The lack of a coherent anti-terrorism strategy in Washington and by extension the West, as emergency services deal with the devastating aftermath of yet another
terrorist atrocity in Europe - this time a suicide bomb attack at a concert in Manchester, England - has been thrown into sharp relief during President Trump's tour of the Middle East.
Specifically, on what planet can Iran be credibly
accused of funding and supporting terrorism while Saudi Arabia is considered a viable partner in the fight against terrorism? This is precisely the narrative we are being invited to embrace by President Trump in what counts as a retreat from reality into the realms of fantasy, undertaken in service not to security, but commerce.
Indeed those still struggling to understand why countries such as the US, UK, and France consistently seek to legitimise a Saudi regime that is underpinned by the medieval religious doctrine of Wahhabism,
which is near indistinguishable from the medieval religious extremism and fanaticism of Daesh and Nusra in Syria - those people need look no further than the economic relations each of those countries enjoy with Riyadh.
The announcement that Washington has just sealed a mammoth
deal with its Saudi ally on arms sales - worth $110 billion immediately and $350 billion over 10 years - is all the incentive the US political and media establishment requires to look the other way when it comes to the public
beheadings, crucifixions,
eye gouging, and other cruel and barbaric punishments meted out in the Kingdom on a regular basis.
The sheer unreality of Saudi Arabia's King Salman, as he stood shoulder to shoulder with President Trump during the latter's state visit to the country recently, lamenting the chaos and carnage in Syria, which he described as having been "one of the most advanced countries" prior to a conflict that has wrought so much death and destruction, the sheer unreality of this is off the scale -
and especially so considering the role the Saudis have played in providing material, financial, and ideological and religious support to groups engaged in the very carnage in Syria as has just been unleashed in Manchester.There are times when the truth is not enough, when only the unvarnished truth will do, and in the wake of the Manchester attack - in which at time of writing, 22 people have been killed and 60 injured - we cannot avoid the conclusion that neither principle nor rationality is driving Western foreign policy in the Middle East, or as it pertains to terrorism.
Instead it is being driven by unalloyed hypocrisy, to the extent that when such carnage occurs in Syria, as it has unremittingly over the past 6 years, the perpetrators are still described in some quarters as rebels and freedom fighters, yet when it takes place in Manchester or Paris or Brussels, etc., they are depicted as terrorists.
Neither is it credible to continue to demonize governments that are in the front line against this terrorist menace - i.e. Iran, Russia, Syria - while courting and genuflecting at the feet of governments that are exacerbating it - i.e. Saudi Arabia, previously mentioned, along with Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey. Here, too, mention must be made of the brutal and ongoing injustice meted out to the Palestinians by an Israeli government that shares with the Saudis a doctrine of religious exceptionalism and supremacy, one that is inimical to peace or the security of its own people.Ultimately a choice has to be made between security and stability or economic and geopolitical advantage, with the flag of democracy and human rights losing its lustre in recent years precisely because the wrong choice has been made - in other words a Faustian pact with opportunism.
As the smoke clears, both literally and figuratively, from yet another terrorist atrocity, we are forced to consider
how we arrived at this point. And when we do we cannot but understand the role of Western extremism in giving birth to and nourishing Salafi-jihadi extremism.
Moreover, in the midst of the understandable and eminently justifiable grief we feel at events in Manchester, it behooves us not to forget the salient fact that Muslims have and continue to be the biggest victims of this terrorist menace, unleashed in the name of religious purity and sectarianism, and that it is Muslims who are also doing most to confront and fight it, whether in Syria, Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. It should not escape our rendering of the issue either that what each of those countries have in common is that they have all been victims of the Western extremism mentioned earlier.
It bears repeating: you cannot continue to invade, occupy, and subvert Muslim and Arab countries and not expect consequences. And when those consequences amount to the slaughter and maiming of your own citizens, the same tired and shallow platitudes we are ritually regaled with by politicians and leaders intent on bolstering their anti-terrorism and security credentials achieve little except induce nausea.Enough is enough.
This is not to say that such retaliation is a rational response but anyone with a modicum of sense knows that the fringes of any society contains individuals who, if incensed enough, will abandon reason and hit back in any way they can.
I can only conclude, from this predictability , that those who are responsible for the carnage in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are comfortable with this sort of blowback, perhaps even welcome it. This puts them in an even more iniquitous class of psychopath than the suicide bomber for (a) they do not risk their own lives and (b) their actions are not motivated by outrage but by cold, evil ambition and political gain.
In condemning the rationale that drove this young Libyan to this extreme, should we not also condemn the rationale that caused 500,000 child deaths in Iraq by sanctions that were the softening up process prior to "regime change" in that country? This is not counting the millions of civilians killed and displaced by that illegal War and its counterparts in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.Western assaults on these societies are not driven by humanitarian concerns. That should be patently obvious by now. Especially now, as we watch the POTUS kiss up to the most brutally recalcitrant regime in the M.E., the primary sponsor of ISIS, ably assisted by those other principalities so beloved by the U.S. establishment.
Some would say these Wars have been "mistakes" or "failures". I suggest they have been hugely successful - when one realizes that failed, dysfunctional states was the Neo-Con objective.
When the full ramifications of this unprecedented, atrocious policy is understood, it becomes obvious that such minds as are capable of creating it are not troubled one iota by the deaths of these Manchester children - they are insignificant "collateral damage". Headlines today, forgotten tomorrow, except as excuses for yet more illegal warfare.