Finding way ahead for France after attrocity

President François Hollande stated that “war” had been declared on the French Republic

On Friday the 13th at 9.50pm, the music stopped at the Bataclan theatre as French citizens died all over Paris. In a climax of a series of attacks aimed at the very heart of the city which exemplifies joie de vivre, the terrorists have made their bloody statement of death.

Now there shall be the response. A turning point has been reached; a new policy will be set.

The question is in which direction shall things move.

The early signs are not entirely encouraging. In the aftermath of the atrocity, President François Hollande stated that “war” had been declared on the French Republic, with the clear implication that the main French response would be military.

Gone was the previous line that these attacks were basically the work of ruthless fanatics and criminals who require to be brought to justice.

Instead, it is accepted that Daesh is now at war with France and the Paris attack is the latest front of battle in a week which has also seen devastating attacks in Beirut, Baghdad and against Russian tourists in the Sinai.

This initial reaction may be perfectly understandable. However, it is one which will not disappoint the terrorists. What Daesh has craved more than anything else is to be recognised as a state and a state at war with the western world.

That is, after all, why they call themselves the “Islamic State” and why they so hate the alternative description of them as Daesh, an Arabic acronym which mocks their pretensions of creating a new caliphate across the Levant.

However, the reality is that Daesh are NOT a state; they have no legitimacy, their only legal code is barbarity and their only currency is that of terror and murder.

Nor are they much cop at fighting where people shoot back. On the ground in Iraq and in Syria, they are now in headlong retreat.

Thus, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia, operating under Russian air cover, have Daesh on the defensive in Syria, while the Kurdish forces, coordinating with the Americans, are now in position over Highway 47, between the Daesh strongholds of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. The claimed new caliphate has effectively been cut in half.

These military successes also illustrate a fundamental tactical truth that bombing campaigns are only effective when backed by effective ground forces.

Thus, the new fronts opened up by Daesh in the last few weeks against the “soft targets” of civilian populations across the Middle East, in France and against Russian civilian aircraft are not a sign of strength but of weakness.

It will be a step forward to deprive the terrorists of their geographical centre of operations. However, to believe that the military defeat of Daesh would in itself end the terrorist threat is to seriously mis- understand the true nature of our enemy.

Philip of Macedon once said that ancient Athens was not a city, not a state but an idea. Thus, despite Daesh pretensions to statehood, Islamic terrorism is not a country but a cause. A convoluted, twisted cause, certainly, but a cause nonetheless.

Reclaiming Raqqa and conquering Mosul will weaken this particular manifestation of terror, but will not drain the swamp from which this extremism springs across the Middle East and many areas of Africa.

That requires a diplomatic, financial and political strategy to promote peace, as well as one to tackle terrorism.

The moving displays of solidarity around the world with the French people in the aftermath of the Paris attacks actually place France in roughly the same position that the United States found itself after 911. At that moment of supreme extremity in 2001, America had never been stronger or carried more international support.

The day after the Twin Towers came down, even the PLO was expressing solidarity with the US.

Now, France also carries the moral strength of having suffered such pain.

The question is will they use that credibility in a positive manner or will they dissipate their position of authority as George W. Bush did so tragically in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq and on his own particular “war on terror”.

Therefore, to where should France turn in its moment of trial?

First, to the French people – defiantly determined to continue with their way of life. Paris shall not be cowed.

Much has been said of the fractured divisions of French society, but not enough about the fundamental traditions of liberty, equality and fraternity on which the republic was founded.

It was not for nothing that the football crowd were singing the Marseillaise as they left the Stade de France.

Second, they should look first to Vienna rather than Syria for real solutions. Unlike the UK, France is already heavily involved in the Syrian civil war.

However, on Saturday in Vienna, even as the bombs and bullets still echoed in Paris, the multinational talks on ending the Syrian conflict made far more progress than expected.

France needs to lead the absolute and urgent necessity of reaching international agreement to halt this ruinous five-year-old civil war.

Third, France now has a key role in breaking the cycle of violence in which we are locked.

The French have a long history of creative diplomacy. They have a track record of detente with Russia and a huge footprint in Africa. They understand the importance of starving Daesh of oil funding and also of the shameful financial support which is fuelling the sinews of their terror.

Many of the instinctive reactions to Daesh terrorism miss the point.

Security measures are necessary. The unsung hero of this tragedy is the security guard who detected the bombs and therefore kept terrorists outside rather than inside the Stade de France.

However, security can never be foolproof, or at least not without sacrificing the very tenets of a free society.

Demonising sections of the population as being somehow responsible for Daesh will merely feed greater division and further terror.

A French Moslem is no more to blame for Daesh in the modern world than a Scots Presbyterian was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition in the 16th century.

Finally, military action is not an end in itself. It has no purpose whatsoever unless it is part of a comprehensive political strategy. Indeed, without such a strategy it can be counterproductive.

Out of extremity often comes opportunity. “La gloire” for France lies in being seen as a leading peacemaker in the Middle East, a leading donor to financial reconstruction in the region, and a leading recipient to help those who see Europe as a sanctuary.

A war on conflict, a war on want and a war on man’s inhumanity to man.

Now that would be a war worth having and, for the nation of France right now, one well worth leading.