Jorge Verstrynge, a French-Spanish intellectual born in Morocco, who became the point of reference for for the Venmezuelan Armed Forces, is the guru of the South American Bolivarian asymmetric war. Verstrynge is the author of a 250-page book titled "La Guerra Periferica y el Islam Revolucionario: Origenes, Reglas y Etica de la Guerra Asimetrica" ["The Peripherical War and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of the Asymmetric War"].
The book, on terrorism (called "asymmetric war"), specifically praises Islamic terrorism: in asymmetric warfare, Islamic terrorism is to be preferred: fighters are ready to sacrifice their own lives in order to kill the enemy.
This book was enthusiastically welcomed by the Chavez government, which financed a special edition exclusively for the Army of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Hundreds of copies were distributed to all army officers and sub-officers with orders from former Minister of Defence, General Raul Baduel, that the book should be studied cover to cover.
What follows is a translation of excerpts from the first part of the book's epilogue.
Notes and Translation by Anna Mahjar-Barducci.
What should we do in the face of a revolutionary phenomenon of such an importance as the "Revolutionary Islam"? The main engine and ideological basis of the protest -- as well as of asymmetric war -- represent the military expression of that protest. From the point of view of the dominant system, there are only five ways to go:
The first one is an endless war, with growing human and economical costs, and where we will jump from victory into victory up to… the final defeat, as Islam "relies on Allah," and on His infinite patience; this is the Dar el-Harb [The Abode of War]..
The second one consists in empowering, financing, and helping more "moderate" forms of Islam. However, this solution is not only incompatible with the first one (as it would look -– and it would be -- just another form of imposed solution), but also, due the fact that the evolution towards "moderation," must come from Islam itself. Above all, it must come from "revolutionary Islam," which, so far, has been lucid in its analysis of the situation of backwardness -- not only of classic Islam (quisling'd, defeated, bribed), but also of those peoples exploited by the System.
The third solution might consist of artificially exacerbating Arab nationalism at the expenses of Islam; this can be done by artificially nurturing nationalistic and tribal rivalries. Here, the problem lies in the fact that this policy -- which has been tried successfully, until recently, by Westerners in general, and by the Anglo-Saxons (and today by the ex-soviets) in particular -- is exactly what is being rigorously denounced by the "revolutionary Islam" as a means of maintaining the present status quo, disastrous for the people concerned. In this respect, due to the "irano-centric" position of Teheran, there might be a bending in the foreign policy of Iran, as it is losing the connotation of radical and internationalist Islamism that used to pertain until recently in the Khomeinist revolution.
The fourth option might be a new Ottoman Empire, which would entrust a single country with the duty to unify -- and at the same time subdue and control -- as many Islamic countries as possible. In order to attain this goal, some conditions must be observed: It should be a "central" country, well situated from a geo-strategical point of view; in practice, from the Middle East or Central Asia; it should have a considerable demographic weight; it should not provoke an a-priori distrust for its past history, and, preferably, it should be "ethnically" Arab (this rules out Turkey and Iran); it should also be accepted as a leading country by Israel, which means to measure out military and economic assistance. […]
The Fifth option is to leave them in peace (Dar el-ahd): On a scale to measure proselytism, we find on one extreme Judaism (which practices no proselytism at all), and on the other extreme, Christianity, which practices it on all occasions. Between the two, Islam, which certainly nowadays adopts a strategy that, sincerely speaking, is essentially defensive (or offensive only as it is necessary for its defence). Certainly we cannot perceive either a religious re-colonization towards the North (but only training and the defence of converts, dissidents and/or heretics), and not even a radically anti-European discourse (rather a wish of saying "let's sit and talk together").
What would be the reason for constantly interfering with this essentially defensive Jihad? One can understand why the US, due to its imperial aspirations, is doing that -- but why also the Europeans? Sooner or later all ardour fades. Let us allow that, in this case, it will pass this way, and let us hope, as all ardour is fruitful, that it will take all the concerned people out of the quagmire. But this implies, above all, the right of your neighbour to put in order his own house without having somebody referring to sentences concerning eternal values, and in the end, after all the good words, rip him off of his wallet. […] One last consideration: all dominant ideologies end up generating their own antithesis. In this, as in many other things, and in all fundamental things, Marx was right. Undoubtedly, it is getting more and more obvious that not only do we not always end up in a synthesis that solves all problems, but that many other solutions are possible, including "slipping up" towards unforeseen directions.
In this, we had both. We had backing-up when Socialism, the antithesis, left its place to Capitalism, the thesis; then we had a slipping-up, the appearance of a new Islam willing to assume the role of antithesis.
And as long as there will be no other alternative, this alternative will be the most powerful one. Power that will very likely steadily increase due to this total war, unlimited and asymmetric.
At some point of this essay we mentioned the affirmation of comandante Mata about "the utilization of irregular tactics….difficulties for responding in a proportional and discriminated manner…. violation and non-fulfilment of International Law….many aspects of asymmetrical conflicts that are not regulated or even contemplated, which create an important legal vacuum and absence of legitimacy".
In other words, for the third time in less than a hundred years, and same way it happened ever since the two World Wars, there is a very serious risk of political an social totalitarization (concerning totalitarization from 1914 up to the end of the cold war, see the already cited Una sociedad para la la guerra); but there is one more risk, and that is, as we have seen in the previous chapter, the possibility that some other poisons, which up to now have been kept under control, are activated, including the virus that we inherited from Nazism and that is still lying in wait: racism.
But this aspect, coming from the Anglo-Saxons, will not constitute a real novelty.