Paris Attacks: Fanaticism, Weapons, Economic Interests. Why Are They Attacking Us?

After the Paris massacres one thing is certain. The trenches are everywhere. We need to understand how we got to this point. There is a feeling in Italy — maybe more than just a feeling — that a horrible, devastating attack will also happen here. Again, how did we get to this point? We need to look at geopolitics: What is happening in that sector, between Syria and Iraq, where the so-called Islamic State was born? What are the interests at stake? I mean, what interests are at stake for the Western powers as well? Are we sure that the political and military strategy of the West is free of errors?

We are under attack, the offensive has developed with growing strength: the attack at Charlie Hebdo, the attack in Tunisia, the Russian plane. Now in Paris. We are at war. It’s Europe’s Sept. 11. Right. But why? Why are they attacking us? If we do not consider the West’s responsibilities, we can tell ourselves a nice fairy tale: We are the good guys and they embody evil. That’s not how it is. The historical and political question is more complex.

For years, Europe and the U.S. — this is the point — supported corrupt tyrants: Gadhafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, today Syrian President Assad. Economic interests determined choices and positions. When the political order changed, the idea became to restore order (our order) through aerial bombing and drones. It’s a strange idea of democracy, thinking one can resolve a civil war that is underway by bombing and replacing one “friendly” regime with another. Years ago, reflecting on other wars, Jacques Derrida wrote, “Are there rogue states? If the reasons of the strongest are always the best … then yes.” In sum, chaos in the lands between Syria and Iraq is also the fruit of our errors.

Sure, then there is the question of Islamic fanaticism, but for now, let’s understand the economic reasons — the structural basis, to use Marxist terms — at the base of the conflict. The war is advanced by economic interests veiled by religious motives. Religion is being used, instrumentalized. Who finances the Islamic State group? This is an interesting question. It allows us to understand the contradictions and chaos in which we are immersed. Good. Among the financiers — many have pointed to them — there were, until yesterday, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, countries that are friends of the United States. They were financing the Islamic State group to counter Shiism. It’s true. But the weapons were used by the Islamic State group against Paris, too. Which is how we get to the paradoxical situation of a great power — the U.S. — which expresses solidarity with the French victims killed with Turkish and Saudi weapons. Is it possible to be sympathetic with the countries that finance terror and those that suffer it at the same time? Fortunately, Obama has decided to move beyond this ambiguity, and the recent Vienna accord of two days ago, confirmed yesterday by the leading rich and developing nations of the G-20, provides a solution to the Syrian question: Assad must abandon governance by the end of the year, a transition government will be formed in six months, and then there will be new elections.

This is a first element of clarity. Creating a minimal amount of adherence to democratic standards in Syria is fundamental. The other question is the response to the Islamic State group and its followers, organized for power-driven ends by the al Baghdadi caliph. It’s the most complex aspect, which cannot be resolved by countering an Islamic fanaticism with a Western fanaticism. In short, the question cannot be resolved just with weapons or according to journalist Maurizio Belpietro with that absurd headline, “Islamic Bastards.” We won’t get anything out of it. We just risk irritating the moderates and turning them into enemies. The path — as far as Muslims in Europe are concerned — is integration and multiculturalism. The Islamic State group is an enemy of moderate Muslims; it wants to fanaticize them, make them ready to die. The Islamic State group stands for religious integrality, theocracy, a lack of distinction between politics and religion. It’s medieval. Political autonomy (Machiavelli) is a distant goal: it’s invisible.

If we do not distinguish between good Islam and fanatic Islam, we play al Baghdadi’s game. We need to oppose a religious war against the Islamic world; beyond ads and Oriana Fallaci (fashionable again today among warmongers), the face-off is with the minority of religious integralists that the Islamic State group has created. The enemy is circumscribed. It’s not “the” Muslim.

However, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that isolating the terrorists and striking them with traditional weapons is not easy. You cannot face terrorists like a battle squadron; they strike and disappear. It’s a difficult war. We need a lot of diplomacy, beyond military efforts, which unites opposition forces against terror; the U.S. and Russia, above all. They have finally restarted talks (the power of the terrorists, often, comes from the differences and weaknesses of the two superpowers, which have thought — even this has happened — to use terrorism in politics against one another). For months, Obama and Putin did not speak. Did this silence promote or damage Islamic terrorism?

Europe must not lose its head. The Islamic State group has declared war on us. Among the reasons, as we said, is what we are responsible for; we sell weapons, among other things, to our adversaries, we give our enemies the means to kill us. We need to admit that we did not manage political and economic relations well with that world. Now we need to respond to the violence by inflicting the least amount of damage, by avoiding the idea that the entire Muslim world forms a coalition against us. (In France alone there are 7 million Muslims.)

France bombed Raqqa, an expected response after the gravity of what happened. (There are many possible reflections, starting with Norberto Bobbio’s words on the “just war.”) But, careful, we cannot resolve the crisis just with bombs. We often find the following idea repeated: Once the war is won, you need to know how to win the peace; how to organize successive phases to the military one; how to promote a democratic process (without hegemonic intentions) for a stable balance in that complex geopolitical area. Nonetheless, it’s trouble to lose our heads. We need to know that we have difficult days ahead, yes; that a terrorist attack in Rome is more than an abstract hypothesis. And just accept that oversight, limits, police blockades will be reinforced. People say: We are losing our freedom. No. There is no juxtaposition between freedom and security. Security helps to guarantee freedom.

Freedom in all its shapes and forms. Pope Francis is right about this. Not celebrating Jubilation is a mistake. Not just for those who are religious — the believers — but also for the secular, for those who believe that democracy does not need God (Flores d’Arcais), because we cannot give up our freedom. That’s what the terrorists want. Caution, yes, but also freedom to act. Freedom. It characterizes our civilization, it’s a necessity which cannot be forsaken. We need to continue being (and feeling) free even if at any point today — it does not seem like a contradiction — we are potential targets in our cities. The idea of sensitive areas has emerged (the Colosseum, Saint Peter’s Square) …. After Paris we know that everywhere, at the movies, at the restaurant, on the street, we are possible targets. Terrorism has switched strategy. It strikes anywhere. We are in the trenches everywhere. I told you, if we really want to understand, we need to ask ourselves why in the Paris suburbs (and in the suburbs of all metropolitan areas) do many terrorists incubate and grow. Is it because of some social disadvantage? Marginalization? A desperate youth, without a future, without work … does he not perhaps more easily succumb to Islamic fanaticism, which offers him the heroic gesture? Let’s ask ourselves. We cannot defeat barbarities just with weapons, but by eliminating the reasons behind them.