The debate on whether or not to intervene in states like Somalia and Afghanistan so as to deny terrorist groups their safe havens has evolved in such a way that the two positions are now mutually exclusive. The most important issue is recruitment and, in this “war of ideas”, the traditional notion of territory becomes less important, because all territory is important.
If there were any doubts about the need for all-inclusive politics in Iraq, it is now obvious that there will be no bright future if the return to sectarian loyalties is not prevented. The Sunni awakening members’ increasing discontent with their condition after assisting in the single most important mission of Iraq’s stabilization is worrying.
The history of violence that characterizes the Horn of Africa partly explains, though obviously does not justify, the behaviour of Eritrea. The support to non-state armed groups is a feature that characterizes the history of most of the African continent. The particular relevance of Eritrea’s activities is that the group they favour—the Shabaab—is not just a regular non-state armed group.
From a humanitarian perspective, 33 per cent of civilian casualties is a considerably high figure. And while the drones’ invisibility provides an alternative for what would otherwise be an unsustainable military presence, some of the most negative consequences of the drone attacks are also invisible.
Last week in Bahrain I listened to a very interesting speech, interesting for all the wrong reasons. At first sight, it was a rather thoughtful speech. However, knowing its author completely changes one’s perception. What to make of it seemed to be in the minds of a wide-ranging audience of politicians, diplomats, military commanders, and journalists, from all across the wider Middle East, the United States, and Europe.