups, one of which went on to take the name of Islamic State, which lead the fight against the Damascus regime. The two monarchies named above financed these jihadi groups with the tacit agreement of the United States.

According to a recent report by the CIA, between 20,000 and 31,000 jihadi operate in Syria and Iraq; other sources speak of more than 100,000. Islamic State’s wealth is estimated to be more than $2 billion. If Islamic State has been able to function as a “state,” it’s certainly because in addition to its countless sources of financing, it was allowed to do so under the belief that it would bring about what the U.S. had planned for the Arab world.

However, the execution of two American journalists, as well as the difficulties that American multinationals have encountered in Iraq, has been a game-changer, making Washington re-evaluate the situation. Obama has thus made a strategic reversal against Islamic State, just as the monarchies, which see this entity as a threat to their thrones, have also done.

There was nothing humanist or philanthropic in what the U.S. did in Iraq. Q.E.D.