Why the Arab World Can't Trust the West to Defeat Daesh

In her op-ed, translated by online foreign news portal WhatTheySayAboutUSA.com, Hazem, the publications director of Algeria's Al-Fadjr newspaper, suggested that President Barack Obama was insincere in his declarations about fighting Daesh (ISIL).

"Will anyone believe Barack Obama, who recently declared that the US and its Western allies are going to track Daesh (ISIL) relentlessly, terminate it, and liberate the lands it occupies; to cut off its financial resources, and dismantle the networks supporting it?" Hazem asked.

"Who will believe the US president or any other Western leader when they claim to lead a real war against the terrorist groups which were created by the West?" 

Such declarations, in Hazem's view, are made merely for public consumption. "After all, it's not Western lands that are occupied by ISIL. So why should they care?" In fact, she worries, the rhetoric could be even more sinister, to be used as "just another excuse to conquer new territories."

Looking back to President Obama's election to the presidency in 2008, the columnist noted that no one in the Arab World could have imagined that he could bring even more destruction to the Middle East than his predecessor.

"When Barack Obama took office as the US president, some people were optimistic, believing that this would be a good omen for the country and the rest of the world – indicating a change of the US's aggressive approach and its role as the world policeman; this was especially true after his speech at the Egyptian University, where Obama promised the Middle East a change, and openness to the world."

According to Hazem, at that time, "Middle Eastern countries couldn't see through the rhetoric of the new, refreshing president. Following the George W. Bush presidency, no one suspected that the newly elected candidate from the Democratic Party, who promised "change," meant "destruction" for the region."

"Who could have thought," the journalist lamented, "that this young African American man, full of promises and hope, [would] bring much worse devastation to the Middle East than his Republican predecessor?"

Hazam doesn't believe the US leader's promises about defeating Daesh and liberating the territories it occupies. "Obama has stressed on several occasions that the US doesn't have the intention to demolish Daesh, and that the US simply wants to limit its expansion; meanwhile, some US generals have managed to supply ammunition and weaponry to Daesh strongholds, while other military advisers were busy training its elements in Jordan."

Ultimately, she is convinced that the West cannot take a serious stand in defeating Daesh, "because the terrorists' leaders are not in Iraq, nor in Syria, nor even in Paris or Brussels; they are actually in Langley and in Mossad, where the new colonial policies are created." Moreover, "it is not likely that Obama will cut Daesh's funding, which flows from the oil and gas fields of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, countries which former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls refused to accuse of funding and arming terrorists."

"Obama," Hazam notes, "hasn't promised to cut the supply of arms to the terrorists, or to stop dropping ammunition and weapons to its strongholds. He hasn't stopped the sale of oil stolen by Daesh from Iraq, Libya and Syria. 

"This," she believes, "is all more than the White House can bear. If Obama rejects arms deals with Daesh-supporting countries," she warns, "he will face the same fate as John F. Kennedy, who attempted to elude the arms dealers, intelligence services and the army, and to get the assistance of scholars and academics in creating a more humane policy. This resulted in his assassination –a crime which has not been solved to this day."

Ultimately, Hazam believes, "only the people Daesh is fighting can defeat the terrorist scourge, because Western governments were the ones who created it."