如何打赢反恐战争

Jan 14, 2016 Hernando de Soto

利马——美国总统乔治·W·布什宣布“全球反恐战争”迄今为止已经14年了。今天，在耗费1.6万亿美元巨资并击毙从本·拉登到“圣战约翰”等101名恐怖头目后，西方仍然受累于恐怖袭击，与之前相比甚至有过之而无不及，极端份子几乎可以随心所欲地招募战士并袭击任何西方国家的首都。如今另一位总统——法国总统奥朗德——也（像其他欧洲领导人一样）宣布加入反恐战争，胜利的前景有没有变得比过去更好？对此我持怀疑态度。

Will the Guardrails of US Democracy Hold?
Getty Images
Subscriber Favorite

Quarterly 4

Will the Guardrails of US Democracy Hold?

Erwin Chemerinsky worries about the obvious lack of meaningful checks on Donald Trump's worst impulses.
America’s Workers Are About to Be Forgotten Again
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Longer Reads 6

America’s Workers Are About to Be Forgotten Again

Josh Bivens & Heidi Shierholz contrast the Biden administration's pro-worker policies with what Donald Trump is likely to do.
Social Media as It Should Be

Free to read

Innovation 1

Social Media as It Should Be

Robin Berjon explains how the Bluesky model could restore the original promise of the internet.

现在我们应当认识到至少在某种程度上，是与美国独立战争和法国大革命相似的情感造就了我们的竞争对手：与现行制度的疏离及因此而造成的沮丧。在1776年前的英国北美殖民地和1789年前的法国，普通民众开始相信他们的生命、财产和生意已经遭到太长时间专横统治者的掠夺。今天的中东和北非存在着同样的隔阂。

毕竟，阿拉伯之春革命爆发是因为一位可怜的突尼斯企业家，穆罕默德·布阿齐齐于2010年12月以引火自焚的方式来抗议对其生意的无情掠夺。他的兄弟萨利姆在接受美国公众电视台采访时告诉我，他为争取“穷人买卖的权利”而结束了自己的生命。

布阿齐齐死后不到60天，他的遭遇刺痛了整个阿拉伯世界。整个大中东地区又有63名小生意人复制了他的自焚事件，激起上亿阿拉伯民众走上街头并推翻了四国政府。他们的愤怒仍在造成地区动荡。

这层含义西方国家并未理解到。像往常一样，西方着眼于宏观经济调整和技术援助，甚至连多数穷人的财产权问题都没有考虑到。这个问题其实是老生常谈：左倾的西方人非但没有记起是财产权帮他们逃离了主权恶霸的魔掌，反而认为保护财产是一种右倾教条，保守主义者认为合法的财产权理所当然，而经济学家则认为这仅仅关系到房地产交易和木工。

西方未能鼓励阿拉伯政府建立、保护及提高民众财产权（并为其提供相应的保障）造就了一个真空地带，从而导致该地区的浪漫民族主义者及其恐怖主义分支乘虚而入，正是这些人把自己的走卒派到欧洲。当然，这些狂热分子根本无法提高穷人的生活水平——以哈里发自居的所谓伊斯兰国的掠夺性规则证明，实际情况其实是恰恰相反的。但在贫困和沮丧的氛围下，民众很容易受到虚假承诺份子的左右。

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Our annual flagship magazine, PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025, has arrived. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Digital Plus now.

Subscribe Now

西方还要多长时间才能明白民主资本主义需要强有力的产权制度，有些界限即便是政府也不能突破？就像平衡的宇宙和一切开放空间一样，全球市场是个不尊重生命的动荡的场所。一切生命系统，无论自然还是人为，仅在封闭的空间里有效。无论是细胞、分子、身体器官、计算机还是社会团体，每个个体都在隔膜、表皮、壁或法定权利等既定的界限内运转和活动。

就我们的身体而言，复杂的多细胞结构借助确保细胞间合作及信息交换的分子的产生来维持工作——这个过程被术语称为“发信号”。上述过程被打乱可能导致癌症等疾病发作。如果脱离其他细胞或者周边基质，细胞通常在很短的时间内死亡，这个过程术语叫“失巢凋亡”，也就是希腊语无家可归的意思。

大中东“失巢凋亡”现象的终结者将能最终赢得对恐怖主义的战争。西方及其盟友因此必须帮助生存取决于为他们及其资产（包括财产权和有限责任）设立保护性界限的80%的民众。他们需要信息传递机制来识别危险（对危险的识别可以来自记录资产和企业的登记和跟踪制度）。他们需要黏合分子与他人建立联系并从无到有建立起复杂珍贵的组合（具有法律执行力的合同）。有能力利用资产来保障信贷和创造资本（划分、拓展和抵押财产的股票及股份制度）对他们而言非常必要。若非如此，就算把欧洲和美国——现在还有俄国——的军队加在一起也于事无补。

如果奥朗德、美国下任总统及其阿拉伯盟友希望阻止恐怖主义，他们必须迫使（并协助）中东政府为民众提供能发挥其在全球市场上公平竞争潜能并实现繁荣发展所需的保护。美国和法国的革命者就是这么做的。这也是否定极端分子维持其发展所需吸引力的最可靠的办法。

翻译：Xu Binbin

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Subscribe Now

Featured

The End of Progress?

The End of Progress?

Jan 21, 2025 Joseph E. Stiglitz
Decommodify Electricity

Decommodify Electricity

Jan 23, 2025 Jayati Ghosh
Trump’s Trade Scam

Trump’s Trade Scam

Jan 24, 2025 Stephen S. Roach
The Trade Shifts Redefining Economic Development

The Trade Shifts Redefining Economic Development

Jan 22, 2025 Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Michele Ruta
The Fed Is Running Scared of Trump

The Fed Is Running Scared of Trump

Jan 24, 2025 Stuart P.M. Mackintosh

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 39 Comments on this article

michael CROCKETT Jan 28, 2016

The religion of Islam is directly and openly opposed to democracy, on the basis that only Allah can control how we live.

What is not at present understood by we "civilised" people in the West is that for large chunks of the world population, including muslim countries, but also including most of the ex USSR, our absolute belief that racism is bad, and that homosexuality and transgender behaviour is good, are beliefs that they do not share, and that their religion, literally, condemns. The free sexual behaviour of our young women is also completely misunderstood. Indeed I lived for some time in one of the oldest Christian civilisations in the world, where a man marrying has the absolute right to send his wife back to her family if she is not a virgin. Indeed, both sets of parents regularly inspect the bedding the day after the wedding. So the gap between our beliefs and those of huge swathes of the world's population will never be bridged, except by the application of force. Giving people property rights will make not the least difference.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark St. Angelo Jan 27, 2016

If all the terrorists were people who lacked property or people whose property had been taken from them because the countries in which they lived lacked strong and enforceable property rights, it might be reasonable to conclude that there is a direct connection between a lack of property rights and terrorism and therefore that instituting strong regimes of property rights would combat terrorism.

However, that simply isn't the case. Many terrorists, including the founders of Al Qaeda and some of the 9/11 hijackers, were people who owned property and whose property rights were protected by their respective governments.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Jan 20, 2016

I like this article especially the way it targets the kind of bullying which, because of the self -immolations which precipitated the Arab Spring. led to the overthrow of four tyrannical regimes. Super-power declarations of war against extremism smack of the same kind of bullying. The only real defence against this kind of insensitivity is the United Nations - currently almost impotent, but that's where the real power should be.
- Francesco D'Allessandro Jan 20, 2016
  
  And let's not forget that the publishing of the Wikileaks files also ignited the Arab Spring. Seems everyone focuses on the self-iimmolation of the Tunisian as a symbol of martyrdom and leaves aside the revelations that Julian Assange published....at times it makes me wonder who truly is behind Mr. Assange's actions?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emilio Zuniga Jan 20, 2016

ISIS or Al Qaeda is born out of religious conflicts. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Iraq are the main actors behind the terrorists guided by their geopolitical interests. Terrorists are not lure by having an asset to live with; this is to believe man is single minded or one dimensional man in the words of Marcuse and therefore an alienated being.
- Francesco D'Allessandro Jan 20, 2016
  
  In adding to Mr. Zuniga's insight, history demonstrates that most terrorists and revolutionaries don't stem from the unemployed ranks. Most are born in affluent households. Most go against property rights though they claim to represent the downtrodden.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Cole Jan 19, 2016

Well the Arab spring failed, entrenched interests (including law/property) were a factor, but so were other basic things demography and female participation on one hand and theology on the other. In the end the theology and sheer numbers of angry young men won. Somehow all these things needed to change drastically over night and that is not possible.
I think that the real problem here is the part of the Koran that makes it literalist - so the Koran is supposed to be internally consistent, and that is evidence of its divinity, and you have to take it all, whereas Christians are alleged to have betrayed god by leaving things out and moving things around. The problem with that is the whole Medina phase of the Koran cannot be left out, and that breaks civil society, just as it results in genocide and slavery. It is that theology that needs to be challenged, but every Christian leader I have seen pontificate on this has fallen straight into the traps laid by Mohammed and simply end up proving they have not read it....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lawrence Michael Jan 19, 2016

While the author has touched upon what seem to be antecedents in the French Revolution - it would be misreading both history and people. Braudel's account of the nation-building exercise in France, as well as the bloody French Revolution are terroristic and the Islamic State could very well be citing the French Revolution as an antecedent for its Islamic Revolution, etc. So a wrong example to begin with.
Second, terrorism and crime are bedfellows where usually crime is the first condition already met. Yet for crime to be defined, laws need to be defined first. Terror is what scale determines and often the scope, but they rarely are any different in real life. Simply because they both cite a difference in perception than what laws do - as instruments of order. So it needs to begin from there - after one has determined the ambit of laws that needs to cover the human security aspects the author raises. Much more, human rights predicated notions of human security. Yet like the question of law and order & crime-terror and anarchy - the difference in perceptions also mark key differences in basic values as well as outlooks. It is here that we find the opportunist blend in with the faithful. While the opportunist rarely is misguided even if constrained, the faithful often are not only misguided but also occupying the wrong shack in their interpretation of any faith. The religious faithful often add up as the weakest of humans in terms of convictions. Where sure and participant in crime-terror - they present rank desperation in an environment that itself may be criminal and terroristic - before acquiring that label themselves. Something what the author has sought to explore as a possibility. As rank tragedies in either case, one merely finds the rank and revile opportunist running the circus and selling tickets. The others merely happen to be those who "work" in the circus, including the hapless animals. No. The French Revolution is an example far way too wrong in human conduct. Or why blame an Islamic State that merely comes across as global because the times are different than those of 1789. Or a globalised world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Oswaldo Gutierrez Jan 18, 2016

La informalidad existe en todos los países y mientras mayor sea su influencia en la economía, menor crecimiento económico y bienestar. En el medio oriente, el probelma se agrava por la influencia de los dogmas religiosos en los estados y gobiernos. Los derechos de propiedad y de libertad de empresa, en la práctica, no existen para todos por igual en el tercer mundo.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
NM Wander Jan 18, 2016

Wow.
Mr. deSoto's article is like a breath of fresh air.
As he has described, defining property rights and defending them through rule of law may actually lead to an improvement in societies around the world.
I, for one, believe the so-called War on Terrorism is misguided, completely missed the point of how the world is changing, and is doomed to failure.
"Terrorism" and its more established cousin, "Narco-Terrorism", both develop and grow in areas where no one's personal property has any reasonable guarantee of security.
Worse, in most of these societies around the world, there seems to be little hope of ever gaining any personal property at all! Everything seems to be owned/controlled by some authority that commands leadership through fear and violence.
Add into this fate of misery and denial of personal property, the availability of Satellite TV reception and Internet.....with its daily barrage of beautiful semi-naked women peddling cars, toothpaste, houses, jewelry......and now we have billions
of pathetic lives envious of the material goods that all Westerners seem to be enjoying shielded from the misery of the "real world".
Terrorism is possibly better defined as PIRACY.....it is an outlaw society that thrives on chaos, that breaks the existing code of ethics and laws, taking the material goods by force.
The Internet is what makes this 21st Century mutation of piracy possible.
Once the Civilized World recognizes a need to regulate and TAX the internet.....terrorism/piracy becomes a much more manageable problem.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard S. Stone Jan 18, 2016

The seductive and interesting idea in the article is important, I think, and mainly right. The problem at present seems to be that we are not winning the war on terror. But that whole idea and enterprise seems about as ephemeral as "winning" the war on drugs. Or winning the war on poverty.

The idea, paradigm, or analogy, of winning a "war" on terror takes the whole discussion off into the wrong direction, from the first step, or word. There can be no successful war on terror, or drugs, or poverty. War works well enough (although there is certain to be some disagreement about if war "works" at all) when one identified group or state is fighting another. The war on terror is different, and may be a situation where the use of force, or police action, may be necessary in some critical junctures, or in self defense, but it cannot be the main approach to the problem. It simply does not solve the problem. Terror is not a group or a state. Terror is just a tactic, a way of making your voice heard by the leaders and the outside world.

Complicating the issue further is the confusing and obfuscatory religious aspects in the struggle, where the upper level players (somewhat equivalent to the drug producers and the law enforcement types) at the highest level manipulate the actions and discussion and produce propaganda to favor their own interests. Who could expect anything else? The wealthy Arabs/KSA and Western politicians are able to live and enjoy life outside these restrictive (religious) arrangements and maintain their property, etc. , when they choose. They manipulate the people through religion and hide the reality. It is a supreme fraud, as is all religion. Sadly it seems to be a fraud that has been accepted as the truth by even the victims themselves. Voltaire figured that out long ago. (Personally I think Islam is a real problem to the extent it in essence disallows democracy and prefers laws direct from the "Prophet." This appears to be unworkable and vile in the modern world.)

So I am willing, for what it's worth, to consider the proposal for a different path as a good first step to see the issues differently. But what does it matter if a few reasonably smart people see the struggle differently? Many clever and rich and powerful people are perfectly pleased with the current situation and are happy (despite what they may say) to see it continue.

I view this problem of terror somewhat differently, because I think we in the West need to do all we can to prevent terror attacks, and that means not allowing any terror associated leaders and regimes access to safe places to keep and hide their assets. And keeping them and their citizens out of the West. That way the citizens will have access to the leaders in their own country and the assets stolen from the people will still be there in the country for the citizens to recover. And the angry citizens will be right outside the gates of the palaces. Helpful and thoughtful words of encouragement regarding property rights are unlikely to be persuasive to billionaires and oligarchs and kings who can silence or kill anyone with impunity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Jan 17, 2016

Bravo! Finally, a common sense perspective. An idle mind is the devil's workshop, so lacking in economic opportunity people will naturally gravitate their thoughts to scapegoats and enemies. Economic opportunity is the fertilizer of productive democracy. Without economic opportunity, citizens vote for he who has the most guns or the most gold, often times both. The result is no change in their dysfunctional soci0-economy. A foundation of property rights and effective rule of law are vital to the transformation to a more prosperous, tolerant and happy citizenry. Unfortunately, it looks like boots on the ground will be needed to effect such a transition. Only with a well meaning "parent" will children grow up with good values.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
gerald sinclair Jan 17, 2016

Agree in principle but because it has been left so long, force maybe required as a circuit breaker first as in WW2 .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Solomon Jan 17, 2016

What an interesting neoliberal perspective on the Middle East, Islamic jihad, terrorism, etc. If only people's property rights were established and protected, the reason for their alienation and angry rebellion would be gone.

Nothing about the need to participate in a country's political processes? Nothing about the Sunni-Shia divide where one side completely dominates the other in any particular country?

Seems simplistic to me. But then these are folks who also claim that 'the market' can solve all challengers if allowed to function freely.
- Michael Ekin Smyth Jan 17, 2016
  
  Get the basics right and the rest follows. Hernando is like a laser - focussing on the underlying structures.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- gerald sinclair Jan 17, 2016
  
  Controlled capitalism or market forces is still the most efficient system known to man.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robbie Jena Jan 17, 2016

"How to Win the War on Terror" - Get rid of the bad governance...you CAN... too bad, Terror and influences are spreading....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ivan Yu Jan 16, 2016

the nature of the conflict lies in irrationality of religion, which couldn't be countered with rational means and economic ways. too bad mr. de Soto doesn't understand it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 16, 2016

Hernando de Soto believes "the War on Terror" could only be won, if the West would "encourage Arab governments to establish, protect, and enhance their citizens’ property rights (and provide them with the means)" After all the self-immolation of the Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi in December 2010 in protest against "merciless expropriation of his business" had sparked the Arab Spring. Angry protesters took to the streets because Bouazizi could not sell fruit to make a living. But is the Arab world ready at all for John Locke's notion of property rights?
De Soto also says that "the strength of our opponents derives......But our "opponents" are Islamist terrorists. We fully have empathy for ordinary ordinary people in the MIddle East and North Africa to harbour sentiments that are "similar to those that animated the American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution: frustration with and alienation from the prevailing system." They have enough, because "their lives, assets, and businesses had been subject for too long to the predations of arbitrary rulers."
The truth is that France before 1789 and the pre-1776 colonial America shared similar causes - the rise of an elite, often called the bourgeoisie, which made up of wealthy commoners. These merchants, manufacturers, and professionals had aspired to more political power and self-determination. In many parts of the Middle East, this is not the case, because the economies lie in the hands of those, who often belong to families of autocratic rulers. Property rights are exclusive and reserved for the "sovereign bullies."
Another cause is that, following the Lockean principle of property, peasants, many of whom owned land, had attained an improved standard of living and education and wanted to get rid of the last vestiges of feudalism so as to acquire the full rights of landowners and to be free to increase their holdings. Unfortunately in the Middle East many farmers can't live off the land. Even if they join the flow of migrant workers to urban areas, they hardly make ends meet.
De Soto blames the West for not correcting the wrong. Instead "it focused on macroeconomic adjustment and technical assistance, failing even to consider the property rights of the poor majority." He insists, our failure has helped create "a vacuum, into which stepped the region’s romantic nationalists and their terrorist offshoots, which are now sending their foot soldiers to Europe."
Our humanitarian values are universal and can be shared by the vast majority of Muslims, if they wish so. But can our traditional Christian doctrine be adopted by Muslims? The masterminds behind the two revolutions embraced Jeffersonian democracy, and the ruling elites were ready to give in, without plunging their countries into a civil war. Unfortunately, zero-sum mentality is still the name of the game among power-holders in the Middle East, who see compromises as a sign of weakness.
When we tried to "press (and help) Middle East governments to provide their people with the protections that will nurture their potential to prosper on equal terms in the global market," it was ridiculed as an export of our democracy. "What the American and French revolutionaries did" can hardly be replicated in conservative Muslim countries, and extremists will exploit social grievances there to "sustains their existence."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kevin Frei Jan 16, 2016

ISIS is a nihilistic organization with no positive program. It targets any Muslim, who does not kowtow, and every non-Muslim in any area they secure. They are not misunderstood or misguided, they are monsters, which must be destroyed for the good of the region and the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allen Mackenzie Jan 15, 2016

This is the scientifically proven technology to create peace:
http://www.invincibledefense.org/

http://www.maharishi.co.uk/selfcare/war-and-peace-could-the-military-use-meditation-to-create-peace.htm
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Jan 15, 2016

Mr. de Soto if you take the time to read the writings or listen to the words of the deceased Osama Bin Laden, of the present al-Qaeda chieftain Ayman al-Zawahiri as well as those of the other radical Islamic leaders from the diverse terrorist organizations that exist in today's world you will understand that this conflict is not going to conclude anytime soon. The bloodshed will continue and intensify in its ferocity for their objective is to destroy the apostate Muslim states and our liberal civilization. The current French president Francois Hollande or former President George W. Bush didn’t set in motion this jihad; they simply reacted to the aggression.

Now when you state "it is time to consider that the strength of our opponents derives, at least to some degree, from sentiments similar to those that animated the American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution…" it makes me wonder if you truly understand the nature of the enemy we are facing. These radical fanatics want to create global Islamic caliphates; they want to impose Sharia laws across the planet; they want to eliminate women's rights within their territories; execute whomever they deem a threat to their ideology; destroy all vestiges of religions that are not akin to theirs. Now to equate their doctrine to those of Thomas Jefferson, Georges Danton and their followers is baffling to say the least. If you are serious about how to win the war on terror I suggest you study the inherent qualities of our foes but whether you do or not this war will last for many decades to come.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lirain urreiztieta Jan 14, 2016

"that same estrangement is felt nowadays in the Middle East and North Africa"... and parts of North America.
- Michael Ekin Smyth Jan 17, 2016
  
  Not really. There are always malcontents - but the North American systems guarantee property rights, the essential foundation for progress.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 14, 2016

Actually, resolving the current ME crisis that is manifested through the Saudi / Iran animosity is very simple. All it requires is the “Goodwill” of the US & Russia and persuasive diplomats. There is no better time than the present to resolve the stand-off between these two countries. The US (Obama) and Russia (Putin) should bring both players (KSA & Iran) to the same table (forget all other players) and tell them in straight and blunt terms what is expected from them. Full stop. If this had happened months ago, none of the events of the last 24 months (WMDs’, Migrations, Terrorism, genocide, war crimes, etc.) would have happened.
- M M Jan 17, 2016
  
  Property rights, in one form or another, have been addressed in the Middle East. There are several “Free Trade Zones” and “Special Developments” spanning from Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, etc. and they all allow property ownership by foreigners, unlike many countries in the West that are still dealing with “Leasehold Arrangements” that means nothing at all. Incidentally, the heading of the article does read: “How to Win the War on Terror”, so I and other commentators did read the article very well.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Ekin Smyth Jan 17, 2016
  
  Read the article. Please. If you do you will understand the need for reform and the creation of property rights - the essential underpinning of every advanced society. The Middle East can't develop, or get past its intermible wars, until a system of property rights is created. Goodwill will then follow.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Jan 17, 2016
  
  For both Iran and KSA there is $100 Billion + in money at stake. KSA is bleeding money like never before and Iran is in desperate need for it. And money, always speaks in any culture. So come on Obama and Putin, show us your “Common Sense” or “Good Will”!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Zsolt Hermann Jan 17, 2016
  
  So far I like your suggestions the best.
  I would only say instead of "Goodwill" we could say "common sense".
  
  Your suggestions implies a certain, unfortunately unprecedented level of mutuality, cooperation in between world powers and all the "players" contributing to "terror".
  As other comments suggested to those contributors we could add basically all "power brokers" past present and future who all gain from continuing turmoil, unrest, any kind of insecurity or armed struggle.
  
  Fear, insecurity is the greatest business ever, artificially igniting and sustaining the violence is generating the greatest possible income for those in power.
  It was all "good" until this insecurity/defence business could be contained into "not so important areas" of the world, but such containment is failing, impossible today when we evolved into a globally interconnected and interdependent system.
  
  So we are ahead very difficult choices: either we choose to push towards business, keeping unrest, wars, terrorism going jeopardizing all of our future, or we start understanding that in this global, integral world our only chance of survival is through mutually complementing cooperation.
  One has to hope common sense will prevail, elevating peace and survival above profit and destruction.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jan 14, 2016

1 You cannot declare 'war on terror'. Terrorists fail only if lacking in support from part of the community, they rely on the community and are a manifestation of part of that community. Terrorists are usually a motley crew. Creating 'terror' as a collective only reinforces the identity. It is neatly skipped over that there are many proxy agent provocateurs in the region, a some are countries of considerable wealth

2 It is hardly the fault of 'the West' if governments fail to behave in a 'Western way'. In fact if 'the West' attempts to impose or encourage a 'Western approach' it is accused of inciting democracy and or imperialism and or instability

3 'This is why the West' must do this and that... Firstly I would like to know who this 'West' is especially as there seem many interpetations of policy or values within 'the West'. Furthermore ill thought out adventures by members of the 'West' have not exactly been a roaring success. The West is also a motley crew as has clearly been demonstrated by the differing response to the Euro crisis and the EU migration crisis. Unless the 'West' has a real common policy you should not expect collective action

4 'It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.' George Orwell

5 The mess that is at its core the Middle East first and foremost has to be addressed by the major players in the region. As at least two are sabre rattling yet again this looks at the moment a remote possibility. This conflict has its roots a millenium back and is still active

6 What the American and French revolutionaries did in the main was rise up to fight paying taxes and the key is that was internal not external. They were as such terrorists supported by part of the local community. Freedom fighters or terrorists simply is based on which side you support

7 Hollande is a waste of time, he has the all time lowest leader popularity rating with the French voters. He will be gone shortly and the French economy has many many problems. Introspection is more likely than solving the worlds problems. French security experts openly state they do not have the domestic resources to monitor 'persons of interest' and the French focus will increasingly be on that problem, not adventures elsewhere

8 As terrorists have de facto a home, if the have continuity it is because they are supported by part of the community. Therefore they are not homeless and unfortunately the 'anoikis' simile is inappropriate. It is correct that the terrorists will continue until they are homeless but it is an idealogy the home is rooted in

9 The jihad is attracting Western youth, many of who are middle class, educated, affluent so a focus on improving wealth and education is not guaranteed to be the answer

10 The logical development for 'the West' on current behaviour is increased surveilance of citizens, a gated community approach, peripheral military action whilst avoiding 'boots on the ground' and encouragement of a local ME group(s) to drive a stalemate. More of the same as in play at the moment

11 A switch away from global dependancy on oil would significantly reduce the direct and indirect funds available to troublemakers

I wish it was simple
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 14, 2016

The author is correct that doing this would work to stop terrorism. Who wants to be a terrorist when you own a nice house. However, the cows will come home before this happens in the middle east - as the game is really about propping up dictators in exchange for oil contracts. Terrorism is just a necessary evil to ensure that public Western funds continue to flow. If the supply of the terrorism ever dried up the best thing (financially speaking) the oil companies and their lobby could do is to grow their own terrorists.
- M M Jan 17, 2016
  
  There are property rights in all Arab countries with no exception. Some of these property rights go back centuries and some of them even pre-date the Ottoman Empire. You better research your comments before making them. As to the effectiveness of "Property rights" in general, they are all dismal across the globe.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Ekin Smyth Jan 17, 2016
  
  An exaggerated focus on oil blurs you vision. Oil isn't important to Egypt, the most populous and important Arab country. Effective property rights are absent in all 28 Arab countries. Oil is a factor, but just a factor.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 14, 2016

The writer of this article seems to have got the wrong end of the stick in his analysis and many of his examples are just wrong. Exporting ideologies yes, but the so-called terrorists have not been exported to the West or other parts of the world. On the contrary, they have been imported from it. Mohamed Bouazizi was the Tunisian flame but was not the ignition.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jan 14, 2016

The west France, the US and Britain come to mind don't even care about the rights or interests of their poor. You really think their going to give a damn about poor Arabs?
- Michael Ekin Smyth Jan 17, 2016
  
  Your bigotry confuses your assessment. Hernando sees through to the essential structures undeying the societies. Take your prejudiced blinkers off and try to do the same.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- stephan Edwards Jan 14, 2016
  
  And a piss poor job the west is doing of it when they bother. On the Middle eastern side it isn't the rich or well off that are out on the streets screaming for change or fitting themselves for clothing made by Dupont.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jan 14, 2016
  
  Has it ever crossed your mind that many 'Arabs' as a catchall, are wealthy. Quatar in 2015 was the wealthiest country in the world by GDP per capita
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Wilson Jan 14, 2016
  
  You are probably right but, they are aware that unless they protect the rights and interests of their own poor they run the risk of history repeating itself.
  About time for them they made an attempt to instil the same logic on Arab leaders if they want Middle East and North African stability!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/kciPVVSzh

如何打赢反恐战争

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Featured

The End of Progress?

Decommodify Electricity

Trump’s Trade Scam

The Trade Shifts Redefining Economic Development

The Fed Is Running Scared of Trump

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Transitions of 2016

How to Fight Jihadi Terrorism

Exporting the Chinese Model

The Great Malaise Continues

Log in/Register

如何打赢反恐战争

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025

Featured

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification