Before the invasion of Iraq, on several occasions, I warned my US friends and the very few Europeans in favour of such an attack, that this war would not only bring chaos and increase the gap between Muslims societies and the Western world; but that it would also break ‘the West’ into two parts. Some countries would follow the path of the current US administration, while a growing number would follow a European approach embodied (only in a negative, resisting way in 2002/2003) by France, Germany and Belgium.

For at least a year, it is obvious that the invasion of Iraq did not bring the ‘democratization’ of the Arab world, or an improvement of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Quite the opposite: the Arab and Muslim visions of the world are drifting away from the Western one. These tensions brutally manifest themselves in the daily flow of images coming from Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan showing scores of civilians being killed either by terrorists or by counter-terrorists attack. Who can still believe that this is not generating rage, anger and mistrust among Arabs and Muslims over the world, including in the big Western cities? For them, the ‘liberalisation’ of Iraq has not brought the country forward on the path of democratisation, but has turned the country into a war zone. And what do our Westerner fellow citizens feel when they see the dead victims of terrorist attacks in our cities? They likewise feel anger, rage and mistrust which continuously broaden the gap between both worlds.

Recent developments also question the unity of the ‘West’ in the sense of a Western alliance of democracies, most of which are organised in NATO. Calls for an alternative route are becoming stronger everyday in Europe since it is obvious that the ‘West’ is loosing its ‘war against terror’ lead, organized and planned by G.W. Bush’s administration, and actively followed by Tony Blair’s et Silvio Berlusconi’s governments. A recent example that Bush’s strategy is questioned, is Poland pulling out its troops out of Iraq in January . Today, NATO is a dead club. Or what else is an ‘alliance’ in which one or the other side is always refusing to join ‘common actions’? Apart from important trade and business ties , the ‘West’ as a concept was kept alive in citizens’ minds thanks to the hope, that Bush-Blair-Berlusconi’s crusade could defeat the terrorists, although many were deep concerned by this strategy as they know that they do not live in an ‘island’ isolated from the rest of the world. After the London bombings, at the latest, this hope is dead.

The vast majority of Europeans are now convinced that these leaders did not defeat the terrorists, but made them even stronger. The declared war on terror, the polarisation between the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’ propagated by Bush, and the illusionary promise to fight down the ‘evil’ for ever, prepared the grounds for more Islamic terrorism. Meanwhile, Bush, Blair and Berlusconi still pledge to protect and – despite the visible failure of both winning the battle of Iraq and that on Al Qaeda – they are unable to present any alternative way out. ‘Because the West and ‘democracies’ cannot loose this battle’, they say. The opposite is true. These battles are bound to be lost as long as Western leaders adopt very much the same logic as religious extremists do: Firstly, the logic of the absolute ‘good’ representing absolutely superior values anchored in a non-disputable belief system and interpreted in such a way that no alternative has a right to co-exist. And secondly, the illusionary conviction that this ‘good’ can eventually win by extinction of the ‘evil’.

It is precisely this illusion of an absolute victory that is increasingly loosing support among the Western population. Today, the feeling that the war against terror is a war against symptoms and not against causes is gaining grounds every single day. The truth is even worse: the war against terror has become a source of terror. It has created the very environment their recruiters need to increase their human resources. What an irony! Because of his decision to invade Iraq, G.W. Bush’s army is now facing increasing difficulties to recruit, while Al Qaeda is attracting scores of future terrorists. The invasion of Iraq, the lack of solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, the inability to push democratization forward within the ‘Western friendly’ regimes of the Middle East, … all that directly contributed to strengthen the terrorist networks in those countries.

And it did even worse. Since 9/11, all major terrorists attacks were implemented by people coming from countries run by those ‘Western friendly’ regimes: Saudi Arabia for New-York, Morocco for Madrid, Pakistan/UK for London. They did not come from supposedly ‘evil’ countries such as Iran, North Korea or Syria. How come that those who kill our fellow citizens come from countries considered as ‘friendly’ by the West? Are those countries maybe not friendly anymore? Maybe only their regimes are? Within most parts of Egypt, foreigners can no longer travel without being protected by army and police forces. Go to Morocco, leave the ‘tourist paths’ and you hear what young Moroccans really say of the ‘West’. Go to Pakistan and you will see that people’s hearts beat for Muslim integrists rather than the ‘good old Western values’. Today, we know that there is a split among the Western ‘friendly’ governments and the population in these countries.

The invasion of Iraq also gave terrorists a free ride into our Muslim and Arab youth in the suburbs of our major cities. The ‘Iraq Show’ on every night’s news program allows them to penetrate deeper into immigrant communities in the EU. The belligerent and excluding rhetoric of warlord Bush does the rest to make Muslim members of Western societies feel being under general suspicion. All this creates, as we have seen in the UK, a ‘home born’ threat. This is no phenomenon that will be restrained to the home countries of Bush, Blair and Berlusconi. The intended polarization launched by Bush has put other Western countries into the risk of being treated as part of a ‘belligerent West’ – no matter whether the country was part of the Iraq war coalition or not.

Meanwhile, people start wondering what ‘democracies’ have to win in a battle where elusive victories have to be obtained at the price of high costs especially in the field of our basic values. Is a ‘shoot to kill’ police directive in London a ‘victory’ for democracy? Are Guantanamo and the Patriot Act new successes for democracy? And, last but not least, are they stopping the threat? No, No and No are saying a large majority of Europeans and a growing number of Americans.

People, in Europe in particular, are unlikely to keep supporting these policies based upon arrogance cumulated with ignorance of the world, of other cultures and of one’s own society. Even the ‘anti-terrorist community’ recognises now they had got it all wrong: money was not a key factor for terrorism to grow, the war in Iraq did help Al Qaeda, and terrorists are now recruited within Western countries, they often have a good level of education and they have learned to adapt themselves to the counter-terrorism strategies, and so forth. [3] The obvious dead-end in which Bush, Blair and Berlusconi’s ‘war on terror’ has brought the ‘West’ not only risks to fail as such. It also risks breaking apart the ‘West’ as we know it: the shared common values and aims of Americans and Europeans, such as democracy, liberty, human rights, empowerment of people, peace and prosperity.
Unless we rapidly develop an alternative strategy to deal with the Muslim and Arab world, based upon knowledge, understanding, truth and risk taking, one has to anticipate a very bleak future for the ‘Western Alliance’.

And it is not by increasingly using a moral language and by talking about the ‘evil’ that Bush and Blair will change the growing perception of their fellow citizens that the whole ‘war on terror’ is failing. Quite the opposite: They are well advised not to use too much of these images, because as far as one can see from Europe’s streets, not so many Europeans put George W, Tony and Silvio on the ‘good’ side. Neither do they think now that they are doing a ‘good’ job.

Indeed, beyond the comments or the surveys produced by the ‘media usual suspects’ (pretending that people do share the feelings of a common fate), in the streets of Europe, what you hear more and more loudly can be summarised in two sentences:
. Europe cannot continue following Bush’s policy which does not work in Europe, because Muslims and Arabs are Europe’s neighbours (and more and more Europeans’ neighbours too) and obviously leads only to chaos
. if the British are happy with Blair’s policy to stay the pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to Bush in the driving seat, then Europe must go on and forge an alternative policy without them.
Such sentences are resounding in the heads of about 70 to 80% of Europeans today, all across the continent (at least all those who opposed the invasion of Iraq). As this evolution is rapidly eroding what is left from the common values defining the West, there is a high legitimacy to ask the question: Are Bush, Blair and Berlusconi killing the ‘West’?

Nobody should be fooled by the ‘media usual suspects’ talking about a new generation of French and German leaders more prone to Transatlantic cooperation than the current ones. First Sarkozy and Merkel have to get into power which will not be necessarily that easy [4]. Second, both of them will face more than a mild resistance inside their own parties for a too drastic change. Third, the Belgian, German and French public is today even more convinced that their country’s choices in 2002/2003 regarding Iraq were right.

If one gives a look at long term political trends rather than short terms party politics, then, those willing to keep the ‘West’ alive will have to face a very simple choice in the coming year:
. either, changing the ‘West’ policy course by switching focus from ‘war on terror’ to ‘democratizing the Arab and Muslim world’. Such a trend can only come from Europe, where a realistic knowledge of the region exists and which has strong relays with its 20 millions Muslim immigrants. It may rapidly gather the support of about 50% of US public opinion (and most probably more, as many Republicans are less and less supportive of current US strategy).
. or, keeping on with current US administration policy, relayed by Blair and Berlusconi [5], and betting everything the ‘West’ has, including its public support, into the ‘war on terror’. Then, one will have to face the fact that continental Europe will break away, in an attempt to find an alternative route of its own, loosening at an increasing pace the ties forged between Americans and Europeans 60 years ago. And, before the end of the decade, one will be able to say, ‘Yes, Bush, Blair and Berlusconi did kill the ‘West’’.

Though the last option is not a fate, trends are very strong by now and getting stronger every day. The ‘West’ has about two years to reinvent, propose and sell the alternative path which, beyond the shift from ‘war on terror’ to ‘democratization of the Muslim and Arab worlds’ can only be based upon four core ideas:
. dealing separately with the Muslim world and the Arab world, which are two different spheres, to be dealt on a separate basis in order to act efficiently.
. fully supporting the pan-Arabic hope, in order to fight the ‘religious dream’ which risks to lean toward radicalism by a ‘political hope’. A vivid hope of Arab unity may be able to confront Al Qaeda’s devastating vision of a Muslim power.
. drastically shifting forces and means from the ‘war on terror’ to the true and rapid democratization of ‘Western friendly regimes’. This may include the cost of accelerating the fall of some of them, in order to stop the rapidly increasing daily supply of ‘would-be terrorists’.
. accepting to pay a price for peace and long-term stabilisation in terms of oil prices and short term instability, but this time, not with Western troops attacking anybody. Also peace has its price.

This is a long term strategy which may take 20 years to be fully implemented. But going for it will immediately send very positive signals to Muslim and Arab populations, and start eroding the terrorists ‘political legitimacy’, built on the fact that the ‘West’ only wants to have more control of their countries, cultures, populations and resources.

So, time is ripe to start the ‘war on error’ regarding the relationship between the ‘West’ and the Muslim and Arab worlds. Surprisingly enough, the higher stake here is for those who do believe in the ‘West’ because it could become the first casualty of the wrong policies implemented by Bush, Blair and Berlusconi for the past five years.

Franck Biancheri
Paris (France)