Who is really responsible for Terrorism today?

Today there is heightened concern and fear among western publics about terrorism. There is no doubt that ISIS, along with other jihadi groups, poses a real (if often exaggerated) threat and have committed many heinous atrocities. But the horrible truth is, that the U.S and their G7 'partners' - that is, the political wing of what today makes up a Transnational Elite (i.e. the political, economic, cultural, elites who reside mainly in the G7 and who collectively manage neoliberal globalization) – are not only responsible for far greater crimes (i.e. millions dead and maimed in wars), but share a large degree of the blame for the rise of these groups in the first place.

There is a long history of the Transnational Elite (TE), either directly or indirectly supporting Islamist movements. From the Taliban’s precursors, the Mujahedeen (back then dubbed 'freedom fighters') fighting with U.S support against the progressive Soviet backed government, to the jihadist’s in Libya, who NATO knew from the beginning of that conflict, formed the backbone of the uprising against Gaddafi. Today, we can add the various Islamist groups in Syria, which have been directly and indirectly supported, as declassified U.S defence documents recently confirmed, by the TE in an unholy alliance with reactionary Arab states, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The main reason why the TE has aided such groups is that they have played a useful role in weakening their real target – namely, independent/nationalist governments that, in one way or another, fail to play by the rules of neoliberal globalization, managed by the TE.

These independent governments have in various ways frustrated the TE, not because of their lack of democracy or human rights abuses etc – otherwise how could one explain the continued close alliance between the TE and reactionary regimes e.g. the militarist head chopping Saudi's! But because they have tended to adopt an independent foreign policy – supporting, for example, Palestinian resistance movements – and most of all because they have refused to open up, privatise and liberalize their economies for the further penetration of Transnational Corporations, who today dominate the global economy and who are owned and controlled by economic elites residing mainly with the G7! Syrian President Bashar Al Assad summed all this up well in a recent interview he gave:

"France wanted Syria to play a role with Iran concerning the nuclear file. What was required was not to be part of that file, but to convince Iran to take steps which are against its interests. We refused to do that. They also wanted us to take a position against resistance in our region before putting an end to Israeli occupation and aggression against the Palestinians and other neighboring countries. We refused that too. They wanted us to sign the Euro-Association Agreement which was against our interests and was meant to turn our country into an open market for their products while giving us a very small share of their markets. We refused to do that because it is against the interests of the Syrian people."

With respect to ISIS, it is well documented that this Sunni insurgent group was incubated in the wake of the chaos unleashed by the Iraq war the subsequent dismantling of the Baathist state. But it’s worse than that. The G7 elites were quite happy to let ISIS and other Jihadi groups do their worst in Syria, in coalition with their main agents on the ground the so-called 'free Syrian Army,’….as long as the guns were pointed at the Syrian state which the TE had earmarked for 'regime change'. Up until recently, the western media failed to report the atrocities of these groups and instead blamed everything, despite much counter logic/evidence, on the government.

ISIS only became the official target of the TE when they got out of hand. That is, they started to attack the FSA - the direct agents of the TE on the ground – as well as the pro-western Kurds of Barzani in Northern Iraq, who sit on top of some of the most lucrative oil fields in Iraq! It was these actions that led ISIS to become a target of the TE. Even today, however, the war against them is only cosmetic. Bashar Assad observed that the Syrian Army has carried out many more airstrikes in a single day than the western led coalition of 60 countries has carried out in weeks. Clearly ISIS is being allowed to continue to play a role weakening the main target of the TE: the Syrian Government.

But aren't 'we' (i.e the TE) supporting the 'moderates' in Syria? For starters all of these ‘moderates’ are a far cry from the peaceful protestors we are familiar with – they are armed insurgents. Imagine if western states were faced with armed movements (backed by foreign governments no less!), committing atrocities and aiming to overthrow the government. One can hardly imagine them being labeled ‘moderates’! Perhaps more importantly, almost the entire armed opposition, including the ‘moderates’, are Islamists, not secularists, and their only 'revolutionary' demand is to overthrow Assad! The only force within Syria fighting for secularism is the Syrian Arab Army, which strong evidence and logic suggests, still retains strong support from the majority of Syrians.

That said, as Steven Gowens points out, there is indeed a real difference between the ‘moderates’ and the ‘extremists’ in Syria – that is, ‘if moderate is defined as amenable to direction by Washington.’ And he goes on to spell out the real role these groups play, in the regime change strategy:

"Most rebels are Islamists whose goal is to establish a state governed by the Koran. US strategy in Syria is not to allow Islamists to come to power, but to use them to force a political settlement—one in which Assad steps down and relinquishes power to actors who are keen to turn Syria into a western puppet state, much like the current government in Ukraine, with its cadre of wealthy business people, investment bankers, anti-Russian rightists, and foreigners, including a former US government employee as finance minister."

I disagree with a supposedly 'anarchist' sentiment one sometimes hears: i.e. 'a pox on all your houses'. The implication being, that anarchists should idly sit by in sublime 'neutrality', while the most powerful elites in the world run roughshod over the basic right of all people to national independence/sovereignty, in their bid for reliable client states who will play by the rules of globalization! To me, there is no contradiction in standing up for a people’s right to national sovereignty – even when that means supporting governments and armies we may not like – and being an anarchist.

All this does not mean that I blame everything to do with war and terrorism on the G7 elites. Clearly the conflict in Syria (and elsewhere) emerges out of long tensions between the Syrian secular state and a poor/disenfranchised Muslim minority. Ecological issues, such as rapid population growth across the Middle East in recent decades, and the consequent ‘youth bulge,’ have also played a major role enhancing tensions. Then there is the whole question of why Islamic/religious fundamentalism has been resurgence in recent decades – a question, which has been well addressed from radical left perspectives by Saral Sarkar here and Takis Fotopoulos here.

In a real sense we too – the ordinary citizens of the west – are culpable. Not just due to our lack of interest in these issues, or willingness to speak out or protest about what governments do in our name. Even more so because we continue to demand the affluent middle class lifestyles that, in a real sense, are the spoils of a now globalized transnational empire of capital. Yes, the super-corporate rich are the main beneficiaries, but the middle class billions – still a small minority of the world’s population – are also beneficiaries, at least in a narrow material sense. As Ted Trainer reminds us, in a world of scarce resources, ‘if you want affluence, prepare for war.’

So next time a discussion among your family and friends breaks out about issues of militarism, terrorism and war, tell them that to overcome this sad syndrome requires some radical actions. In the short term we must speak out against the global power elites who are often supporting or helping terrorists to flourish in their attempts to undermine independent/nationalist governments. But we also need to work toward the long-term transformation of our own societies, towards systems, cultures and lifestyles that do not require us to take more than our fair share of world resources. We need to work, in other words, towards a simpler way.