The language of war has returned ever since the Paris Attacks. The French PM has not held back the ballistic rhetoric and insists on qualifying this as a war between France and Da’esh (they hate that name). In doing so, Hollande steps into the shoes of George W. Bush who similarly had declared war on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly after the sad events of 9/11. Ever since 13/11 (European calendar) Hollande has upped the tempo and has even resorted to invoking international clauses before the UN in order to intensify the attacks on Da’esh.
One thing that has really been getting at me ever since this war discourse has begun is the frequent reference to the facts of the Paris Attacks as though they are the first time ever that a European nation is facing terror and terrorist attacks. The modern generation of politicians seem to have a faint, or non-existent, grasp of the recent history of their continent. It would appear that it is the first time that a group of men opened fire on innocent civilians, the first time that bombs went off in a major European city, the first time that a sporting event was directly in the line of fire and – to add the events of the Russian events on the Sinai – the first time that a plane was bombed or hijacked by terrorists.
As if this historical distortion is not enough we have to also add the fact that the context of all this terror-talk is a Europe that is already submerged in fear-mongering in relation to the “threat” of immigration. The Paris Attacks occurred within the context of a major continental upheaval with regards to immigrants and refugees and we had no time to factor in the issue of continental values that was still very much unresolved at the time.
What do I mean by historical distortion? This is a generation of politicians that are used to selling their wares through very efficient marketing and rhetoric. They are used to manipulating facts and figures in order to infuse feel good factors. Just take a look at “Our economy is booming” Renzi and Muscat for a clear example of what is meant. These politicians are now faced with a concrete problem and have to seem as efficient as when they are trumping up figures to make their economy sound beautiful. So they tell us that this is a danger such as we have never seen before. In one fell swoop the deeds of the IRA, ETA, Baader-Meinhoff, Brigade Rosse and the PLO (and PLF) are vanished away. According to the new rhetoric the bombings at Liverpool Street Station, Bologna or the shootings at Munich are just fiction.
Muhammad Zaidan (Abu Abbas for enemies) never existed. The governments of Thatcher and Craxi never had to deal with terrorist cells. No. Only now are we at WAR. The enemy is everywhere. That is what they want you to believe.
Does this mean that a terrorist threat from Da’esh should be ignored or is not so bad as they make it sound? Nonsense. What I mean is that this sudden linking of terrorist attack to acts of war has consequences that go far beyond dealing with them as the type of security threat that they really are. With the death of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the mastermind behind the Paris attacks, we were told that he was very probably the mastermind behind most of the other attacks that occurred recently – or that were foiled. from the shootout in Verviers to the foiled Thalys aggression – it was Abaaoud. When you read the facts that are available in terms of 70s and 80s terrorism it begins to look very likely that we are dealing with a cell of extreme terrorists.
This kind of cell is a bunch of individuals disgruntled with society in very much the same vein as a Breivik or your average US High School Shooter in the US. It is now also clear that they are raised and bred in Europe only to abscond to war zones like Syria to get “training” in much the same way as the Che Guevara’s of other decades rushed to zones of popular revolution. The “ideology” is an excuse or pressure valve justification to unleash pent up anger at a society that they claim misunderstands them. When they do manage to succeed with one of their plans to explode or kill that is when Da’esh steps in to claim ownership. Which is fortunate for Da’esh because, as they themselves claim in their newsletters, any action that is successful and perpetrated by anyone can be claimed as originating from them no matter how spurious the link is. This makes Da’esh look much larger and organised on the European mainland than it really is.
The flaws in European security relate to the inability to flag disillusioned individuals, the facility with which they can obtain weapons in a society that does not treat guns and bombs as liberally as the US and finally, the biggest flaw is looking for a massive organisation where there most probably is none. Da’esh’s hand in all this is ‘limited’ so to speak in obtaining a monopoly on fear. The ultimate aim for Da’esh is to provoke the “Us and Them” mentality – and they hope to recruit more than just a handful of misplaced youths with suicidal tendencies. That is why the war language serves Da’esh more than it serves your average European state.
It may sound crazy at this moment in time but I strongly believe that Europe – particularly the Union – has much bigger problems than the terrorism threat. The main issue here is the search for a Europe of Values with common intent. It is that Europe that failed to take shape when Giscard d’Estaing’s constitutional convention failed to deliver a clear definition of the Europe that we all want. It is only by defining what it is and what its values are that Europe can finally stand up and be clear about its position vis-a-vis the immigrants that are looking to it as a place of refuge or economic improvement. When we can tell refugees and immigrants who we are and what standards they must conform to then we can really wage the real war that counts. The war on ignorance and intolerance.
Before you face your enemy it is important to know thyself. Nosce te ipsum.
