Would War Be Worse than Jihadis?

The pope’s secretary of state estimates that nations will have to combine their forces to ensure the defense of unarmed citizens against international terrorism.

According to most experts, the crisis that tears Iraq and Syria apart will not be controlled by simple aerial attacks. Sooner or later, armed forces will have to intervene on the ground. This is similar to what happened in Libya, which was left in chaos by NATO’s bombardments. And millions of Western soldiers fought in Afghanistan and Iraq without being able to bring a modicum of order, peace or security.

But wouldn’t soldiers recruited in Iraq, helped by advisers from Washington, Paris and Ottawa to defend their communities, be more successful in this situation than Western soldiers who no longer want to be exposed to ambushes, to car bombs or to suicide bombers? The dilemma is that Iraqi soldiers would have to be supplied with heavy arms, like those that the U.S. gave to the Iraqi army and which fell into the hands of extremists from the Islamic State.

There are more problems. Iraq can’t raise more troops within its Shiite majority without pushing other Sunnis to the side of the extremists. Similarly, the U.S. and its allies can’t arm the Kurds without contributing to the emergence of an independent Kurdistan. For Iraq, this state would signify a loss of territory and resources. And for Turkey, it would mean a neighbor barely less worrisome than a caliphate of extremists. Not to mention Syria under Bashar al-Assad!

Even countries that have previously resolved not to get involved in the conflicts of this region are now forced by public opinion to stop a group of fanatics that massacre their people, behead Western hostages, and promise to attack everywhere on the planet. But none of those governments are clear about how to deal with such a threat. And war, too often deployed in this region, risks aggravating the situation, they say.

Some reproach President Obama, who did not anticipate the situation, for returning to Iraq without any strategy or solution. Others accuse David Cameron, the British prime minister, of following Obama as if another war isn’t going to cause even more destruction and misery to populations already overwhelmed. And in Canada, the opposition blames the war against Stephen Harper, while the prime minister, who sees it as the challenge of a generation, is sticking to a commitment of at least six months.

To be honest, even stable and democratic governments would have trouble figuring out a plan of action and the means big enough to neutralize these crises, which are often linked together and persist in the Near and Middle East. The international culture of Barack Obama has not managed to credit his presidency with any success or distinction. It was thus surprising that Stephen Harper could open the way to Canada.

Yet, this myopia is not unique to a conservative office. Liberals and neo-democrats again propose humanitarian aid or governance classes for the leaders of Third World countries. Both are victims of this arrogance that allowed London and Paris to carve out artificial countries directly from the Ottoman Empire as well as from free nations today, establishing their democracy with bombs.

Robert R. Fowler is an adviser to numerous Canadian prime ministers and ambassadors in Africa and a special envoy to the United Nations. In The Globe and Mail on Saturday, he signed a striking analysis of cultural faults of democratic countries and foreign policy. Seeing their own values as universal, these countries’ governments will sow a strong hatred of the Western world. Their intervention will result in catastrophe for humanity and geopolitical disaster.

The conclusion? The jihadi’s bloody propaganda is a deliberate provocation. It aims to destabilize Western capitals, which are more hesitant to send their children to fight and prefer to kill innocent people by resorting to bombings. In this way, they get stuck in the mud even more, justifying a revolt against them and against regimes that lean on them, and incite more and more children into joining the ranks of their holy war.

Rejecting the theory of “clash of civilizations,” Cardinal Pietro Parolin, secretary of state to Pope Francis, addressed the United Nations on Sept. 29 about the dramatic events of the Middle East and the essential role that cultural factors play. He stressed the importance of dialogue that already exists in these cultures, religions and ethnic communities. Against international terrorism he estimates, nonetheless, that nations will have to combine their forces to ensure the defense of unarmed citizens.

The states have not had to dictate the truth in religious matters, even though they might approve of the dialogue, the appreciation of cultures and the cooperation, all while respecting sensitivity. More importantly, they have not had to rigidly impose political models that disrespect people’s different sensitivities. Going further, the representative of the Holy See expressed a wish for the international right to also protect people against a financial system governed by speculation and maximum profit.

But while Fowler, who was himself held hostage in Africa, suggests suspending development programs in order to give priority to the eradication of terrorists at home, Parolin supports sustainable development as long as it addresses the structural causes of poverty and hunger. Terrorism is not the only obstacle in development but without development, one could believe that terrorism might curb progress.