We are seeing quite a lot of blogospheric conflict between those who think the recent events in France are the start of an intifada, insurgency, jihad... and those who think it is simply political protest and/or criminal activity that has got out of hand. I have been leaning far more towards the latter interpretation, as do others such as Clive Davis, but I do wonder whether it could actually be both to some extent or rather I worry whether it is changing from the latter to the former as Ralph Peters suggests.
First off I want to (re)state that I believe that the root cause mantra of failed integretation to be fundamentally correct. The French (and for that matter the Beligians and some other Europeans) have completely cocked up dealing with their immigrants and have managed (not coincidentally) to make this cock up while also completely hosing their supposedly liberal free market democracies - in the WSJ today Joel Kotkin explains what I mean far better than I could do so myself. The result is that they have a problem that is infinitely familiar to SF readers - think Jerry Pournelle's Codominium books as just one of gazillions of SF works that have this background - namely an underclass of welfare dependant poor segragated from their betters in ghettoes where they can do what they want as long as they don't disturb anyone other than another. This also means that Vile Pin & co are correct that the immediate spark was Sarko and his decision to crack down on the lawlessness endemic to these slums. However a debate about the cause is probably less important than the debate about what to do next and that very definitely depends on whether the events are the first shots in a jihad, political protest that has got out of control or just a bunch of unemployed punks committing criminal acts of vandalism for fun and kicks.
I think that it is possible that it is in fact a mixture of all three and that means that almost certainly the centralized French state is going to cock up the response. The reason why boils down to the inflexibility of a centralized diktat being applied universally instead of a flexible local response customised to the locally perceived problem. Although Sarko does seem to understand the local element some of the time, no other French leader seems to grasp the concept at all so it seems likely that the centre will insist on a single centrally directed response to protests that would could well have local dimensions. For example there is the question why only some banlieues seem to be rioting? here in the Alpes Maritimes some of Nice is rioting, as is some of Grasse but it seems like other banlieues such as Vallauris or Carros aren't. There is probably a reason for this and it would seem like a good idea to figure it out and to take it into account when applying attempts to fix the problem.
I could be overly optimistic but I believe that many of the arsonists are indeed unemployed punks having fun and they can, and should, be dealt with by a standard combination of policing and getting the "local community" - that is their parents, girlfriends etc. - to put pressure on them to stop and grass on those that don't. However in order for the second half of this prescription to work it will help if the "local community" believes that their genuine grievences will receive some sort of attention and the Vile Pin "throw money at it all" solution does not inspire confidence. I am also distinctly worried that a universal approach will aid the spread of (radical) islam, a problem noted by the Wapping Liar's Charles Bremner (who is IIRC some sort of distant cousin in law of mine):
BEARDED Muslim activists have been wading into the night-time mayhem of the housing estates, megaphone in hand, and addressing the rioters “in the name of Allah”.
Far from inciting the violence, they have been urging the rioting teenagers to stop destroying property and go home. For the Government, the Muslim mediators have been playing a useful role calming youngsters from the mainly Arab estates who respect their authority far more than that of the police and local officials.
However, the Muslim mentors, who style themselves “big brothers”, are also causing unease in France because they symbolise what many see as a root of the unrest: the isolation of the ethnic Arab and black minorities into ghettos where Muslim law and outlook prevails. There is also a widespread belief — denied by the authorities — that the unrest is being fostered by the Islamists.
This is clearly a problem. Respect for religious authority is one thing but respect for it instead of respect for civil authority is a clear sign that the civil authorities have ceded control to the religious. At present I believe that much of the "protest" is caused by criminals who dislike the possibility of being unable to ply their "trade" because of the proposed increased police presenced that Sarko decreed. Now of course the crooks can't use this as an excuse that will be acceptable to all and thus said criminals may well look to a religious justification for expelling the forces of civil authority. Given the heavily documented racism of said civil authority and the appeasement mentality of l'Escroc and Vile Pin a fast speaking cleric who thought he could benefit from siding with the crooks could well manage to convince the government to do what the US tried first in Fallujah i.e. let the local community police itself officially. Of course we can be completely and utterly certain that the resulting tyranny will be far worse for most of the residents, particularly the female ones, than any racist behaviour by the French police has ever been but no doubt the MSM will gloss over this minor issuette for a good long while and the taxes of the rest of us will be spent maintainin the façade that the communities are peaceful while they indoctrinate the next generation of warriors