Friday, December 2, 2016

RAQQA OPERATION: US' POTENTIAL 'BARGAINING CHIP' IN POST-WAR TALKS OVER SYRIA IN POST WAR SYRIA By Ghassan Kadi 1 Dec 2016


Raqqa Operation: US' Potential 'Bargaining Chip' in Post-War Talks Over Syria


Raqqa Operation: US' Potential 'Bargaining Chip' in Post-War Talks Over Syria

Subscribe
Washington's much-discussed Raqqa operation is yet another attempt to intimidate Russia, make Russo-Syrian military operations more difficult to conduct, and to create a "bargaining chip" for future post-war negotiations, Syrian political analyst Ghassan Kadi told Sputnik.

Washington's direct involvement in the Raqqa operation is aimed at intimidating Russia and creating leverage in post-war negotiations, Syrian political analyst and expert in Middle Eastern affairs Ghassan Kadi suggested speaking to Sputnik.

Still, Donald Trump's win in the US presidential election is likely to complicate the situation for American war planners.

"With or without a post-Trump inauguration foreign policy shift, if it happens, America knows well that it cannot have a long-term military presence in Syria," Kadi highlighted.

Raqqa Operation and Kurdish Issue

"But there is more to the American operation. Your question in fact brings in the Kurdish issue. America is hoping to be able to slice a piece off Syria and create an independent Kurdish state, and this is perhaps its major long-term aim," the analyst noted, adding that "this is where American and Turkish interests come at odds."

"Apart from the dangers of Syrian partition and what comes with it, my personal concern about this is what human cost Syrian Kurds may end up paying. This is why I am with the firm view that the prospect of creating a Kurdish state is one that the Syrian government should attempt to prevent by means of negotiation with the Kurds. One has to bear in mind that unlike what some fire stokers are trying to do in way of inflaming anti-Kurdish passions, not all Kurds seek partition," Kadi told Sputnik.

The analyst reiterated that a win-win solution on the issue can be reached only through constructive talks.

"The only win-win outcome for the Syrian government and Syrian Kurds combined is one that can be achieved by negotiation, and under the clear understanding that every inch of Syrian soil will need to remain under the roof of Damascus as I have argued in the past," Kadi stressed.

However, with Trump taking over the reins of leadership in the White House, it will become harder for US strategists to drive a wedge between Damascus and the Syrian Kurds.

Trump's Win: Will US Finally Separate Moderate Rebels From Terrorists?

Eagle - Sputnik International
America's Rebalance: Trump's Election Opened Door to New Global Order
The Syrian analyst remarked that all depend on whether Trump will fulfill his election promises.

"How this will, or how this can, affect the situation in Syria will ultimately depend on the nature of the relationship President Trump will seek and manage to establish with Russia," Kadi underscored.

"And once again, thus far, Trump seems to be determined to seek better relationships with Russia. If this materializes, and if Trump acknowledges the underlying reasons behind the many failures of the Obama administration and decides to work together with Russia within Syria, then many sticking problems within Syria can be properly addressed and improved," the analyst pointed out.

Perhaps, Washington will finally disclose who the so-called moderate rebels are and where exactly they are located, he remarked.

Still, "Trump may even go a step further and announce that there are no such groups as moderate rebels and declare open season, and I think this is a likely prospect. Time will tell," Kadi noted.

The analyst assumed that the Russo-American partnership in Syria may pave the way for a US-Russian compromise on Ukraine.

Referring to the rise of French presidential hopeful Francois Fillon, the analyst called attention to the fact that Trump's win has apparently created a domino effect across Europe.

"Fillon seems to be on the same wavelength as his potential counterpart across the Atlantic," Kadi remarked.

"Trump's win may indeed herald a whole new age in American-EU-Russian inter-relationships," he believes.

Citing Trump's pragmatism, the analyst suggested that if the US President-elect implements a profit versus loss business model in his governance, "in this particular instance, he may end wars, albeit for financial reasons."

"A business-minded President who will only mind America's business and leaves the world alone is good enough for the whole world to take a sigh of relief," he stressed.

US soldiers stand near military vehicles, north of Raqqa city, Syria. File photo  - Sputnik International
US soldiers stand near military vehicles, north of Raqqa city, Syria. File photo

'Syrian Interim Government': New Plan to Legitimize US' Intervention

A few days ahead of the US presidential election renowned American academic Steven Heydemann wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, calling for recognizing the SIG (Syrian Interim Government) based in Idlib as the legitimate interim government of Syria to justify and legitimize American intervention in the country.

Armed men in uniform identified by Syrian Democratic forces as US special operations forces walk in the village of Fatisah in the northern Syrian province of Raqa on May 25, 2016 - Sputnik International
US Planners Come Up With 'Plan C' to Bring Syria Under Control
"The White House should be concerned about handing the next president a Syrian crisis in which diplomatic possibilities have been all but foreclosed. These are concrete, practical steps it can take to equip the incoming administration with tools to regain leverage and revitalize diplomatic efforts to end Syria's bloody war," Heydemann argued.

Will the plan work?

"The article is quite obsolete in the sense that it was written before the American Presidential elections," Kadi noted.

"But this is not all: throughout history, it has always been the rule that the victor dictates the terms of post-war peace settlements; not the loser," he stressed.

"For nearly six years now since the 'War on Syria' started, a countless myriad of models based on the toppling, assassination and resignation of President Bashar al-Assad and replacing him have been proposed. None of them worked, even during the darkest hours of the President when all the chips were down," the analyst observed.

"Ironically, with the exception of [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, all other regional and international leaders who made this call have either stepped down, passed away, were forced into retirement or imprisoned, or simply finished their terms, all the while Assad is still standing," he concluded.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

IN ALEPPO, 'RUSSO-SYRIAN ALLIANCE HAS THE UPPER HAND, WILL END UP VICTORIOUS' ' By Ghassan Kadi 1 Dec 2016

In  Aleppo, 'Russo-Syrian Alliance Has the Upper Hand, Will End Up Victorious'

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201612011048041667-aleppo-syria-russia/

In Aleppo, 'Russo-Syrian Alliance Has the Upper Hand, Will End Up Victorious'

Subscribe
While the Syrian Arab Army is making progress in Aleppo it has become clear that the West has no real leverage to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or implement a no-fly zone in Syria, Syrian political analyst Ghassan Kadi told Sputnik.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has made considerable progress in liberating Aleppo from terrorists by capturing more than a third of the territory held by jihadists in the eastern part of the city.

Given the current state of affairs, Moscow hopes that the situation in Aleppo could be resolved by the end of 2016, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, terrorist groupings of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (al-Nusra Front) and Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) continue to resist fiercely the SAA's advance.

"Armed formations of the Free Syrian Army have fired multiple launch rocket systems, mortars and small arms against al-Masharqa and Salah al-Din quarters in the Aleppo city. In the Aleppo province, terrorist groupings of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (al-Nusra Front) and ISIS [Daesh] have fired multiple launch rocket systems, tube artillery, mortars and small arms against Shurfa inhabited area, Binyamin, Jamaiyah Faht, Dahiya al-Assad, Amri, Aqyul, Arian, Sheikh Said, Hai al-Andalus, Karen Jabal, Jabal Bidaru, Art Sabah and 1070 quarters, Hikma School, Kastello trade center, areas of paperboard factory and melon market in the Aleppo city," Russia's Ministry of Defense reported Wednesday.

However, the West's media sources continue to turn a blind eye to terrorists' actions on the ground in Aleppo, and portray the SAA's operation as a "brutal campaign" which could be "one of the biggest massacres of civilian population since World War II."

Aleppo has recently become Syria's major battle ground.

"It was inevitable ever since the 'War on Syria' started that the battle of Aleppo was eventually going to be the make-it-or-break-it for either side to score the final and overwhelming win," Ghassan Kadi, a Syrian political analyst and expert on Middle Eastern affairs, told Sputnik.

"Realistically, the Syrian Army would have been unable to engage at the current level in Aleppo without Russia's help," he continued.

Turkish soldiers stand in a Turkish army tank driving back to Turkey from the Syrian-Turkish border town of Jarabulus in the Turkish-Syrian border town of Karkamis - Sputnik International
US, Turkey Military Operations in Syria Are Intervention
"With the on-going influx of fighters and munitions coming in from Turkey, it was like sealing a leaking dam with one's own hands. And even though Erdogan is not yet true to his promises of sealing the borders, the Russian intervention on one hand gave Syria the upper hand, and on the other hand, Erdogan is now possibly getting serious about fighting ISIS [Daesh] because he now realizes that he has to work with Russia, and the only way for him to be able to have some control on the final outcome of the negotiation with/about the Kurds is to first take ISIS [Daesh] out of the equation," the analyst elaborated.

Russia and Damascus have come under heavy criticism from the West for their Aleppo operation. What lies at the root of the West's discontent?

"The Western discontent stems from the fact that the chaos they have created is getting cleaned up. I am not at all a believer in the West's ability to successfully mastermind and execute plans. Their history speaks for it. Their history is a series of failures all the way from Korea to Libya. Perhaps they have learned to accept that they are unable to achieve any concrete positive outcome anywhere, and that they need to focus on and settle for second best; i.e. creating chaos that will hurt their enemies. And if someone steps in to replace the chaos with order, they will fight him tooth and nail," Kadi pointed out.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Smolenskaya-Sennaya Square in Moscow. - Sputnik International
Russia Hopes Situation in Aleppo Resolved by Year-End - Deputy Foreign Minister
Meanwhile, the SAA and the Free Syrian Army backed by Turkey are taking efforts to liberate the Syrian city of al-Bab from Daesh from the southeast and southwest respectively.

Since August 24 Turkey has been conducting the Euphrates Shield operation in northern Syria.

In his recent interview with Sputnik Brig. Gen. Samir Suleiman, Head of the Media Affairs of the Syrian Army's Political Office, dubbed Washington and Ankara's actions in the region as "interference in [Syria's] internal affairs, aggression and intervention."

For his part, Zekeriya Abdulmecit, a representative of the Army of Revolutionaries, part of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), told Sputnik on Friday that Ankara is allegedly planning to build a military base in northern Syria on territory captured during the ongoing Euphrates Shield operation.

"At the end of the day, once all military hostilities cease, Turkey will have to withdraw its troops from Syria (and Iraq), and I have no doubt that this will happen, and this is why America is banking on keeping a de facto presence by attempting to create an independent Kurdish entity," Kadi emphasized.

"At the moment, in my view, whilst acknowledging that other analysts may disagree, I believe that apart from the Saudis and Qataris, all other parties agree that ISIS [Daesh] needs to be defeated; including the ones who are supporting it directly or indirectly," he stressed.

Syrian pro-government forces sit on a military vehicle driving past residents fleeing the eastern part of Aleppo and gathering in Masaken Hanano, a former rebel-held district which was retaken by the regime forces last week, on November 30, 2016. - Sputnik International
Syrian pro-government forces sit on a military vehicle driving past residents fleeing the eastern part of Aleppo and gathering in Masaken Hanano, a former rebel-held district which was retaken by the regime forces last week, on November 30, 2016.

However, since a final deal, as it were, has not yet been struck between those parties who disagree about everything else, each and every one of them is trying to gain as much mileage as possible, some from ISIS [Daesh] itself, before they sit together at the negotiating table. All of those parties know and acknowledge that the Russian-Syrian alliance has the upper hand and will end up victorious," the analyst emphasized.

Syrian army soldiers - Sputnik International
Modern Day Knights: Who Are the Soldiers Fighting Terrorists in Aleppo (PHOTOS)
"The biggest losers will undoubtedly be Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They may not even send envoys to the negotiations under the guise of protest. This leaves primarily Turkey and the United States. This is why they are trying to establish as much foothold as possible so they can take a bargaining chip with them, and not particularly because they intend to stay within Syria. They may wish to be able to stay, but they know they cannot," Kadi told Sputnik.

The analyst underscored that it is becoming clear now that the days of calling for Assad to step down, for Western-backed interim governments to be formed, implementing no-fly-zones, sanctions, military action and so forth are over and done with.

"They have all been tabled on the agenda of the enemies of Syria, and neither one of them came to fruition," he remarked.

"For as long as the Syrian people continue to support President Assad, and they do, when President Assad eventually leaves his office, it will more than likely be a retirement, at a time of his choosing, and as a victor and he will be recorded in history as an unparalleled hero who stood up against all odds," the analyst concluded.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

MORE HEADS ARE ROLLING AMONGST THE "ASSAD MUST GO" GANG!

More Heads Are Rolling Amongst the "Assad Must Go" Gang!


From an Assafir article.
Explanation of article by Intibah and Ghassan Kadi. 21 November 2016.

There seems to be a Trump equivalent who will take power in France and he's going even further than Trump.  The article,when describing this new person (Francois Fillon), says that he wants  "a coalition between Hezbollah, Iran, the Syrian Army, the Kurds and President Bashar to spearhead an international alliance to stamp out terror and to consider them as legal and serious partners in fighting Daesh, quoting  Fillon, "because they are already fighting Daesh and that if we are really serious to destroy Daesh." 

Francois Fillon expresses a growing trend within French establishment that it should reconsider its relationship with Saudi Arabia which it considers one of the key sources of exporting terrorism to Europe and calls for reconsideration of the relationship with Saudi Arabia and Qatar .

Fillon is considered a pleasant surprise for Russia because he's also calling for a reconsideration of European policy that's pushing Russia towards Asia as he said "when Asia grows economically it will become more likely to play a international military role, and pushing Russia away towards Asia is the outcome of our current policies which ought to change."

http://assafir.com/Article/518062


Wednesday, November 2, 2016

CLINTON AND TRUMP; THE KNOWN AND THE UNKOWN By Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/clinton-and-trump-the-known-and-the-unknown/

Clinton and Trump: The Known And The Unknown

by Ghassan Kadi

My American friend Roger is a staunch Democrat supporter. He is in his seventies and has always voted Democrat.

Him and I have had countless discussions over the many years that we have known each other. His paternal roots are Arabic and he sees himself to be on the “left” side of politics, anti-Israel lobby, anti-Empire, but of late, him and I have not been able to see eye-to-eye on the Trump-Clinton race to the Whitehouse issue.

He is with the view that Obama has inherited a financial and military disaster and did the best he could, and that he should not be blamed for his failure to “perform” as many did after his elaborate and successful “yes we can” slogan. He supported Obama-care and other domestic reform policies, and this is perhaps where Roger and I stop to agree and start to disagree.

Many, including Roger, look at the appalling record of the Republican American Party and try to paint a tainted image of it. The party that is affectionately called the Grand Old Party or the GOP by its own staunch supporters certainly has enough such records to put it up there with charges of global mayhem and genocide. The GOP has given birth to monsters; people like Nixon, the Bushes, and of course, who can forget Dr. Kissinger? McCain is another character that comes to mind; one that no thinking man could trust with a dog, a Federal Senator who commands self-given authority that no one seems to be able to either understand the mandate of, or challenge.

At the end of the infamous line Republican line, well at least thus far, enter Donald Trump. And what a character he is? Need one say more?

God forbid if this article may be read like a defense of the GOP. The GOP is run by the rich and the privileged, and as described by George W. Bush himself, by “the haves and have more”. It is the party of Dick Cheney who saw in Iraq an opportunity to generate contracts for Haliburton. If tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had to die for him to achieve his objective, he would not and did not blink.

This is the party that condones and feeds Christian Zionists. It is the party that has huge control over the media. It is the party that runs the world like it is a business enterprise.

Sadly, and whether the rest of the world likes it or not, until the current global status quo changes, no political party in the world affects the rest of the world like the ruling party in the United States. Whilst elections in other countries are by-and-large domestic affairs that affect domestic politics of the country concerned, American elections have implications that are not only domestically bound, but have a much further global reach that encompasses every corner of the world.

As a non-American, personally, I am much more concerned about the wider global implications of American politics than the domestic ones. This is not to say that I am indifferent about America and the American people. As a matter of fact, not only do I have close friends who live in America, but also close family members there, and I have grave concerns for all mankind in every corner of the globe, by my interest in American politics remains focused on foreign policy matters; and to this effect, I am only able to relate to the choice between the major two American parties from the perspective of their foreign policies.

As America insists to be the world police and the unrivalled superpower, a stature many Americans are refusing to accept that they have already lost, it must accept what comes with it and concede that the rest of the world is hoping that the American people will choose the better candidate as the new president; or should I say the one who is less harmful to the world.

In between Donald and Hillary, who fits the less-harmful bill? This is the question.

Enough has been recently said about Hillary’s health to write a horror novel. Her “mini-strokes” and “alleged” recent case of pneumonia have made headlines as big, if not bigger than her infamous hidden emails, allegations of involvement in the murder of an American Ambassador and even selling arms to ISIS. Very recently however, the issue of the emails is resurfacing again, and very late in the campaign, perhaps late enough to serve Hillary with a knock out.

However, her zeal to reach the Whitehouse seems to have been in her mind even before Bill’s (her husband) Monica scandal back in 1998. Hillary was prepared to publicly support Bill, appear to “forgive” him and move on, because she had a bigger fish to fry; the Whitehouse. She somehow managed to hush down all other sex offence allegations against Bill, all the while, and hypocritically, trying to score mileage from similar allegations against Trump.

Her unabated lust for power will not stop at anything for as long as she ends up at the helm, the first female American President, even if she has to be Commander In Chief from behind the control button of a wheelchair.

There are even observations and allegations that many people who have campaigned against her have died under suspicious circumstances. Whether this mystery is going to be taken up by main stream media just on the eve of the elections to serve her with yet another under-the-belt knock out remains to be seen.

Her uncontrollable laughs and hysterical facial expressions leave many questions unanswered.

In between the two front runners Donald and Hillary, it is hard to say that she presents herself as the sane and rational choice.

Is there a party-based distinction on foreign affairs matters? Perhaps now, but not historically.

For some reason, the American Republican Party is seen as the party of the hawks and the Democrats are seen as the doves. But are they?

To answer this question in an unbiased manner, we ought to look back at history. Notwithstanding the colourful history of the GOP, the Bushes; father and son, Cheney, the NeoCons and Co., what is really the history of the American Democratic Party?

A few landmark historical decisions make it very clear. So let us start with current events before we dwell into recent history that some might have chosen to forget.

The “War On Syria” was the brainless child of the so-called “Arab Spring”, a spring that was heralded by the visit of an American President to Cairo and a speech he made to Sunni Muslim clergy at Al-Azhar University. The President’s name is Barak Obama, and he is a Democrat. Obama’s speech was a subtle endorsement for the Arab street, and to be specific to the Sunni Muslim Arab street to rise.

The Maidan phenomenon and all the events that followed in Ukraine, the anti-Russian sanctions, escalations and intimidations and the creation of a very volatile situation in Europe; a situation that remains hot and of unpredictable consequences, have all been orchestrated by the same President; Obama….a Democrat.

Last but not least, the current tension in the South China Sea is also the outcome of the same President, the incumbent Democrat; Barak Obama.

Now, let us not forget that President Obama is a Nobel Prize laureate; ironically for peace.

The American involvement in the Vietnam War started under the tenure of the sweetheart Hollywood-star like American President; JFK. It reached its climax during the LBJ administration. Both Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats.

But all of the above monstrosity is dwarfed by dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many strategists have argued over the last seven decades as to whether or not President Truman had no other choice to end the war quickly, but those arguments do not change the fact that two; not one, atom bombs were dropped on cities. It is pertinent to note here that the Manhattan Project generated two types of bombs, “Little Boy” (used in Hiroshima) and “Fat Man” (used in Nagasaki). It doesn’t take a genius to at least suspect that the American administration wanted to test the two types and that therefore, in their eyes, destroying Hiroshima alone was not enough.

That said, and even though no A-Bombs were dropped in Western Europe and specifically on Germany, the brutality that civilians in German towns and cities have suffered were simply acts of vengeance and many of them had no military gains to achieve.

Harry Truman was not a Republican. He was yet another Democrat.

But haven’t we forgotten the other Democrat sweetheart of the Whitehouse? The almost saint-in-waiting? The smiling Colgate-ad President Jimmy Carter.

Many see that Carter had an impeccable record of being a humanitarian of the highest degree. As a matter of fact, credit must be given to him for his post-presidency peace campaigns, and specifically for standing up for the Palestinian people and for not being silenced by the Israel lobby.

However, in reality, it was during the Carter administration that Al-Qaeda was created under the blessing and auspices of the USA. It was a criminal with a twisted mind aka Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor, who actually established the first Jihadist army. In his narrow-minded and short-sighted vision, he thought that the best way to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan was to support and train Islamist fighters to rise against the “infidel” Communists. And even though the plot eventually generated ISIS, a monster that turned not only against the hand the fed it but also against the whole world, to this date, Brzezinski maintains that he came up with a genius master plan. Once again, Carter and Brzezinski were both Democrats.

And now, it is Clinton who is beating up the drums of war against Russia and China.

Americans may have their legitimate preferences that would make them go either for Trump or for Clinton. Supporters of each team can and do provide huge lists that make their candidate of choice the better one. Arguably, one of them could well be better for America; the truth is that as a citizen of the world, and as mentioned before, I am more interested in a President who is better for the rest of the world.

Whether Trump will trump up the military after an election win is anyone’s guess. But Clinton is beating the drums of war already. To this effect, and as we stand today, on the international arena, she is the hawk; not Trump.

Americans who are disenchanted by wars must realize that this time around, the choice to vote Democrat is an endorsement of her war aspirations.

Americans with two minds as to which way to go on the 8th of this month ought to remember that whatever their personal, local and/or domestic issues are, the USA will not win a nuclear war against either Russia or China; let alone both combined.

Those swinging voters who easily vote for either major party depending on an array of factors, should hopefully discern that this time that a vote for Clinton is a vote for war.

If some have never voted for the GOP in the past, and more so are physically unable to vote for Trump, and/or if others are disenchanted by both major parties or actually never voted before, and if they regard both candidates as equally farcical, one would wonder as to what are waiting for to vote outside the two major parties? What caliber of Democrat and Republican candidates are such reluctant American voters waiting for to vote for a third option?

Some argue that a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote because the Greens will never make it into the Whitehouse, at least not in the foreseeable future, but in reality, any vote that does not endorse Hillary Clinton is not a wasted vote.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

THE DAILY DAESH D-DAY DILEMMA by Ghassan Kadi 2 August 2016


The Daily Daesh D-Day Dilemma By Ghassan Kadi 2 August 2016 In his latest article, Ghassan is analysing the minds of those involved in the escalating number of Daesh attacks, presenting how past and present Western policies have been ineffective. He ends the article with suggestions on how to turn the flow of events around.
http://thesaker.is/the-daily-daesh-d-day-dilemma/

The Daily Daesh D-Day Dilemma

by Ghassan Kadi

In the closing article of “The Daesh Chronicles”; The Prognosis, I raised the alarm about the high likelihood of Daesh attacks increasing in frequency and domain of activity. I even warned that they may become daily events that the West will one day have to contemplate.

In hindsight, I did not expect the escalation of those attacks to reach this threshold so soon, because daily attacks are already a reality in the West; especially Europe.

Western nations feel like they are fighting a ghost. Their massive armies and nuclear power have been designed to fight regular armies. And whilst they use those armies to stir up trouble and instigate unrest in different corners of the globe, they are totally useless and powerless when it comes to confronting home-grown terror. After all, the Nice attack proved that terror does not need a weapon of mass destruction, and not even a hand-held weapon, because if one has a criminal mind, he can turn a truck into a massive weapon.

And how did President Hollande respond? By dispatching France’s only aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle to the Middle East. French fighter jets have also bombed the Syrian town of Manbij killing more than a reported hundred innocent Syrian civilians and maiming hundreds others. As a matter of fact, some local sources put the number of casualties in the 300 hundred mark. This is not how to stop further acts of terror. This retaliation is revenge killing in its worst form. And of course, the hundred or so citizens of Manbij who perished are not news worthy. They did not make headlines in the West. And it is in retaliations like these that recruitments drives are lubricated and more terrorists will be generated; not exterminated.

But why France? Some ask, probably even Hollande himself asks this question. France has played a huge role in assisting the Islamist/Jihadists/Takfiris in Syria in their “struggle” to topple President Assad and establish a fundamentalist Muslim state. So why would those same militants reciprocate a French “favour”, as it were, with a seemingly endless wave of terror?

Many analysts and observers are pointing the finger at the refugees that France and other EU nations have taken in recently. And certainly, ultra-right wing EU politicians are riding on this band-wagon that suits their xenophobic anti-migration policies. However, in pointing the fingers at those recent migrants, analysts, observers, and right-wing politicians alike are ignoring the basic fact that some of the attackers, in fact most, are not recent migrants.

Salah Abdeslam, the main man behind the Paris November 2015 attacks, is a Belgian born French national of Moroccan descent. Mohamed Lahoueiej, the Nice attacker, had lived in France for a long time.

More significant perhaps is the fact that most of the perpetrators were not known to have a history that associates them with Daesh. Unlike Abdeslam, Lahoueiej was not known to the police as a potential terror threat, and as many in the EU would be blaming the security apparatus for allowing individuals “known to the Police” to roam free instead of detaining them pre-emptively, the identity of the perpetrators thus far reveal that even such draconian measures would not work effectively.

The above, among many other reasons, is why security personnel and experts in the West and the EU in general are feeling totally and utterly non-the-wiser in knowing how to deal with this situation and how to identify a potential killer.

Few anti-terror experts and analysts seem to realize that by focusing at individuals with history only, they are most likely not looking at the entire picture. And the reason they don’t know what to do is perhaps simply because they do not fully understand the Daesh mind and what fuels it.

Much has been said about the “quick radicalization” of Lahoueiej. The man has been known for womanizing, indulgence in alcohol and taking drugs and all sorts of activities that are not allowed in Islam. This is not quite what a Jihadist would normally be involved with. However, in trying to understand how would someone like Lahoueiej turn almost overnight from a lifestyle that is seen, from a Muslim perspective as being debauched, to become a person who was prepared to kill others (and himself) for “the cause” in the most heinous and criminal manner possible, many are unable to put two and two together. They therefore resort to find explanations in what does not meet the eye, including conspiracy theories. Many theories, some of which are very valid, were put forward to explain this rather strange phenomenon of overnight changeover. In simple reality, new converts to Daesh are perhaps much more dangerous than seasoned ones.

Daesh has only been around for two years or so, and there are no such members who can be described as old-timers or veterans. However, the “recent” Jihadi craze is in fact a few decades old, given different names in the past, but they are all the same monsters in different cloaks and guises. To this effect, an old “veteran Jihadist”, say one who is forty years old and over, one who has been an indoctrinated Jihadist for say ten years or so, whether under the banner of Daesh or any other banner, is one who has virtually outlived the test of succumbing to suicide bombing. Had he been the suiciding type, he would have done already. What stopped him?

In reality therefore, we should expect suicide killers to be younger Jihadists, and ones who have joined the “force” relatively more recently, say from a few days to perhaps a maximum of five years or so.

What makes recruits who have virtually just joined a few days ago or so more dangerous is related to many issues:

1. First of all, those of them who had a debauched past will feel very resentful for the environment that they see responsible for leading them in the “wrong” direction.

2. Secondly, they will hate their own past and feel a huge urge for following their distorted belief system.

3. Thirdly, they may feel worried that should they not die NOW as “believers”, they may later on fall victim to temptation and go back to the bad old ways of drinking and womanizing.

4. Last but not least, and most importantly perhaps, it is their belief that the best way for redemption is to die in battle fighting and killing as many infidels as possible. This form of “martyrdom” as they see it, assures forgiveness from all previous sins and guarantees entry to heaven “ bila hisab”, ie without judgement.

Jihadists believe that they are on a daily D-Day mission, the timing of which is a question of when; not what if. This is the essence of the dilemma.

In the final analysis however, terrorist Jihadi suicide bombers are not far different from addicts who prostitute themselves to support their habit. To stamp out drugs, government agencies need to focus on the so-called elusive “Mr. Big”. In the case of Jihadis, those in the position of Mr. Big are the recruiters, not the actual suiciders. The street workers do not operate alone.

And even though the infamous Lahoueiej used a truck as a weapon, and even though he proved that one does not need a weapon of mass destruction, and not even a pistol in order to be able to inflict mass casualties, he most certainly did not radicalize himself. Someone must have been in his ears and brain.

The French Prime Minister is now planning to ban foreign funding of mosques. This step will only be seen as a diplomatically-incorrect move and it will not stop terror. The Nice massacre did not need funding apart from the few Euros needed to hire a truck. Even if French or other western governments monitor the teachings inside mosques, this won’t solve the problem either. To begin with, it is only a low percentage of mosques who actually promote terror overtly. And if the preachers in those mosques are put under some form of surveillance, they will find secret places to meet with their “disciples”.

In more ways than one, the horse has already bolted. In more ways than one, sweet little can be done to undo what has already been done to the minds of the “suiciders-in-waiting”. This is a sad and horrific predicament that the whole world is now contemplating.

I do not profess to have the answers and ways to find a resolution. But the danger of recent recruits is something that anti-terror personnel should be aware of. It may help to urge citizens to report any change in behaviour of people they know. The change can include all aspects of demeanour, dress code, demanding the veiling up of women family members and even growing a beard. These are early tell-tale signs. They are not to be taken lightly.

Tough calls call for tough decisions, and the big onus here, as I said in the past, is on wise and knowledgeable Muslim clerics to push for reform within Islam and to utterly reject the Jihadi drive that feeds Daesh and similar organizations. The West has also a big role to play, not only because it has to, not only because Daesh is attacking the West almost on daily basis, not only because the West has Muslim citizens many of whom are Western born, but also because the West has a moral obligation to undo what it has done in creating the Jihadi drive which it initiated when the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

If the West found a gap in certain distorted Muslim doctrine and capitalized on them in order to gain some mileage without thinking too much ahead, it must now find a way to reverse what it had done.

Just like the West previously fostered violence, financed it, armed it and trained it, it must now work on educating Muslim youth. And just like the West has been successful in the past in finding and identifying radical Muslim preachers and mosque Imams who rounded up Muslim youth to pump their minds with hatred and violence, the West must now identify Muslim clerics who are capable of undoing this indoctrination. And, just like in the past radical clerics were successful in identifying individuals to push to go and fight in places like Syria, they must now be able to identify them once again, be able to look for early signs and ”symptoms”, but this time the objective will have to be to find a way to lure them into reform and rehabilitation schools; as virtually impossible as it may be.

The new wave of Muslim schools and sermons must be based on the understanding that the Quran does not call for murder, it does not open the gates of heaven for people who blow themselves up killing others.

As virtually impossible as this task may be, what other options does the West and the rest of the world have? What better option are there? After all, indoctrination cannot be stopped and reversed by guns.

This may not solve the problem entirely, not as swiftly as we all desire, but it may plant a new seed, one that has the potential to reduce the number of potential Jihadi terrorists and a new trend may gradually be inaugurated.