Category Archives: International Politics and Security (English)

Islamic State: war of ideology – not of religion

Islamic State operates in typical fashion, quite obvious to most analysts, but they are not always properly perceived by the West. Lack of appropriate conclusions is caused by the political game which in many aspects uses ISIS or Salafism but also right-wing radicals for the short range electoral competitions. Unfortunately western democracy’s parties are all about the winning elections and they would do everything to get or to stay in power. I call that decadence of the western style democracies. That allow all kinds of extremism to promote themselves if only they are numbered enough to get some advantage to the political parties. Salafists in Belgium, UK, France or Germany are the example of that mechanism but as the opposition grows right-wing extremist organizations and support for them.

From the another perspective, the purpose of the terrorist attacks of ISIS, is not just sowing chaos or promote some – a radical version of Islam, but it has a precise and clearly defined strategic objective. It is to build political autonomy for ideological conflict with any other political center. The best opponent are the right-wing extremists radicalized in the same level as they. Attacks in Europe are addressed not just against Christianity or secularism, but against the Western democracies. Attacks in Sinai are not meant to fight local, “not enough believers” Sunnis, but political power which prevent extremists from growing. Even if that prevention in Egypt is often with use of brutal methods, we need to understand the alternative. Exactly the same problem aroused in Syria in 2011 after the first spontaneous social revolts. There also extremists took the charge of the revolution  very soon and transformed it into the struggle for power where alternative seams to be worse than the ruthless dictator. The terrorist attacks of IS in Baghdad is not directed just against Shiites, but against the political establishment in Tehran and their political emanation in Baghdad. Striking a society intensifies military operations or reprisals against Sunni (Iraq and Syria), and those with no other choice (sometimes seduced by radical ideology – but not religion) replenish the ranks of ISIS.

The information policy of ISIS uses the official religious content, for obvious reasons. It is easy to convince people, who are subjected to brutal oppression in Iraq, and Syria, but also Egypt and Libya, and their propaganda work on that in Europe as well, that God commands them to take revenge on the oppressors. To hide this radical ideology under the “guise” of religion, it allows you to acquire people outside the circle of Sunni Islam and even those who adopt Islam, just to get there and join the brutal fight. These in turn are the most valuable, because they become promoters of the ideology. If this come from cultures other than Arabic, they are of special propaganda value for ISIS, easier affecting the society from which they come.

The person who read not only the Holy Koran, but a number of books suggested by an imam or other person prepared by the ideologists of extremist organizations, begins to perceive the world in completely different way. Such individual perceives other people from its environment as the unconscious (and therefore in their opinion blind for “the real truth”), which in itself causes a sense of uniqueness. This uniqueness encountering opposition family, school, often intelligence services to monitor the transfer of information on the web, quickly generates a sense of injustice and utter alienation. They search for salvation in finding other like-minded in the West or even join militants in the Middle East. Of course, these mechanisms are well known in psychology and are not associated only activity the Islamic State, but it is this organization which can use them perfectly.

Radicalization of such units can be observed by the their rejection of contact with representatives of the all other way of thinking, not just democracy or Christianity and not even just the shia but also other sunnis who are not thinking exactly the same as them. This ideology which one can call a manipulated Islam is preached by Salafists. It becomes a threat, because leaves no room for compromise, like that on which is built the whole European order or West.

So in the Salafis ideology there is no room for tolerance, they can only look forward to the moment in which they will dominate the rest – “the others”. That is why President El-Sisi in Egypt restricts the rights of Salafists. Limiting their rights is a necessity, because in the opinion of the members of this group their right is to dominate the whole of society and impose on them a way of life consistent with their own ideology. The rights of both parties are so completely contradictory. Let me add that both parties in common sense represent sunni Islam. And fact that Salafists do not integrate, or even refuse to cooperate with other groups, assuming the divisions and conflict, to dominate all, in my opinion, makes them more a sect with use of radical ideology, than a religious group or faction. Of course, as in any case, so in that case the generalizations are unfair, but I will come back to that later.

So in some way those who argue that Islam can not be combined with democracy are right – but only in part, because it concerns the ideology of Salafists. Salafists themselves willing to agree with the fact that Islam does not fit for democracy and desire that all Muslims have to follow them. After all, their ideology has just proclaimed that only they are the true Muslims! So if all Muslims would have been the Salafists, then you would have to agree that Islam can not be integrated or even can’ cooperate with any other social groups. The far right (and after every terrorist attacks grow stronger) go on this issue succor salafits and ISIS proclaiming that Islam can not integrate into democracy … so you need radical solutions. As you can see radicalism is very similar to each other regardless of the views and it leads to war which can be nothing but destruction of all our (European) world.

People radicalized in Europe or in US can not officially admit they support ISIS without consequences from the state. Such persons can therefore proclaim their allegiance to the Salafists and properly promote almost all ISIS doctrines without mentioning their name. Certainly not all Salafists are terrorists just as not every sect is dangerous for their surrounding, but this ideology is only one step for ISIS. This is evidenced by direct intelligence reports speak of direct cooperation of Salafi organizations in Europe with ISIS (Short path to jihad. Salafists in Germany recruit new fighters). The fact that Pierre Vogel, the most famous Salafit in Germany, officially does not support ISIS can be attributed to a conflict of interest with the ISIS or ordinary lie allowing him continue its operation without conflict with the law.

However, if the Salafists are to be seen as a sect of extreme ideology, there is a huge number of Muslims outside their ranks, with can live in democracy or under secular rule  saving the confidence in the model of multicultural societies.

It should be emphasized that every movement, every ideology and religion are composed of people having their doubts, thoughts etc. Even if so Salafists are perceived as an monolith, because of the threat caused by their ideology, we need to be aware of the inevitability of the multiplicity of their strands. So let’s always talk, negotiate and convince, because not everyone Salafit will be just as involved in the ideology dictated by propagandists.

Undoubtedly, even if ISIS will disappear as a state in northern Iraq and Syria, the Salafi radicalism will remain in the form of sects within Islamic societies, as in every other culture and religion are radical sects based on manipulated fundamentalism. Any such sect proclaims its uniqueness and monopoly on the “only truth faith”. If, however, the society will be able to live without wars, ethnic cleansing and brutal oppression then without any interventions they will be able to limit the impact of radical sects – especially those who use terrorism.

This is the essence of the social psychology and ideas like “Lucifer Effect” vs “Heroic Imagination Project” (HIP) of prof. Zimbardo. Social impact can create Lucifer Effect – creating ISIS hiding under cover of Salafism or Neo-nazists hiding under cover of nationalism (not confuse it with patriotism please). But the same social impact can also build civilized, cooperative and open to others but still safe societies, which HIP as mechanism is an example. If we will not recognize soon enough, basing on all human science and experience what path leads to peace and security and what is the straight way to divisions and negative conflicts tearing apart our societies, then radicals will win which would strengthen their  conviction that God has sent them to impose a world order – their order. In this (worst scenario) case the God could be easily replaced by the Lucifer and nobody will see the difference. 

Middle East relations in 2003 and 2016

The relationships in the Middle East presented in these two illustrations do not include all the actors in international relations but only those who have the greatest importance to the ongoing conflict there. The first picture shows the situation at the start of the invasion of Coalition Forces against Iraq in 2003. Iraq did not have any strong allies then, but also the vast majority of the countries in the region – despite pressure from the United States, did not support this intervention. Blue lines indicate cooperation or strategic alliances, these cannot therefore be equated with support for US policy in the region, especially due to the war in Iraq. Also Turkish politics are essentially important there and these have dramatically changed. In 2003, on the one hand, it was called the policy of “zero conflict with neighbours” and on the other, the conflict with the Kurdish minority could be described ‘managed’ – both points changed afterwards.  Another critical difference is the lack of direct interaction of Russia in 2003. The USA therefore had a very comfortable situation in which they were able to use any variant of the operation against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.



In 2016 relationships  are much more hidden in  the official fight against ISIS by Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In fact, all three countries use the existence of this organization for the achievement of their own goals. A very large impact on the complication and deterioration of the geopolitical situation is the emergence of Russia with its characteristic style of diplomacy and warfare. Russia is using Assad’s plight  to try to strengthen its influence in the region, and for this purpose, it is also looking for an alliance with the Syrian Kurds. Such an alliance would be extremely dangerous due to the likely actions of the Kremlin pushing the Kurds to a confrontation with Turkey, in which Russia will perform as a defender of the Kurds. Russia, playing its games with Kurdish hands could gain politically but that would cause dramatic problems for the Kurds themselves as a result of such involvement. Unfortunately, the dramatic change of Ankara’s policy against the Kurds, resulted from the internal political issues of Turkey itself, but effected both  the AKP, Erdogan and Kurds also. As both sides are still allies of the West, it is therefore the West’s obligation to force them to the negotiations (Kurds and Turkey).

On the other hand, another very negative signal for the West is the obvious cooperation of a large part of the FSA (Free Syrian Army) with Al-Nusra which is a faction of Al-Qaeda, supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and which in turn cooperates with ISIS.

In both cases, the main axis of conflict is the relationship Iran – Saudi Arabia. Their rivalry for dominance in the region, fueling radicalism on the one hand and  shiites and sunnis on the other. Both groups are used by politicians for constant wars with each other from Yemen, to Iraq. Badly carried out intervention in Iraq, but also support of a coup in Libya and the destabilization of Syria have caused a series of open conflicts and increased tension in many relationships in the region. It is also essential to understand that the political plans of the Kurds living in four countries – Iraq: KRG (Kurdish Regional Government), YPG Syria, Turkey, the PKK and the Kurds in Iran are not the same. The strongest political representation and quasi-statehood are those of the Iraqi Kurds. However, in all parts of Kurdistan these organizations are not the only representatives of the Kurds, they also do not have a common political line.

While the government of President Heydar al-Abadi in Iraq is making an effort to win over Sunni and maintain the unity of the rest of Iraq (apart from the de facto already independent Iraqi Kurdistan), many Shiite militia under the control of Iran continue to conduct violent actions directed against the Sunnis. This situation is the main reason for Sunnis supporting ISIS, as previously the same was with Al-Qaeda. The same problem was one of the main reasons for which the previous Prime Minister of Iraq – Nouri al-Maliki was forced to leave the office.




Are wars for oil inevitable?

hqdefaultIt’s just a suggestion. I can’t support it with scientific facts, or with exact figures as I’m unable to prove with certainty the participation of man in the global climate warming. Nevertheless, the claims of the outbreak of World War III, due to conflicts over access to areas rich in oil prompted me to reflect on this. So, if science and technology created electric engines, especially in the 21stc, such as trains running on magnetic levitation, wind power and solar energy, why is oil still so significant and what is more likely to escalate conflict? Why does the whole world still have to fight for something that is almost replaced already? Isn’t that absurd? When I write word “absurd”, what comes to my mind is politics, and then the lobbying, corporations, banks, politically correct slogans such as “1% vs 99%,” etc.

Aren’t we in the alleged global conflict of oil just because of large corporations that do not want and cannot come to terms with the changes? Isn’t the fact that the project DESERTEC has been “suspended” because of the lack of profitability? However, this project has not been calculated for profit or loss, but on the benefits of political stabilization of the region.

So today, there is inflammation and a departure from traditional energy sources and the gradual transition to renewable sources. If you count the profits from the exploitation of oil, but thrown into the balance sheet also the wars in the Middle East and Africa, and losses counted today amongst a country’s debt, the threat to Western societies resulting from the terrorism arising from these wars, and we consider the greater majority of the population that does not participate in direct profits from trading oil, it turns out that it is a source of very scarce supply for the vast majority of societies.

There are many socially beneficial but unprofitable projects- almost all basic science is like that. But a more unprofitable and so drastically conflicting and perhaps completely unnecessary enterprise than the “War of Oil” is hard to even imagine.

As an observer and researcher of world politics, I have a growing conviction that a lot of things that happen now are created for the needs of conflict and the struggle for influence, and therefore power and we – ordinary people are tools to create and participate in these conflicts.

Powerful corporations, having their entire structure built on the basis of various institutions and interests in one way or another, with the industry dependent on oil, are responsible for the fact that these terribly bloody and devastating conflicts are ongoing. Add to that politicians who are addicted to, bought by or not competent enough to fight negative lobbying. For this, banks related to the corporations and politicians take advantage of our money and finance the war for oil.

The whole system, thus created, is now impossible (as, unfortunately, I believe) to change in the short term, therefore the war for oil is under way and even now threatens global conflict.

Another problem is political leadership, whose country budget depends (at their own request) on oil – like Putin’s. They believe have no choice but to fight for oil, or for the higher price of it, and expand their sphere influence. Others are afraid of their unpredictability and try to limit those “opportunities” for them.

In the Middle East, where the axis of “Oil wars cross mostly, the Kurds are used as pawns in the “competition”. They also trying to use that situation and enter the scene as a state and for this purpose, they will do almost anything. Currently, the complicated “Kurdish issue” becomes the epicenter of the war, where the actual substrata is Oil. The problem is not, that Kurdish areas are richest in petroleum, but: 1. they are deeply in conflict with Turkey, 2. necessarily want to become a state, 3. the West is, as usual, very ambiguous and 4. Russia wants to use them against Turkey. 5. You can add more to this – ISIS, Iran, the war in Syria, GCC states seeking, as Iran is doing, for influence in the same places, and that Israel, which has weapons of mass destruction and would not hesitate to use it if they will predict seriously danger for their existence.

Thus we have presumption and conditions for World War III – now it is essential that the West starts to pursue a rational policy – not avoiding problems, but measuring them. The problem for now – is to bring Turkish and Kurdish leaders to negotiations, which would take over the main argument from the hands of Putin. That would provide a strong and stable –pro-Western- ally, significantly reduce tension in relations with Turkey, but also with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Finally, it would stem escalating violence and then we could look for a second step to decrease the conflicts. That would be the stabilization of the Middle East and settling the relations with Russia (with the general condition there has to be true independence of Ukraine).

But all that would be possible if we refuse to use oil and other energetic resources as a main bacground of all actions. There is a strong need for a good Strategy for security in the Middle East and for decreasing the terrorist threat in Europe. But we can create it and use it only when we choose reasonable politicians not depended on corporations and banks.

Donald Trump in the context of this article seams the worst possible choice.

For the correction I would like to thank to Sarah:

Hey Teacher, leave those kids alone: why the kids doesn’t want to go to school

Observing the school as a place where my children attend, talking with friends whose children are in different schools – in other Polish cities, as well as learning about the opinions of people I do not know personally, the image of the average Polish schools seems very grim. Children are frightened bu the terrible noise from the first day of school – the rest of the parents are often not less, feeling relief escaping the clamor immediately when a child disappears behind the door classes. Teachers who usually try very hard to do their best, make up for the fact that children acquire a number of complexes. An example is completely incomprehensible to me cheering children to pack up after finishing lessons as quick as possible and making competition from it. For what? Why the child from the first days at school must teach the constant rush to the limit and often beyond? Teaches impels the kids to write from the blackboard quick, because the first words written on the blackboard she clean up. It builds the pressure for the very young kids int he first class. The child writes as he can … one can manage that, and many others can’t. They learn to scribble or write off of those who write faster. Another problem of polish school is -why so many tasks to home? It can not be otherwise because the lessons is not enough? Children may need to be quickly smarter and better? We adults had to do the same too, so why the author of this text makes any problem? 😉 But in many western schools homework is not treated at all or there is very few of it. We Poles answer that with pride … or maybe arrogance – that the fact that our level is “higher” makes our children smarter then the western which are dumb… 😉 Unfortunately, this is not supported by facts. School should be seen as a set of many elements, not just a set of lessons. Good conditions in the common-room, the whole system of extra-curricular activities, and above all openness to various programs and innovation overfulfilled “lower” lessons level in Western systems. Lower is in quotes, because the whole system of education there, has differently distributed accents. Getting started is fairly easy, but the possibility of development in accordance with the self interests (so much more motivating and rewarding) with advancing gives very much. That is why our pride in the fact that the program since the first class is overloaded smacks of utter absurdity bordering with masochism.

    We all (each of the readers too) complain that life is too fast. We know the consequences of what they did in Japan, where only the wave of suicides of people totally frustrated with failed marriages behind, not knowing what the rest and who can not think about something like vacation, changed the attitude of the authorities and society transformed internally. It is a continuous rush – rush for a career, raise, a better social position causes the maximum stress leading to professional burnout. It destroys basic social ties, dramatically hurts children psychologically, making them addictive very quickly to the computer games, and then pornography, drugs etc. This is often due to a lack of parents. While parents are physically next door, but thoughts still analyzing events from work or just work late in the company. The parents deal with everyday stress from work providing stress that to the innocent children. Stressed children often can not eat at school. Parents ask every day – eaten dinner? When comes the reply “No”, begins an investigation – like was it not good, is something bothers you that You don’t eat? Until finally we often say that if we pay for meals that child MUST eat them. A child can not understand that stress causes that they can not eat. So it can not precisely answer. Parent engrossed in the problems of work also can not draw any conclusions from the answers (or silence) child. At home child jumps on every food that we give them – school stress has passed out, but then we have to disillusion them and urge them to do the homework. Another problem is the already mentioned the noise during breaks. There is some debate as to reduce the noise level … One idea is playing the relaxation music during breaks 😉 I wonder if the originator wondered how children have this relaxation experience, if the music is not heard simply because of the noise! Noise is also caused by stress and desire … no, not the desire – the need to discharge up! Some children screaming top of his lungs, and others are already desensitized and indifferent – they want to survive.

      So why do we teach children such behavior from the very first class? Sure explanations are many: eg. a teacher needs a rest too, so let the kids hurry-up, teachers themselves has to run all the time, so why those kids have to be more relaxed let’s learn them to hurry now – it will be easier afterwords… but it is wrong! It will never be better for them. In fact it will get increasingly harder. If they will not learn as a kids how to build a distance, thinking and planning, positive assertiveness, self-expression, believing in their own abilities, then they will fall in to the spiral planned and prepared by adults.

       At the same time there are many programs completely changing the functioning of the school. Let me give just two examples here of whom I have knowledge, so I’m writing this with full conviction as to the effectiveness – a movement SLOW and the HIP program. These are not magical happenings like shout out the frustration or in my opinion  fatal in effects the radical ways of the stress education. Programs described here are based on science – especially psychology and experience. SLOW, the movement of which I am a great admirator, even though I have met its founder – Carl Honore only once in 2015 at a Educational Congress in Katowice. After hearing a lecture and a short conversation with this man who he could speak beautifully, I saw all the mistakes that are committed against children in the polish school. Honore often used a personal example and was very suggestive, so what he said sank deep into the mind and soul. He said what we know to be true, but often a pang of conscience – both the school and the parent. His movement is the perfect answer to the ills of the school. SLOW does not suggest just to live slower because it is clear that you need to maintain the good work that you need to be on time etc. SLOW speaks of the better time organizing with right emphasis on crucial points, and generating time for relaxation and rest. With the right planing of the day, that can be achieved, even if the reader shake right now his head in disbelief. In particular, school is a perfect place where you can plan the schedules, so as to gain time for children to momentarily slow down. Honore teaches that, within the framework put in place for schools and universities, but also the program is introduced in businesses, services, military etc. Representatives of the largest schools asking for the implementation of his program because they see how much better their inner systems are workings.

        Another program that I know very well is the Heroic Imagination Project – entirely developed by prof. Philip Zimbardo. It has a completely different course, but the assumptions and effects are similar in nature. HIP teaches children of openness, compassion, responsibility, courage in overcoming barriers, including eg. the effect of passive bystander. Professor also teaches that a hero can be anyone, and to become the one, it is “enough” to help a friend who has forgotten backpack and colleagues in the class laughing at him, or showing the right path to colleague, who after a few days at school still lost. This is what the reader of these words may seem quite trivial, but for a child in trouble could be the biggest stress in its life that will cause trauma for a very long time. If we just want we can remember a situation of our own childhood, which is remembered just because of extremely bad impression. Project HIP has its own application, like SLOW, for non-school institutions. Part of the experiences used to HIP comes from the famous Stanford Prison Experiment prof. Zimbardo which appeared as the extreme conditions when a good man turns evil. This type of amazing experiences and achievements of Professor Zimbardo make the project HIP applies to companies, corporations, services, etc ..

       The schools covered only by the programs SLOW or/and the HIP, the noise level is reduced automatically. Children are more confident, but not arrogant, and what is important are calmer. On the one hand they know they can count on the help and kindness of the class/school mates, but also themselves want to assistance to others. Also parents would feel the influence of that program at home quickly. By lowering stress levels allow children to easier learning, children better nourish. Teachers are much more active. At the same time school is seen as a modern and child-friendly (and it is not a slogan of party programs :-)).

Movie with prof. Zimbardo speech from the CENCROZ inauguration: Link

HIP program in the CENCROZ: Link

Like a Christian with a Muslim: Mohamed Abu Omar, Maciej Milczanowski

In texts I have written many times that I consult my views and opinions not only in conferences or seminaries, with people in work or trough interviews. I have very honest friends in the Middle East – like Mohamed Abu Omar, with whom I spoke just after Charlie Hebdo tragedy and now after Paris massacre. What is obvious to me thanks to friends like him, but doesn’t have to be so obvious to majority of the people in the West, usually we have very similar point of view. The text which provoked the following conversation is this: As the #MyPointofView after Paris massacre I say: no WAR but goodPOLICY at last!! 

Our conversation started from the comment of Mohamed to the article

10303441_10203145168621618_4750661094235552213_nMohamed Abu Omar: well , war or not ? … we are in War,  against whom? … against Terrorism and Whoever support it but as You said. 

Maciej Milczanowski: Your questions are the same I’ve asked in my text 😉 Although I didn’t wrote about states which support terrorism. Now I say, we are pretty sure these are: Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia – for the Sunni groups as IS or AQ. From the other side Iran – for the Shia Militias in Iraq, and for the Hezbollah and Hamas – which is Sunni but still supported by Iran. At the last but not least Yemeni Shia are also supported by Iran to win the permanent Iranian control over territory there. What is Your opinion about it?

MO: unfortunately Putin is right saying that some countries of the G20 are among the 40 countries supporting / funding ISIS – as KSA, Turkey, but also UK and USA etc… believe me it’s the ugly truth. We keep suffering of the UK, USA tolerating and supporting Muslims Brotherhood in Egypt. A liberal guy like me and others can’t get a visa to the West … while the bearded guys can !!!

: Yes I agree. Putin is right in more points (which I am not happy about) – like from the very beginning of the Syrian war he said that the task of the West, China and Russia (all together) is to bring FSA and Assad to the negotiations and and direct the struggle against A-Nusrah. Negotiations were meant to project the way of Syrian government to be not representatives of just one group there or/and to step down,  but in accordance with the process – not a sudden change. But West didn’t want even to consider such plan and as the first point they raised: “Assad must go!” call. Of course Putin doesn’t propose that because he is so democratical, just in this case his aims coincidently were right. As for the West, all politicians are connected somehow and depend one from another. Thus we can always say they are supporting or responsible for supporting or overthrowing dictatorships or terrorists. I also believe that searching for the “democracy” in Iraq and Syria was just a cover to fight for the control of the territories,  the same as Putin sending his troops and mercenaries to Ukraine wants to regain the control over it. Also France, GB and USA generally support MB or even branches of AQ and IS when it is in “their interest” – if that can be named so. That is what I wanted to express in my article – the main mistake! Such policy directed only on the shorthanded goals without understanding of the consequences and thus without real International Security Strategy produces wrong consequences.  

MO: New Policy has to be created, but not that policy of the same old question: “How to Treat Muslim World?” It’s actually very simple: stop trying to interfere under any name, let Muslims solve their internal issues, stop re-organize the Middle East states. Our borders right now which Anglo-French drawn it 100 years ago are WRONG as they never respect or understand the different trips/ethnics and they designed countries in strange way. But to re-design it again, actually, it’s another mistake any country has a civil war, or dissolved, will be a warm environment for terror fighting against dictatorships can’t be done by destroying countries it selves. Just west has to remember one last point: Muslims are not looking for occupying others lands … except these terrorists , they are believing in Imperialism and controlling others homelands i mean , Egyptians , Tunisians , Syrians , Iraqis … etc by nature they are not looking to spread or extend their lands or whatever … as a normal muslims citizens , but terrorists and any Islamist System like ISIS or Iran, it is all the same, they are dreaming of imperialism and all these blablabla… 

MM: Naming who struggles for “imperialism” You mentioned just Iran and IS. Don’t You think that Gulf countries like KSA, Qatar and Kuwait using Sunnis and IS & AQ as well are fighting against Iranian-Shia influences? I believe that this fight for influences and resources is not led just by the West and terrorists but the mentioned countries plus Turkey are cooperating with the West mostly to use them to control as much as they can in the Middle East. That is right that Egypt, Tunisia, Syria are not the part of that competition now, but mabe only because they are in the special political situation now? That is why I divide the politicians which usually believe that their main task – the so called National Interest is to secure the control over others, while people prefer to have a more partner relations with others. Of course it is generalization but I believe it is more or less true. And that would give a good chance for the people like us to talk openly and honestly about the subjects which politicians could never agree. In that case Muslims as You said (also from Iran and territories controlled by so called IS) are those who doesn’t want any imperial aims at the prize of war. When it comes to politicians, there are different types, but many of them – especially in the countries who have potential – they are much more eager to use their people, to trigger the conflicts aiming in the “National Interest” which in fact is their party of group interest. 

MO: So, West has to stop asking the same question: “how to deal with Muslims”. Muslims are not the problem , or Islam … it’s Islamists who use their  Islam as a cover for their dreams, same as Jews vs Zionists, Christians vs Crusaders. 

MM: Exactly,  we always have,  in all cultures, moderate people who want to live and develop and the extremists who want to control, doesn’t trust anyone, are aggressive toward “others”. Would Yuo call those Islamists the same way I named them in my article: islamo-fascists? 

MO: Yes. It’s is crucial to differentiate between Muslims & Islamists. Muslims believe in Allah as the God, Islam as the way to him, Islamists believe in Islam and Machiavelli way (anything to get what you want) as their way it’s like , someone who was looking for Money to Buy a House … forgot his Aim/End and became a slave to Money. So it is basic to filter your immigration and refugees from Islamic world, but how West is doing that,  became everybody joke in local simple Kahwa (Coffee Shop). “Beards” get Schengen and USA visa, while normal liberals no. It’s everybody’s opinion – in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc., all simple people say that. 

And please, stop using freedom of media for Al-Jazeera while preventing the other 200 channels from broadcast to EU/USA! It’s brainwash the youth Muslims inside EU/USA. Notice that too: all who did Paris attacks are born in EU except 1 or 2! and among them 4 pure French by DNA! The danger isn’t coming from abroad EU as much as it’s already inside EU so, bombing Syria and Libya by French supporting Russians, is just for Media and absorb people in France anger , nothing more. Believe it or not: Russia/Germany and even Poland has much more security against Islamists than UK/USA/France just by stepping a step behind. Your article is totally good i my opinion.

MM: Thanks Mohamed for great talk. I always count on Your opinions and I am happy to have You as a friend. 


After Paris masarce I say: no WAR but good POLICY at last!!

686997efbbd43f522df7e7d2d1e6fbfeAfter 11/09, and the following the attacks in Madrid, London, Charlie Hebdo and today – after the massacre in Paris the same password is raised again: “We are at war!” “We must fight!” So I ask – Against whom? Where? Who is the enemy? I would like to remind, that George W. Bush declared the war already, 14 years ago – on the ruins of the World Trade Center the day after the attacks in 2001. This war continues, and is/was conduced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, CAR and others. In this war we hit with full force, and hundreds of thousands of troops (Afghanistan and Iraq) or operate less formally, but equally deadly (Yemen, Syria) sometimes openly support those who supposedly are fighting against dictatorship (Libya and Syria, and there were those who wanted to help in Egypt but thankfully they didn’t decided that). The opponent, however, continually strengthens and hit us occasionally, but extremely accurately causing death, fear and doubt. Time to realize – against whom we conduct the war, and who runs it against us? Another cry: “We are at war!” or “You have to fight!” will lead to further ill-considered military action, the consequence of which will be to strengthen the real enemy. At our own request we incur further losses in the army – sent no sense to the Middle East, and civilians more easily attacked in our (European or US) cities, not to mention further victims in the places of conflict in the Middle East – but that, in this day, after the terrorist attacks in Paris, probably only a few interests.

Who and where is the enemy I tried to show in the text:

Charlie Hebdo: Islam vs. Islamism

Why it is easy for them to grow and take action here:

Decision making process in Iraq in 2003

and here:

Syria: searching of lesser evil

MOST IMPORTANT – How to fight it:

Outline of the International Security Strategy

and partly here:

Humanitarian missions int he stabilization operation

I also wrote that further policy based on “WAR” will lead to further the spiral of violence, which, by the crisis of refugees and terrorist attacks already reaches Europe and the USA. In this connection it should be remembered that the war on radicalism – rightly called Islamo-fascism did not begin on September 11, 2001, but the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were just the consequence of consistently wrong Western policy in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern societies at the end of the twentieth and the early twenty-first century is undergoing massive social changes, unnoticed by Western politicians or misinterpreted (as a sign of “explosion” of Western-style democracy). With no change in this policy, it is impossible to achieve peace and stability. These can only be achieved through wise (multi disciplinary and multi-level, varied – depending on the place etc.) international politics. Of course, also in case of such policy, military operations are a necessity, but they must be part of the policy and give results in the form of political progress, and not be objective or in response to enemy action. The war goes on and the opponent is getting better methods and tools to attack “us”. At the same time, many of us do not realize how many allies, we have the “other” side. I personally know many Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Turks, who continuously demonstrate calling for “us”, that tolerating radicalism in the Western world, allowing the marches of Islamo-fascists calling for the overthrow of the democratic government and the establishment in the place of Sharia law, respecting freedom Citizens by not placing wiretaps in places where there is a promotion of hate, overthrowing the dictatorship in the Middle East – all that generate great risk! What’s more, the losses we get,  triggers our anger directed against those who are easy to reach (about which I wrote in the text of Charlie Hebdo). They are Muslims praying in the Mosque, Muslim children in school, women, often teachers, doctors, who like us are afraid of extremists and terrorists. The true enemy is the one who treats us as an enemy and   he is reachable despite the claims of the Politicians. We can not, however, see enemy between the dictators, groups not willing to cooperate with us or those who want to increase their influence in the region. Finally, we must separate the threat of extremism and terrorism from the economic interests, geopolitical influences etc. We hve to stop deciding for Middle Eastern societies and self-reliance of countries there, we have to treat them as partners. In that place we have to focus on the destruction of the actual centers of extremism and terrorism both in Middle East and West. We need partners and real allies against extremism and terrorism and for implementing a strategy similar to that which I suggested at the beginning of the text. If so, am sure that not more than six months would be enough to disappear: The so called Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah, Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb and al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula and others. By doing this, the wealth of the West and the possibility of influencing policy would not have fall so badly as  Western leaders are worried.

                Of course, I also know well that this will not happen. The public want war and it will get it. “Tabloid War ” which will kill many “terrorists” – in fact the people living in the Middle East – not necessarily even a “bad” Muslims. between them they will get the persons related to the massacre in Paris. Nobody will say in Europe, that there are thousands of the same kind of people in the Middle East, so the threat will not be reduced even of half a percent. In this wa y “we will rebuild” sense of security for a while. It will grow with each killed a “terrorist” what will be presented by the politicians – just as the tabloids. In fact, we will prepare the ground for further attacks – more and more bloody, more easily conducted and more … provoking another wars. The extremists – as the name suggests live from extremes – chaos, war, injustice, poverty, geopolitical turmoil and , false image of the religion. This gives them the strengh and they get if from wars and again it threnghten their radicalism. More wars creates more radicals. Wars doesn’t kill radicals but create them!

The outline of the security strategy in the context of the immigration crisis


USA and EU policy in the Middle East implemented during the first 15 years of the twenty-first century was based on ad hoc measures, determined by domestic issues of Western countries. Thus, no strategy for coordinated action or calculation of any enduring positive effects was developed, by or for any side in the conflict. This resulted in a dramatic deterioration of the situation both within the region itself, and within Europe.

Below are the few projects of  tactical level which together make up the strategy and would, in my opinion, normalize the situation in the Middle East and radically reduce the threat from radical groups. From the European perspective, it would also indirectly contribute to reducing the wave of immigrants. Naturally, this is only the outline of such a strategy, and certainly contains many loopholes. However, with the proper will of the Western countries, it is feasible. Cited issues must be implemented in parallel for all three layers (unless otherwise indicated in the text). Points are therefore not in chronological order:

I. Middle Eastern political issues:

  1. Using the agreement with Iran, immediately resume contacts with the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Agree on a “road map” for Syria*:
  2. Prolonged agreement with Iran while controlling and reducing the Iranian nuclear program and consequent influence in the region in accordance with point 1 cited above.
  3. Backroom negotiations with the GCC, Iran, Israel and China and Russia in order to establish cooperation. Initial area of common interest to launch negotiations: the division of spheres of influence in the region and agreement on the rights of Sunni and Shiite minorities where they are a minority. In the absence of agreement on the issue of Iraq and Yemen, a contingency plan should take into account the need to share these countries. In this respect, there is also the need to negotiate within the same group. The issue of delimitation and possible resettlement and access to places of worship. The best result of these negotiations would be obtaining the cooperation of both parties in reducing Sunni and Shiite extremism and prohibiting the efforts of (corrupting elements within these groups?) from acquiring weapons of mass destruction by either party.
    • How to withdraw from the conflict while minimizing further losses and trends of revenge,
    • Communicate with FSA leadership who have not gone over to Al – Nusry (probably already applies to a small number) and a reconciliation with Assad for their inclusion in Syrian military structures.
    • Direct joint military effort against PI.
  4. Bring to the negotiations between Turkey and the Kurds the Kurdish statehood issue and Kurdish freedoms in Turkey and abandon their terrorist activities in Turkey. The negotiations should be attended by representatives of Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian authorities. Area of initial agreement to launch negotiations: the establishment of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq and Syria but not in Turkey. Agreement between Turkey and Kurds is POSSIBLE!! Just how it happened during “Zero problems with neighbours” policy period of Mr Erdogan.
  5. Creation of a Kurdish state, the borders of which should be established as a result of the Turkish- Kurdish agreement under UN agency. At the same time the UN should send a contingent to monitor agreements and designate observation points along all borders of the new state. Chinese UN troops as a sign of China role in modelling of theworld order.
  6. Resume and place strong emphasis on re-opening negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The negotiations must take into account and engage countries participating in this conflict except the Israeli and the Palestinian Authorities– the EU and the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Iran. This will lead to the deployment of the UN contingent inside the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and at the Israeli borders. Again Chinese Peacekeepers together with US would seem to fit here.
  7. Bring to the negotiations the stabilization of the situation in Yemen. For this purpose, it is necessary to include Iran and the GCC countries in the talks. The UN contingent to supervise the agreement and reconstruction of power.
  8. To achieve points. 5-7: full EU cooperation with the US, China, Russia, GCC, Turkey, Israel, Egypt and Iran on security issues.
  9. Great emphasis on and commitment of the EU and the United States in cooperation with the religious authorities in the Middle East. Scholarship program for religious leaders to promote “peaceful version” of Islam.
  10. Maximum improvement of the relations with Egypt. Only after improving the conditions of the international situation, the weakening influence of the so-called IS in Egypt and stabilization of the situation in Egypt gradually increasing pressure on civil liberties, women’s rights etc.
  11. Definite change of the course in case of China. China is making great policy in the ME and Africa and could be constructive if treated as partner.

II. Middle East – humanitarian issues:

  1. The EU and the US must undertake the financing, organization and control of existing refugee camps in the Middle East. The model for these camps should be the Turkish organizational method, which provides the best conditions for refugees.
  2. Negotiations with the Iraqi authorities and Syria, backed by strong action and propaganda or information to reflect the subjectivity and political role of minorities in those countries.
  3. Financial and organizational support – through humanitarian organizations with confirmed authority and effectiveness for the reconstruction of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. A model of the stabilization mission with the use of the humanitarian organizations:
  4. Alongside the political rebuilding and stabilizing of Iraq, Syria and Yemen and the formation of Kurdistan, a promotional campaign for the resettlement of the population of the camps and emigration to  home countries should be set up.

III. The EU and the US:

  1. The introduction of “General Monitoring Refugees Rules” in the EU. From the EU external border refugees should be monitored, using all available methods.
  2. Establishment of temporary refugee files on the basis of the monitoring process as detailed in point 1 above. Documenting all actions of individuals. As a result, even when their documents are unavailable,  you can collect data on them.
  3. On the basis of the “General Monitoring Refugees Rules”, profiling of people of high suspicion and subjecting them to surveillance in countries that they eventually reach.
  4. Strict law enforcement in EU countries without tolerating actions arising from cultural differences. Eg. Prayer in the temple or in the legally assigned place for that, freedoms and civil rights strictly adhered to, incitement to hatred on cultural or changing the constitutional order be treated with severity.
  5. Persons calling for the establishment of Sharia in Europe the same treatment as neo-fascist groups. Not only deny it in public, but prohibited by law.
  6. Treat surveillance of all places of worship where it is even less likely that 4 and 5 might occur. This action should be aimed at detecting particularly dangerous  “sleeper cells” of terrorists.
  7. Educate people in Europe using programs like this: and here

*This point has become very complicated since Russia started its military operation. Propaganda on both sides (Russia – pro Assad and Western – anti Assad) radicalized and now it is much harder to make this point workable.

Warm thanks to Sarah @italianistica for helping me with the correction 🙂