Intervention in Iraq is counterproductive

Each era of history is marked by a form of confrontation, both radical and structural, referred to, always in a metaphorical sense, by the expression of "war". There was the time of the "wars" of Religion, most recently that of the "cold war. He must distinguish this "war" that points the radicalism of a confrontation, weapons mobilized by the belligerents and which include, but in part only, of military operations. Since the end of the cold war, we entered a period of history where the structural clash took the form of terrorism and counter-terrorism.

This structure has not finished to dominate the world history. It is linked to a geopolitical situation marked both by asymmetries resulting from the American hyperpower and access to the status of powers world and sovereign of former colonized countries. We live in the time of the revivals in China, the India of the Brazil, but in Islamic tradition as the Iran countries. However these rebirths did borrow not all the same path. When some use the way of trade and globalization, in particular in the Islamic area, chose to assert itself against us and any power what it looks like. Terrorism, which is a way to take the power from the outside and without having to exercise it, is the form of this confrontation.

The Declaration of this war date of the last decade of the last century. But it was really taken seriously with the terrorist attacks of September 11. Suddenly, the logorrhoea of Al-Qaeda took a different meaning than only verbiage of illuminated. It was the first major battle of the terrorist age. It should trigger a response from the international community that intervened militarily in Afghanistan to put an end to the Taliban regime.

Counter-terrorism has two dimensions. On the one hand it to protect themselves, reduces the possibility of terrorist attacks, to hunt down the terrorists, to prevent their penetration. Defensive strategy, it falls within the jurisdiction of States. But, as any strategy of prevention, it is never completely safe. It doubles so as another strategy, more offensive, which aims to eradicate the threat to the source. The Americans asked that this dimension of counter-terrorism was of a "preemptive action" policy, that could not run the risk to endure the same uncertain threat. The implementation of this doctrine in Iraq scored a second phase in the confrontation, though terrorist hit, bloody, Madrid and London. At the same time, the theatre of operations was expanded in the Middle East, Europe and some Asian countries.

This war like no other. It destabilizes all situations, creates constantly new opportunities for many actors, opens a space of uncertainty that person not control and cannot tell where it is going. Summer 2006 saw a third phase of confrontation: a provocation by Hezbollah, the Israel hyperresponsiveness have given rise to new forms of military engagement, while the English police foiled a project of monstrous attack on several aircraft from Britain to the United States and that the Germany discovered exposed on its territory. New extension of war already globalized as it is played, for an essential part, on the grounds of the images, information and emotions.

Can what balance be done today It is for the less contrasting. Terrorist operations abroad (if still has a meaning at the age of globalization) have proved failures: the United States have not known of new attacks, those of London have been foiled, the German projects have failed. There is no denying the States efficiency in defence against terrorism. This is not the case for the strategy for the eradication of terrorism. Intervention in Iraq is counterproductive. The Israeli response revealed the strength of Hezbollah and returned the opinion against it. The Iran comes out stronger. The field of Middle East terror WINS. But take care too fast to condemn the strategy of some or other. We are in the first phases of confrontation. To repeat the appeal of General de Gaulle: this is not because it has lost a battle that they lost the war.

Why this inefficiency Is that the contemporary form of terrorist confrontation is unprecedented. We are not out of amazement; We are always in the surprise, some still deny the radicality of the confrontation. In fact, it is unclear how to do things in an efficient manner. Everything seems to be improvised. Improvised, the American intervention in Iraq, improvised, the Israeli response against Hezbollah attacks. Not too fast are the incompetence of the military. The difficulty of the current fighting, their bitterness demonstrate the radicality of the confrontation. It is not said that counter-terrorism will remain permanently ineffective until the military field.

The current phase is marked by the collective commitment of the Europeans, as legal person. The "old" Europe, one which had defied the United States in the Iraqi project, between in the game, in the field of operations, there where it is not only to defend themselves against the attacks, but to prevent terrorism at its source. New extension of already global war. Because, even if this intervention is in the "peacekeeping", it was operating a counter-terrorism, it aims to strengthen the powers of the Lebanese State or prevent the reconstitution of the military capabilities of Hezbollah. It is only according to a logic which is primarily of a humanitarian nature. It is not against terrorism an even stronger counter-terrorism, but impose, depending on the lesson of European history, point of view of the victims.

This commitment is, also, improvised, as evidenced by the diplomatic ballet have recently attended. The objectives of UNIFIL, the rules of command was written hastily. But it not blame to President Jacques Chirac of the France the leader of this mobilization. Risks, our soldiers as to our exposure to the attacks, are easily identifiable. But the European commitment, which marks the end of a certain Western division in the battle against terrorism, Exchange provides. This creates new responsibilities for Europe and... gives it a real chance to build politically.