As I argued we are at war and the massacre of Paris is the tragic confirmation. However, despite what many observers continue to repeat, this is not a war of civilizations. This concept was consistent with the reality and had his theoretical foundation in the 11/09 period, but today the world has totally changed and have changed especially the powerful actors involved.
The first mistake not to do is overlay the argumentative plans: one thing is the relationship between the Muslim world and the West, other is the relationships within the radical Islamic galaxy. First, in the West, and Europe in particular, inter-ethnic melange is the future -like it or not- commingling we/they can not be stopped and so it should be managed; second: fideist terrorism contends the primacy of radicalism to monetize the despair of millions of Muslims.
At this premise should be added that while the West is still organized on national State basis the Islamic world for the most part is run by politically weak entities not representative of a strong national unity. This weakness allows various radical organizations to develop terrorist actions in order to prepare the next quantum leap becoming insurgents and then occupy the territories where the states fail to exercise sovereignty, just for example, as in Syria, Mali , Libya, Nigeria, Iraq, just to talk about the best-known reality.
That of Paris is not an act of war to the West but a strong showing in the clash between the two radicalism of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State to claim the lead in the fight against the infidels and thus a very precise role of reference for all Muslims radicalized by grievances and hatred towards the opulent West.
It is the worst terrorist attack in the last 20 years and exceeds the number of victims of the terrorist campaign in 1995/1996 and even that of the mid-80s and 70s. Moreover, this is fundamentally different from recent attacks in Australia, Canada and New York, which have been perpetrated by a so-called "lone wolf"; the perpetrators of Paris have been trained, are disciplined and had a plan that they are performing.
However, I would focus not on the chronicle of events, which we see is suffering from schizophrenia, but rather on the fact that the intelligence services are not able to predict this kind of threat for the simple reason that are trained to fight an enemy who "speaks their own language" and then is organized in the same way; today that the nation-states are in obvious crisis of sovereignty and the players involved in the big game have multiplied and, thanks to the phenomenal economic and technological globalization, are able to create a political agenda that provides the use of violence.
Among these actors emerge due to the to the inherent danger those who can take advantage of the intertwining business created by terrorism-crime-corruption. Amid this is increasingly the key element to understand in its dynamics to address a threat multifaceted influence with increasing force in the dynamics of international relations no longer exclusive of national states but also and more and more evidence of non-state entities or anti -state ones.
When a state does not exercise control on its territory is logical that the resulting power vacuum will be filled immediately by local communities, superseding it, them will exercise the prerogatives regulating economic activities both licit and criminals. This is possible if politics, the economy and local crime, make an osmotic relation in the common interest and convergent management of local power. When this phenomenon is realized in the West takes the form of the Mafioso System that is well known, when it materializes in countries with weak sovereignty it creates the phenomena of terrorism and insurgency.
In the final analysis is no longer credible to talk about geopolitical agenda without the knowledge of the relationship between terrorism-crime-corruption.