– April 2013, III, The Euro, Euro-zone and the EU
– April 2013, II, North-Korea vs South-Korea; a potential war
– April 2013, I, Syria, and andgame without an end
Maandelijks archief: februari 2015
Index 2001
– December 2001, War against terrorism, a never ending story
– November 2001, Fighting Terrorism
– October 2001, Terrorism, consequences and implications
– September 2001, A note on Warfare
– August 2001, Investing in difficult times – Missile Defence
– July 2001, A note on Stealth
– June 2001, A note on the Fundamentals and Principels of Business Strategy
– May 2001, A Financial Reassesment
– April 2001, Emerging Flashpoints Q1 2001
– March 2001, South America, assessed
– February 2001, The Future of the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC
– January 2001, Portfolio management in the new century
Index 2000
– December 2000, Mergers, Fusions and Take Overs
– November 2000, The Israeli – Palestinian dilemma
– October 2000, Islamic Fundamentalism
– September 2000, Internet Strategy
– August 2000, War in Modern Times
– July 2000, Prospects in the Middle East
– June 2000, Turmoil in Africa
– May 2000, Financial Affairs, volatility on the U.S. stock market
– April 2000, A Note on Business Management
– March 2000, Notes on the future of Warfare
– February 2000, Conflicts in the World. Part II
– January 2000, Portfolio management in the new millenium
Index 1999
– December 1999, Conflicts in the World, Part I
– November 1999, Financial Affairs
– October 1999, Asia, out of the dark?
– September 1999, A note on business management
– August 1999, German defence revisited
– July 1999, Updates on Kosovo and Kashmire – Financial assesment
– June 1999, Indonesia revisited
– May 1999, The Kosovo conflict; history, exits and future
– April 1999, Portfolio management in 1999
– March 1999, Stability and Conflict 1999, Part III
– February 1999, Stability and Conflict 1999, Part II
– January 1999, Stability and Conflict 1999, Part I
Index 1998
– December 1998, Some notes on nuclear weapons
– November 1998, Communication as a way to improve your business – Investments in the last quarter of 1998
– October 1998, Russia, a country in change
– September 1998, Instrumentalising Procurement – Congo in trouble
– August 1998, Is the bull getting tired? – Conflicts turning violent
– July 1998, The economies of the world; the connections and the situation – The Kosovo dilemma
– June 1998, Change in Indonesia – Asian addition
– May 1998, Business management, a short summary
– April 1998, II, Economy and financial affairs
– April 1998, The road towards European Defence integration – A note on India
– March 1998, Iraq after an U.N. brokered agreement – A note on China
– February 1998, Security changes in the Asian-Pacific region – Iraq, the next battlefield
– January 1998, II, Portfolio management in 1998
– January 1998, I, An Outlook on 1998
Index 1997
– December 1997,– The threat of IT, Turmoil in Asia
– November 1997, Consolidation in the French defence industry – Turmoil in Asia
– October 1997, Israel, an outlook – Rotating stocks into small and mid caps
– September 1997, Sense and nonsense about diversification – The Market in volatility
– August 1997, II, Financial Affairs
– July 1997, German Forces for the next millenium – The future of Hong Kong stocks
– June 1997, Indonesia, a country at the crossroads – Lean but not mean – A financial update
– May 1997, II, Counter the terrorist threat
– May 1997, Investing in South-East Asia
– April 1997, Securing your investments – The Zaïrean dilemma
– March 1997, The volatile stock market – Syria versus Israel
– February 1997, The World in 1997
– January 1997, Financial Review
April 2013, III
April 2013, III
The Euro, Euro-zone and the EU
The Euro
The single currency in the European Union, EU, started to promote trade, business and it would make life easier for the people. The unification with the Euro in the Euro-zone was a political project to bring the EU even more together. A political, or even an economical union, was still a bridge to far. The single currency was essentially an attempt to unify through the back door.
With the current knowledge we know, it worked out not as planned.
The basic idea of more integration, more cooperation, in Europe is not a bad idea, it could promote trade and contacts between the people of the EU. To be successful you need however at least some kind of fiscal union or at best a political union. Regulations, fiscal policy, need to be synchronized to create a real common economy in the EU.
In the end it remains a political concept, what do the politicians and the people want in and with the EU. The governments in the Euro-zone decided that they wanted a common currency, which in the end means more integration, cooperation.
The economy and the Euro
The financial crisis in the world and especially in the south of Europe led to several thoughts about the common currency. Many in the north and south have great doubts about the Euro. It allegedly brought more worse than good. The answer to that question depends on the individual situation and the political outlook.
The common currency, Euro, is however a fact of life and any discussions about if it should be or shouldn’t have been implemented is a rather superfluous discussion. It is here and will be here for now.
The existence of the Euro is up to the members, especially to the big three or four, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. If one of them decides to get out it is over and out.
To leave and abandon the Euro will not deliver the advantages which are described by the followers of independent currencies and sovereign nations.
The main advantage of having an independent currency, if something like that exists, is that the value of the currency depreciates if the economy is performing bad or is in a recession. The lower value of the currency would stimulate export. This would increase growth, more employment, more demand and after that a stronger economy. Regrettably, other countries, your trading partners, are mostly also experiencing economic worser times, limiting demand from those countries and their currency will also depreciate. This will destroy your relative advantage.
Not included in this simple equation is that your imports will become equally more expensive and the payment of loans and interests will also become more expensive. To this, we should ad that the patterns of export and import are in the EU mostly limited to the closest by neighbors and the products are not that exclusive that they’re unique, irreplaceable.
The only EU economy producing products that are more or less unique is Germany, the demand for their products will remain, at lower level but will not evaporate. The products of other economies in the Euro-zone are not that exclusive and can be replaced or even avoided.
The debts of the countries, national or business, are also nominated in Euros, so any change tot hat will be complicated and very expensive to all parties. With a renomination of the currency in a national currency will be more or less 1 to 1, but within a second this will change, the southern currencies will fall and will be need to pay the double to the Euro days. The same is valid for the interest rates which have to be paid. In percentage to the BBP/GNP, whatever, more need to be paid to interest rates.
The advantage of a weaker currency is not valid as it seems, if you are alone on the world and eveybody else is doing all right, it could work. In reality, it works out a little different. All national economies are already that connected, interdependent, that there is no such thing as sovereign national, economic/fiscal, policy.
The future of the Euro
The existence of the Euro depends on its members, especially Germany, France, Italy and Spain. It is still and remains a political project. If they want to end it, it can be done, the price for it will be more expensive for the southern countries as their debts will mulitply and a default will be their only option. This would result in massive write offs for the northern countries. For all countries in the EU, even the ones which are not members of the single currency, the price will be very high. In the end it will be expensive for all parties, countries, involved. Everybody which has some how has a connection through trade or debts with the Euro-zone will be hurt by the end of the Euro.
The countries which kept their own currency will not be off the hook, the ones which are performing better have done their howework before, implemented changes in their economy and are now able to harvest the profits from that changes. But other countries which have not done so are experiencing the same difficulties, it doesn’t matter if they are in or out the Euro. Germany in the Euro and Sweden, Switzerland and Norway outside the Euro are doing better. Norway is of course a different category with its massive oil/gas resources. The UK and to a lesser extent Denmark, even if they’ve their own currency, are doing not that good. Just as many of the other Euro countries with high debts and unbalanced budget deficits.
There will be no winners nor advantages in leaving or ending the Euro. Continuation of the Euro will demand further unification, fiscal and political unification, to structurally solve the problems in the Euro-zone. This will demand changes and adaptions in and from the Euro members. All choices will be expensive but a world with a Euro will be more beneficial, cheaper, especially on the long term.
April 2013, II
April 2013, II
North-Korea vs South-Korea; a potential war
War in the Koreas
The war in Korea, 1950-1953 has formally never ended, there was only an armistice, restoring a status quo. The tensions between the two have remained and at times intensified.
Both countries have since developed in opposite directions, communist vs capitalist. The north stayed poor and relatively underdeveloped and the south progressed to wealth and one of the leading economies in the world.
This making North-Korea one of the few remaining true communist countries in the world. This autocratic regime, a police state, survived by closing the country to virtually all foreign influences and living of contributions and all kind of shady businesses, including the trade in nuclear technology.
This all cumulated in a policy of developing a nuclear device, or something close to it. This aspiring nuclear weapons power used its knowledge to somehow blackmail the world in supporting the country (financially/economically), get some respect and of course have it to defend the country against the evil world.
The assumption of power by the new North-Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, changed the rule of the game as they felt more threatened, lost respect, the economy was in ever worser shape and above all Kim needed to establish his power.
Conflict in 2013
North Korea used all options to increase the tensions between the two countries, everything was used to keep the fire burning. The final escalation to war seems to be around the next corner. The nuclear program restarted, the question remains if it was ever stopped, borders closed, missile launch commands given and even foreign diplomats were told that their safety couldn’t be guaranteed anymore.
The military training operations between South Korea and the USA have been used as an excuse to make new threats but they’re probably sincerely felt by the north as a danger to their existence. More than ones, military training, maneuvers, were used as a pre-cursor to an attack.
It remains however very unlikely that North-Korea will start a conflict, the odds are simply against them. Military they’ve greater numbers but the level of technology, the quality of the forces and the logistical capabilities of South-Korea vastly outnumber everything the north has to offer. Only a possible functioning and deliverable nuclear device could change the odds somewhat in the favor of the north.
Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear devices, are however unuseable in military conflict as there always would be an equal devastating counter-attack after the first use of nuclear weapons. MAD still works even if one of the parties in conflict seems to be irrational. Irrationality will end if there is a chance to survive, remain in power. If they can survive, MAD will work. Nuclear weapons are only good for defence, keep the enemy at bay.
North-Korea only kind of war play could be a very short conventional attack on the south by the massive use of artillery and missile barrages, commando style attacks on strategic objectives and a possible use of a man created natural disaster. In North-Korea close to the border with South-Korea there is a big dam used to genrate electricity, if that would be destoyed, the flood would cause massive damage. The economical cost would however equally worse for the north.
A short attack on the south were after the UN and the world community would quickly intervene to end the fighting could be beneficial to the north. If the north would be given financial/economical support to stop the fighting.
The uncertain factor would be South-Korea who are fed up with the northern policy of black mail. The south could use the opportunity to eliminate the military threat out of the north and create a kind of security zone by destroying most military equipment in a 30 to 50 kilometer zone. That kind of military loss could mean the end of the regime in North-Korea, or at least the rule of Kim Jong Il.
It can be concluded that the chance of survival of the Kim Jong Il regime is more likely if they don’t start a conflict. A conflict, war, could be the end of the regime and than they could become irrational but they would have to make the first move and strike at the south but again considering the situation of the military in North-Korea it is unlikely if not impossible to start an attack against the south.
Militarily they’re essentialy incapable to strike at the south. The equipment is out of date, badly maintained, the ammunition is in equally worse shape and the level of training is bad. The armed forces have been used for internal security roles, had to take care of growing their own food and help in civil affairs and natural disasters. And finally the supply and payment of the troops, with the exception of the special forces, have become worser so beside the capability even the loyality of the mass of the forces can be questioned.
A war never can be excluded but in the current situation very unlikely.
April 2013, I
April 2013, I
Syria; an endgame without an end
Syria, an assessment
The conflict in Syria has been going on for a couple of years without any victory in sight, if you can speak about victory in a conflict which has already cost over 70.000 casualties.
The Assad government wants to remain in power because the alternative is absolutely not acceptable for them. As the track record of atrocious behaviour of the security forces and the militias created and supported by the Assad regime is that bad that any peaceful solution or any negotiations for that matter are out of the question. It will ultimately mean death for Assad and co.
The opposition, in some way allied within the SNC, Syrian National Coalition, with its military arm, FSA, Free Syrian Army, which consists out of numerous independent fighting groups strongly connected to one area are nearly just as focussed on the defeat of the other side.
With a third party somewhat of an outsider, the Kurdish PYD in the north-east of the country wanting independence or at least autonomy.
The fighting between the two opponents have been long and messy with little progress. None of the parties could enforce a decision and both used their advantages, the government has/had superior firepower and logistics and the opposition has/had the initiative, popular support, better tactics and lately ever more foreign support including more advanced weapons and ammunition.
The Assad government concentrated their forces at the most important areas/points and the Alewite/Druze/Christian homelands to protect their regime. Leaving most of the rest of the country with little to none resistance to the opposition. Fighting between the two sides occured mostly at those contested important areas/points, like Damascus and especially Aleppo.
The recently received additional Western support, especially the weapons and ammunition, immediately made a difference. The FSA could go on the offensive and take on the Syrian army in Damascus and Aleppo and press on and continue the battle. Until now the FSA was often limited in its operations because of the lack of supplies, especially ammunition.
In the mean time the logistical situation for the government is worsening, stocks get lesser, soldiers and officers desert and even long trusted Russian and Iranian support diminishes. The first by intention the second by situation.
The Kurdish north-east of the country is another ball game. The PYD was divided whom to support, Assad or the SNC/FSA. They considered them both as possbile friends or foes. They fight for their own cause, autonomy at least or independence preferred for their Kurdistan. The PYD managed to keep both contestors out of the region. The government left voluntarily, the FSA has been more or less forced out. For both sides the Kurdish territories are not of urgent interest as both have other more important battle fields, areas, to contest.
The future of the Assad regime
Due to the deteriorating combat, logistical, financial and political situation and the improving situation of the FSA, the chance of survival for Assad and his regime will be very unlikely. Within 12 to 18 months, 6 if given western air support, the Assad government will be defeated, they’ll have lost Damascus, Aleppo and other strategic important areas. Assad and his most loyal forces can however survive a long time in the Alawite home areas but not forever.
The rate of desertion will most likely increase in the coming months forcing Assad to rely only on his most loyal security forces and his less capable but even more brutal militia forces. Because of lesser forces available Assad and co will be forced to concentrate their forces. Logically they will withdraw to the coastal areas taking as much arms and ammunition with them, including the much feared biological and chemical weapons.
The survival in the coastal home areas will depend on the unity in the FSA and of course, to a lesser extent, the level of support, air support, from the West.
International, Arab and Western, support, weapons, ammunition, intelligence, training and other logistical support will be absolute necessary to defeat Assad. Without it, it will become very difficult as the firepower, the level of organization and the supplies are still better and larger at the Assad side.
The FSA as an organization
The FSA is a collection of independent groups with the common aim to defeat the Assad regime. All groups have their own leader and the followers are loyal to their leader and not to the FSA or SNC per se. The strength of each group is also very different. The number of men under arms, the quality of the weapons and the availability of ammunition used to vary a lot. If they’re out of stock, the men would go home and would continue if the ammunition would be resupplied.
The FSA can be divided in about two kind of groups, the moderate groups wanting a new government with some kind of democratic system and the other group of Islamic fundamentalistic groups who also want a new government but then a Islamic republic, with Allah and the Sharia as the leading principle. The moderates constitute the majority but the Islamists are the most agressive and daring. In fighting the government the Islamic groups are more effective and successful. They will demand a price, a role if Assad will be defeated, and are certainly willing and able to fight for their demands.
This is going to be the major weakness in the fight against Assad and especially in the time there after. The several more or less independent groups with different levels of capability and support will be a major problem as there is no central and strong system and hierarchy of control and command.
All groups are more or less represented in the FSA leadership, with the exeption of the Islamic fundamentalists. And even this leadership is divided, as the previous moderate leader Mouaz al-Khatib resigned his position as the hardliners rejected any form of negotiations.
The lack of unity can and will be the biggest problem for the FSA and SNC, as long as Assad is still in command in Damascus, the groups will cooperate and continue to fight against Assad. But there after?
An end without and end
The future of Syria looks bleak as Assad is still not defeated and also still has some potential to fight and be dangerous. But this is more or less just a matter of time but the time there after will be much more troublesome and demanding.
Syria could end up with four different groups fighting each other. A complicated civil war with each group fighting each other and with little common ground to negotiate and to cooperate.
The moderates, the Islamic fundamentalists, the Kurds and of course the minorities of Alawites, Druze and Christians with or without Assad. All will fight and continue to fight as giving up or loosing is not an option.
The committed atrocities by all sides, the culture of revenge and honor and the strong religious differences between Sunni, Shia and Christians are all reasons for a long fight were only a total exhaustion could end the conflict or create a balance of power between three or four different areas, new countries, as two groups are strongly bound to an area.
December 2001
December 2001
War against terrorism, a never ending story
War against terrorism
The declared war on terrorism by the USA after the atrocious attacks on 11 September 2001, seem to deliver its first tangible results as the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a major supporter of Islam inspired terrorism, seems to be on the verge of collapse.
The opposition groups in Afghanistan organized in the Northern Alliance, or as they like to be called right now the United Front, were able with US air support and technical advice of US and British special forces, to retake large parts of Afghanistan. With the exception of some small Taliban units moving around in the countryside and the area around the city of Kandahar, the country is under control of the Northern Alliance. The situation at Kandahar is very unstable and the anti Taliban forces could have taken the city as this report is going to press.
The Northern Alliance could through military victories and especially by the defection of local groups, warlords, to their side retake much of the territory they lost in the last 5 to 6 years. All major cities with the exception of Kandahar is under their control, and the fall of Kandahar does only seem to be a matter of time. There are however still some Taliban units operating in the countryside and ocassionally killing some foreign journalists if they happen to cross their roads but the effectiveness of those Taliban forces as a fighting force is very doubtful.
The fight against terrorism is slowly impoving as some high ranking people of the Al Qaeda network have been killed by the air attacks or in combat with the Northern Alliance. The where about of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar the leader of the Taliban are not known but they are expected to be somewhere around Kandahar and Bin Laden could however also eventually be around the city of Jalalabad or Tora Bora in the eastern Nangahar province. Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda have many friends around Jalalabad and Tora Bora and they took over and have build extensive networks, caves, supplies and armaments around those two areas which are difficult to locate, to reach and to target.
The instability in Afghanistan becomes clearly visible in the the fight for Kandahar where local Pushtun and Northern Alliance forces are about to start a fight for the city. Local Pushtun groups which have defected the Taliban to the Alliance are moving towards Kandahar to fight the remnants of the Taliban regime, approximately 12.000 Aghans and 5.000 Arabs, Pakistanis and Chechens which voluntarily fought with the Taliban. The fight for Kandahar could become intensive as the Taliban promised to fight until death and they would not surrender. This is very likely the case with the 5.000 foreigners fighting at the side of the Taliban but rather unlikely for the Afghans which would most likely surrender, change sides, if the fight delivers no hope on a victory. Especially as the Afghans are most likely to get some amnesty offered if they would surrender. The international volunteers are worser off as they will face a much harder treatment if not being executed.
The city of Kandahar will therefore fall rather quickly and the Northern Alliance and the local Pushtun will take over control. The swiftness of the fall of Kandahar will become faster as the Afghan, Pushtun, fighting groups will change sides and join the Northern Alliance.
The US fight against the Al Qaeda network is moving much slower as it is difficult to unravel and at the moment they are only able to freeze some financial assets of the Al Qaeda network in a number of allied countries and make some arrests of people who allegedly supported the Al Qaeda but none to little success in eliminating parts of the network itself.
A never ending story
The war on terrorism might develop in a never ending story as the definition of terrorism is fraud, it can be used by every government to depict any group which is considered hostile to their rule. It remains valid that the terrorist for one party is a freedom fighter for the other.
The large number and diversity of terrorist groups is one of the major causes which make any war against terrorism a never ending story. Every group has its own history and sometimes even a justifiable case to fight for. This is the evil of terrorism. The bad political, economical and social situation without any chance on improvement of large groups in the world will fuel the large number of terrorists organizations. And for those people terrorism seems very often the only way for improvement.
The difficulty of defeating terrorism becomes clear with the Al Qaeda network which can not be destroyed by the operations in Afghanistan, the freezing of assets or the rather indiscriminatory arrests of suspected Arabs. Even if the leadership of the Al Qaeda is eliminated the network might be still operational in other countries and able to commit atrocious terrorist attacks in the West. The cell structure and the relatively freedom and independence of the cells make each cell a danger in itself and above all difficult to destroy.
The advantage of the operations in Afghanistan is that the support network of the Al Qaeda will be damaged and will have some difficulties, if not great difficulties, to operate as efficiently as before. The targeting of the command structures, including the leaders of the Taliban and the Al Qaeda, will make a coherent defence, fight, and the planning and execution of terrorist attacks impossible.
It is therefore very likely that the Taliban will be defeated within a couple days to about one month. The Taliban will not be able to resist the increasing pressure of the Northern Alliance and especially the US bombings of targets of importance.
The landing of US marines in the vicinity of Kandahar delivered a new outlook on the conflict. The US forces are much better trained and armed than the Taliban or for that matter the Northern Alliance. If the Taliban continues the conventional kind of warfare thing around Kandahar they will quickly learn that they are no match for the US armed forces. The Taliban will therefore, most likely, be defeated on the short term and with some luck the US forces can capture Bin Laden, terrorists of the Al Qaeda network and the leadership of the Taliban. The US will however not have infinitive time to reach those goals.
The US forces in Afghanistan just have to be aware that they live on borrowed time in Afghanistan. At the moment they receive support from the population but this will change very fast as the majority of the Taliban units will be defeated. As quick as the Northern Alliance have defeated the Taliban as a fighting force the US will be treated as an unwelcome guest and needs to be removed from Afghan territory. And this could be done with every mean available to the Afghans,
The US government can delay the departure from Afghanistan by using an UN protection force which should protect the transition of Afghanistan to a peaceful nation or they can even use the different groups in Afghanistan in a dangerous divide and rule game but in the end they have to make the decision to leave even if their goals have not been accomplished. The British adagium on Afghanistan is still valid, to conquer Afghanistan is not that difficult but staying there or getting out is the difficult part.
Even if the best case scenario is coming through and the Afghans manage it to come together and govern the country successfully, the problem of terrorism is still present in the world and will be far from defeated. There are still many hard feelings between the extremist part of the muslims and countries which allegedly are working against the muslims or a supporting the countries which do so.
The war on terror will become more difficult as the Taliban forces have been defeated. After the victory of the Northern Alliance the US forces will be unnecessary for the Alliance and not welcome anymore. By that time they will need to have catched the people they want or become some kind of occupation force in Afghanistan. And that is not a pleasant forecast. A long term involvement with the presence of US forces in Afghanistan should be avoided. In any way the war on terror will be much less focused when the Taliban is defeated and whether or not Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda have been eliminated is not that important to the Northern Alliance.
The strength of Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda will be decimated after they have lost their base in Afghanistan as no other country will deliver the same kind of safety and support to operate. Even if Bin Laden would survive with parts of its Al Qaeda network the impact will be much lesser as their capabilities have been reduced and they will remain targeted by many countries in the world. This will be a clear victory and an advantage to the security in the world. But terrorism is still around. And any fight will be more difficult as a clear target with the same standing as Osama bin Laden will be not around.
A shift to Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and Jemen, as countries which support terrorism will be much more difficult as the international support for such operations will be lesser. It will also be much more difficult to proof that those countries support terrorism or the much used word of being a threat to the world security. It might be that those countries consider it as that they are just protecting their national interests, the terrorist-freedom fighter dilemma. It is there by difficult to make a case against one or more of those countries, e.g. that they are directly connected to the kind of terrorism as of the 11th September and even more important without being perceived as a threat by the neighboring countries.
Another problem with those four countries is that they have little to none clear targets, in the case of Somalia, there is even no strong central government, it are relatively large countries with little infra structure and industries and it will demand a supply of forces which would possibly even overstretch US capabilities.
There are at the moment no countries which support terrorism like the Taliban controlled Afghanistan did, even not the four above mentioned countries.
The four countries did and will not support the US activities in their war against terrorism and they might even condone some organizations which are considered by some countries as terrorist organizations but those organizations are not like the Al Qaeda network. And the four groups are most likely viewed by the above mentioned countries as freedom fighters who fight for a legitimate cause.
At best there are some Al Qaeda cells in those four countries, possibly dangerous, but without support from the Al Qaeda itself much less dangerous and defeatable with other means, read political and economical pressure towards countries which do not prosecute them of even allow them to live in those countries.
What will be around are many small groups with smaller goals, smaller attacks but sometimes with much more support in the population or in the world. A number of those groups are viewed as freedom fighters, fighting for the good, by some countries.
The terrorist organizations after Al Qaeda
The terrorist organizations which remain active in the world are the familiar kind like the Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah. Groups which have smaller goals and do not have any ambitions to become a worldplayer, e.g. start a woldwide conflict between the western world and the islamic world.
The three above mentioned groups are extremist islamic organizations which have gained a lot of influence in the Middle East. Beside their military wings which commit terrorist acts they have a social network providing education, healthcare, food and other social support services to the people living in the area. This makes them very popular with the population which do not have many hopes on any improvement.
Combatting terrorism is therefore a large part fighting the poverty in the region. And of course the political injustice in the region. The case of the Palestinians is a prime example of doing everything wrong. The creation of a Palestinian nation in the region is an absolute necessity to pacify the region and eliminate the organizations like the Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah.
The starting point to come to a conclusion should not be the current situation but the division plan of the UN in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel. From this plan the division should be arranged with some small changes to the division to be finalised at a summit. But this is an other story.
IN-SE Services 