Posts
War
On Syria; Not Quite According To Plan Part 1.
The Islamist-American
Love-Hate Quagmire; Facts And Myths
by
Ghassan Kadi
10
September, 2015
There
is a lot of myth about ISIS, its roots, and relationship with
America. To unravel the mystery, we need to go back to some basics of
human behaviour, more specifically, to basics of human behaviour of
psychopaths and sociopaths.
In
order to understand the current impasse between ISIS and the USA, and
to be able to assess if there is indeed an impasse at all, and more
importantly perhaps, to be able to make any plausible predictions
about any future moves and interactions between the two sides, it
becomes imperative to look at the tumultuous and damning history of
the Islamist-American interactions over the last three to four
decades or so.
When
the Americans forged their relationship with King Abdul-Aziz, the
founder of the Al-Saud dynasty in the 1930’s, the deal was
primarily of an economically strategic nature; oil for money and
different types of security for both. It is arguable as to whether or
not the Americans have actually at any time since defended the Saudis
militarily, despite two wars on Iraq using Saudi soil. Either way
however, religion was not a part of the deal that kept those two very
diverse allies together.
Religion
did not become a part of the equation until the USSR entered
Afghanistan. The legacy of Kissinger’s diplomacy was still fresh in
the mind of the then US Foreign Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski, who
overtaken by an delusion of self-grandeur, wanted to out-perform his
mentor and conjured up a master plan, a plan that recruits Jihadi
Muslim fighters to fight the Soviet Communist “infidels”.
The
real-to-life Don Quixote shuttling on an official US-jet instead of a
donkey’s back, clearly had no idea at all about the nature and the
size of the monster he was about to create. The simple reason behind
his deadly mistake is a fact that seems to be still little known in
the West today; it wasn’t known then, and it remains unknown and
hidden away even now.
What
drives recruitments for Jihadist Takfiris is not Western money. What
drives recruitments is an ancient archaic misinterpretation of Islam;
one that has been around for centuries.
So
Brzezinski shuttled between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and possibly
Afghanistan in order to bring his plot to fruition. He spoke to
Islamist fighters, telling them that “God is on your side” [1]
and meant to raise an army of Jihadists. Then the Saudis introduced
him to a golden trump, Oussama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was not only
prepared to leave the comfort of his opulent family mansions, but he
was also prepared to put his money where his mouth was.
America
nonetheless provided him and his men with weapons, training and funds
to eventually create what became known as Al-Qaeda. With this help,
Bin Laden raised an army of Jihadi fundamentalists who homed in from
all over the world, driven by the archaic Quranic misinterpretation,
to fight the Communist infidels.
A
marriage of convenience of this nature was bound to lead to a divorce
of convenience.
As
America was preparing for Operation Desert Storm in order to oust
Saddam out of Kuwait, the Saudi government permitted the USA to put
boots on Saudi soil. That rang a huge alarm bell for the highly
indoctrinated Bin Laden who could not at all fathom and accept
Christian “heretic” boots on holy Islamic soil.
Bin
Laden raised his concerns to the Saudi Royals, and they in turn
assured him that the Americans would never go to the actual holy land
(ie Mecca and Medina in the Western province of Hijaz) and that they
would leave as soon as the conflict with Iraq was over.
Bin
Laden grew restless as time proved that the Americans were not given
the marching orders, and before too long, he fell out of favour with
the Saudi Royals and eventually became a persona non grata. This all
happened in the early 1990’s, and it didn’t take long after this
for Al-Qaeda to start targeting American troops and interests in the
region, to become America’s prime enemy and listed on top of the
list of terrorist organizations.
Furthermore,
the personal wealth of Bin Laden turned into a curse in disguise. It
allowed him to turn against his former American partners as he was
able to self-finance.
Whether
or not September 11 was fully or partly an inside job, and regardless
of what happened behind the scenes and television screens, America
and Al-Qaeda did fall apart and the two sides fought each other
bitterly in Afghanistan and later on in Iraq. Al-Qaeda members were
incarcerated and dumped in Guantanamo, and any denial of this is
unrealistic.
One
of the problems of American foreign policy makers however is that
they never learn from previous mistakes. And whilst they try to give
the impression that they are the masters of information-intelligence,
evidence shows that they have little literal intelligence, ie
human-intelligence.
This
lack of intelligence, on both counts, at one stage became exemplified
to me personally when I was watching some developing news on TV back
in 2003. American troops were advancing into Najaf; a Shiite holy
city, and their tanks and troops were greeted by cheering Iraqis. In
obvious total ignorance of where they were and the significance of
the location, the tanks kept advancing towards the Shrine of Imam Ali
Bin Abi Taleb; the holiest of all Shiite shrines. The jubilation of
the mases turned into anger, and people were suddenly throwing
themselves in front of the tanks and troops trying to stop them from
advancing, and the Americans clearly had no idea at all what the fuss
was all about. This is equivalent to say Chinese troops entering the
Vatican not knowing what it stands for.
Such
is the ignorance of American foreign policy makers and their
disregard of other cultures. They thrive on policies of arrogance and
indifference.
It
is not surprising therefore to see American foreign policy makers
repeating the same mistake to the one they made with Al-Qaeda.
The
second time around however, they had to use a different name. Whether
fundamentalist Islamist Jihadists call themselves Al-Qaeda, Taliban,
ISIS, Al-Nusra, Mujahideen, Wahhabis, Muslim Brothers or any other
name, they are in principle identical and driven by the same archaic,
yet fundamental and deeply-indoctrinated misinterpretations of the
Quran.
As
the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was taking form, very
loosely-associated elements were bundled together united only by
their hatred to the secular Syria under the presidency of Bashar
Al-Assad. The Assad legacy, father and son, made many enemies; all
the way from Israel (for supporting and sponsoring Hezbollah), to
America (for refusing to accept the Middle East American road map),
to the Saudis and other Gulfies (for its strong ties with Iran), to
the Islamists (for the crackdown on Islamists in 1982), to Turkey (as
Syria’s strength would stand in the way of Erdogan’s Sultanate
dreams), and last but not least, all the way to the Lebanese 14th
of March Coalition (for accusing Syria of assassinating Rafiq
Al-Hariri). Other minor groups also joined in, including some
disgruntled army officers and would-be reformists who were unable to
see the extent of the conspiracy and genuinely believed that they
were having a revolution. Many of those however soon realized their
mistake and many officers returned to Syrian Army service.
In
a twist of logic, the ultra-right wing Christian “Lebanese Forces”
became comrades of Islamist fighters.
The
diversity of that infamous cocktail also implied diversity in
objectives. The aim was to achieve a swift victory and the Islamists
were promised the reins of Syria to be handed to them. The coalition
was not prepared for a long war any more than it was prepared to
withstand divisions within its ranks.
In
mid 2013, and upon realizing the strength of the Syrian Army and the
immense popular support President Assad was receiving, Prince Bandar
Bin Sultan was searching for a magic panacea. He made a secret visit
to Moscow and tried to coerce President Putin into abandoning Syria.
The buffoon did not realize that he was talking to an extra-ordinary
leader of a different type of superpower than his American masters.
He even threatened Putin that he would unleash the Chechen fighters,
but went back home empty-handed.
It
was then then that Bandar, with the help of Mossad, conjured up the
story about the chemical attack in East Ghouta in August 2013 and
tried to rally up support to invade Damascus. President Putin foiled
that plot and declared Syria a redline.
As
a result, America backed down about its decision to invade Syria and
settled for the face-saving dealing of Syria’s surrender of it
stockpile of chemical weapons. That was the defining moment at which
that the Islamists realized that the Americans had let them down
again just like they had let down Al-Qaeda before them (ie when they
entered Saudi Arabia). The Islamists remained focused on an Islamic
State, but they woke up to the realization that this was something
that they would have to do themselves; ie without the help of their
Saudi and American partners.
That
was the breaking point in that infamous evil coalition.
But
the Islamists did not have Bin Laden this time to finance them. If
they wanted to break loose from the binds of Al-Saud and America,
they needed to secure their own financial backbone. They found it in
Iraqi oil and bank cash and gold deposits in Mosul, needless to
mention an apparently big number of wealthy Muslim benefactors who do
not want to reveal their identities.
The
biggest failure in this devious plan was again that of none other
than Bandar Bin Sultan. He was the one who convinced the Americans
that he will be able to hold the Islamists by the horn. Unlike Bin
Laden he argued, neither will he turn against the Americans nor will
the Jihadists turn against him because they needed his financial
support. Bandar did not even stop twice to think that ISIS was going
to turn around and generate its own funds and be able to dump him. It
is little wonder that Bandar was abandoned and stripped of all his
titles, responsibilities and privileges. Not only had he let America
down, but also the entire House of Saud.
Once
self-supportive, ISIS did not have to listen to anyone any more, and
their common interests with their former partners and benefactors
widened to the extent that their escalating antagonism turned them
into enemies.
The
so-called ISIS/ISIL or simply IS (short for Islamic State) is based
on the Wahhabi (ie Saudi) version of Islam, but as the schism between
it and its Saudi roots deepened, the two parties became at odds and
vowed to destroy each other. This is easier said than done for
Al-Saud given that perhaps 60-70% of Saudis (according to some
estimates) harbour support for ISIS.
On
the other hand, America realized the extent of the ISIS monster it
created as well as its potential growth, and thus decided to clip its
wings. Will the Americans get serious about fighting the monster they
helped create? This remains anyone’s guess. Is America still
helping ISIS behind the scenes as some argue? Perhaps they are, but
this does not change America’s realization of the mistake it made.
What is clear now is that they have realized that they have committed
a mistake, and mostly, that they were wrong in believing in Bandar’s
ability to wield ISIS.
The
Americans want to curb the growth of ISIS, but having said that, they
do not yet seem serious about eradicating it. As a matter of fact,
even if they eradicate the organization and its members, they cannot
eradicate the theology that underpins it.
The
notable Levantine commentator Sharmine Narwani argues that in its
nuclear deal with Iran, America wants to step back from the Levant
and focus on Russia and China as well as its ailing economy, leaving
the Levantine cleanup for Russian diplomacy and joint Syrian and
Iranian efforts [2]. This assessment does not seem far-fetched.
Back
to ISIS and the USA.
It
is very wrong to assume and believe that ISIS, or any Islamist
organization for that matter, is just putty in the hands of America.
Islamists may well be criminal fanatic radicals, but they are highly
indoctrinated and what they want is simple; they want the whole world
to turn into an Islamic State under the law of Sharia.
Psychopaths
and sociopaths do not make friends. They regard other humans as
assets and use them as tools. This applies to interactions between
themselves, for if they have to deal with each other, they also use
each other for as long as they need to. The Islamists therefore will
use America, just like America uses them, but when their interests
diverge, they will declare war on each other, and right now, as a
matter of fact since over a year ago or so, ISIS has declared mutiny
on its former partners in the Levant.
ISIS
is fueled by a misinterpretation of the Holy Quran, and
interpretation that is based on giving concepts like “Jihad”,
“Fateh” and “Shahada” an overriding military perspective.
“Jihad”
is meant to be the struggle of the soul against its inner demons. It
was distorted to mean struggle in military combat against
non-Muslims.
“Fateh”
means revelation, but it was distorted to mean military conquest and
coercing other nations to adopt Islam.
“Shahada”
means vision (ie of the Lord), but it was also distorted to mean
martyrdom in battle and a guarantee to go to heaven [3].
The
Holy Quran clearly notes that Islam is vehemently against coercion,
and that in the latter days, only a few (Thullah) will be righteous.
The Islamist fantasy of Islam ruling the world is in total
contradiction of the word of the Holy Quran.
The
main problems with those archaic beliefs come from two sides;
firstly, they are widely accepted (and therefore the ISIS theology
cannot be rebuked by Muslim theologists), and secondly, they have
been around for centuries.
So
on one hand, rational Muslim scholars who understand the true message
of Islam are not in a position to challenge commonly-held beliefs
without literally risking their heads, and on the other hand America
and its CIA did not invent those belief systems.
Those
belief systems have been around before the CIA was established and
even long before Columbus laid a foot on American soil.
If
anything, members of ISIS and similar organizations look down at the
USA and the whole West. They regard it as a debauched culture that
they are superior to.
They will not take orders from those who do not follow their faith, and this is also a part of their doctrine.
They will not take orders from those who do not follow their faith, and this is also a part of their doctrine.
America
may be able to switch organizations like ISIS on, but it is incapable
of switching them off, and any assumption that ISIS answers to
America and fully complies with its commands and directions is
extremely inaccurate and uninformed.
More
inaccurate is the commonly-held belief in some people that “all is
going according to plan” for the USA in as far as its plot against
Syria is progressing.
This cannot be further from the truth. This is a war that they wanted to win swiftly four years ago, and four years later, their victory is looking less and less likely.
In what follows, we shall look at the strategic impasse that American policies are experiencing in Syria, and why is it that an American-led military solution is unfeasible.
——————————————————————-
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.