US-led coalition in Syria is exacerbating terror threat in Europe
By: Rachel Marsden
PARIS -- On Sunday, as the mercury headed north of 30 degrees Celsius in the
shade and I retreated to an air-conditioned movie theater on the Champs Elysees
for a short reprieve, little did I know that just one day later, a few steps
outside the theater's door, a suspected jihadist would attempt (but thankfully
fail) to blow up a car rigged with explosives by ramming it into a police van.
It's the second time in as many months that there has been a terrorist attack on
this famous street. A police officer was shot and killed in another attack in
April, two other officers were wounded, and the attacker was shot dead. These
terrorists are foot soldiers of the Islamic State, and Europe is part of their
battlefield.
Can NATO invoke its Article 5 principle of collective defense against itself?
Those of us who live in urban centers of European nations are being subjected to
terror attacks on what seems like a weekly basis. There is constant talk about
the human rights of various civilian populations in the Middle East, but what
about the rights of citizens of Paris or London to live without the fear of
terrorism? Not only are NATO member states not doing everything they can to
protect their own people from terrorism, but the actions of the U.S.-backed
coalition in Syria (which includes several NATO members) are making the
situation worse.
NATO's principle of collective defense stipulates that an attack on one member
is an attack on all members and can trigger a military response in self-defense.
When is NATO going to stand up for its own people rather than the interests of
government elites?
ISIS has sponsors and enablers that have nurtured it and now distract from its
destruction. The fact that war is no longer as straightforward as it was when it
was limited to rank-and-file armies commanded by generals at the service of
nation-states doesn't mean that ISIS soldiers are divorced from nation-state
responsibility.
Where was NATO when Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states began funding the
Islamic State? Where was NATO when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was
training and equipping these jihadists for war in Syria? Where was NATO when the
real goal of ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad proved much tougher than
expected, and millions of Syrian civilians were sent fleeing into European
countries, overwhelming security and intelligence services to the point where
even jihadists previously flagged by these services are now able to successfully
perpetrate attacks?
If NATO wants to make itself useful, it needs to come to the rescue of European
citizens currently living under the threat of ISIS as a result of the continued
recklessness of U.S.-led coalition forces in Syria. We in Europe cannot afford
for this war to continue. NATO must take action against any country trying to
leverage the fog of war for its own political and economic gains at the expense
of citizens dealing with the fallout of the conflict.
In other words, there is but one enemy: ISIS. There should be just one mission:
to eliminate it. There's only one nation fighting these jihadists on its own
soil: Syria. And Syria has an army. Any foreign entity fighting ISIS should
therefore be coordinated with the Syrian army.
A U.S. fighter jet recently shot down a Syrian warplane, claiming it had
threatened a U.S. partner in this war -- a group called the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF). Oh, great -- yet another group of "rebels." How about either
joining the Syrian army to defeat ISIS or getting out of the way? The U.S.
mission is supposed to be to destroy ISIS, not to cultivate and defend even more
local militias.
"Over the last four weeks, the U.S. has conducted three airstrikes on pro-regime
forces backed by Iran," ABC News noted this week. If Syria has allies such as
Iran and Russia that it has invited into the country to restore stability, why
is the U.S. bombing Syria's guests inside of Syria?
The U.S. is also a guest in that house and only ended up in Syria as a result of
mission creep that started in 2011 under the humanitarian pretext of protecting
Syrian citizens from Assad. Along with its allies in the Gulf who had the same
goal, America then created the mess that has justified camping out on the couch
ever since.
At what point does Syria give America and its allies an eviction notice because
their mission and objectives have become suspect at best, detrimental at worst?
And at what point do the European members of NATO who are under ISIS attack on
their own soil invoke collective defense against any nation-states -- even from
within NATO ranks -- that impede or distract from the primary objective of
eliminating ISIS?
COPYRIGHT 2017 RACHEL MARSDEN