Finally someone in this thread is adressing the core topic.
IS only targets one concrete result and that is the increase of civil unrest in France as a result of the opposition between the population of arab origins and the rest of the country. Killing innocents is just a means to that end.
This isn't the result of a pre-existing war btwn civilizations. On the contrary, this is the dangerous attempt of a group of smart outlaws to start a war btw civilization by spreading their nihilistic views of the world, their desire to end the world as we know it by making it explode from inside.
This is a typical tactical move when one wants to divert attention from the losses of ones own troups, engage in asymmetrical warfare.
Any action likely to increase the hatred between people, including military retaliation, will serve their goal by generating more hatred and creating more terrorists, further worsening the vicious circle triggered, among other events, by the war in Irak.
When facing an enemy who is not afraid to die to generate more obscurantism, it is pointless to speak about the effectiveness of air strikes.
Not quite that simple. The current French president is facing elections, and his outlook for reelection is/was grim. So it was predictable that he would step up the effort in reaction. This is an opportunity for him as well. These brainwashed (and under the influence of drugs) followers of extremism do not need to be bombarded to hate the rest of the world, fellow muslims no exception. Susceptible (and marginalized) persons apparently can radicalize within a few weeks, so when there is a perceived lack of a meaningful future, the adventure and status among peers becomes an easy choice.
Bombardments are but one element in a coordinated approach. Also, the bombardments of vital infrastructure have been limited, I've heard some 8 sorties per day by the US (which is a bit of a contrast with the 1000 per day in the invasion of Bagdad). But then the goal this time around is not to prepare for invasion, although it's not that clear what the objective actually is.
Cutting their sources of funding must obviously be done, but IMHO, the number one priority we should all be discussing, is how we can create more love for the populations of islamic origins in Western European countries.
Targeting the (financial/arms) resources is a more effective response, but here geopolitics (which are part of the cause already) make things increasingly difficult. Of the annual IS budget (they control some 2 billion US$ assets, and make 3-6 billion US$ annual revenue), some 750 million USD comes from sales of oil and gass (apparently a lot of which goes to their enemy the Assad Regime because he is cut off from other suppliers, and to Turkey), but the lower oil prices do not help them. They have plenty of arms, taken along by Iraqi officers from the Irak war and supplied by the US, but there are enough weapons to be had (indirectly) from various international (US/Russia) sources. They also make a lot of money from sales of other captured resources (food produce like grain, Phosphate, cement/concrete, and minerals), and they also collect tax (a.o. VAT and Road-tax), and they robbed banks (some 500 million US$).
The way I look at it, we have been forced into a tremendous opportunity to fix the many cracks in the theoretical model of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" since the social dimension of the story is central here. Either we succeed quickly to really provide equal opportunities to all the citizens of France and Belgium, regardless of their religions, communities, place of dwelling,... or many more people will die in similar attacks moving forward.
Besides weakening their infrastructures and support among local population, there obviously needs to be done much more to take away sympathy with marginalized segments of the western population. Lots of budget cuts have made things worse in that aspect, maybe especially in France and Belgium, but not only there. The influx of millions of refugees, which is used as a weapon, only makes matters worse because Western resources are limited and disruption of the social fabric is conceivable. Muslim countries are very absent in taking part in refugee relief, for a reason ...
It's a complex situation, mostly caused by geopolitics and proliferation of weapons in exchange for oil and other natural resources. Religious fundamentalism (all religions) also does not help. Thinking stops where Dogmas start. Solving something that has been created over centuries, and accelerated in the last 7 decades, cannot be done overnight. Radicals in the world will never be totally eliminated (just like crime cannot be totally defeated and police made unnecessary) so the best one can hope for is to reduce their presence and impact to 'acceptable proportions'.
Here is
an interesting interview with a (unfortunately very rare) minority voice (Saudi-Born Singer Shams Bandar) in the Muslim community, on Egyptian television. She is right that the card of the victim role is played a lot by Muslims, without a critical look at themselves. But then Western society is not free of blame either. It's complex, and will take a lot of time and effort (education) to somewhat improve.
Cheers,
Bart
