Sometimes, we have a tendency to oversimplify the enemies and threats we face. “Terrorists” are the enemy but is it Sunni terrorists or Shi’a terrorists? Which are the good guys and which are the bad guys? And are the Ba’athists Sunni or Shi’a? Aren’t we against monarchies? Aren’t our anti-Iranian policies really an anti-islamic policy? Well, most of my articles have focused on only a few of our enemies: The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Iran. I’ve made a few mentions of Ba’athists and I’ve defended the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. But what is it that ties these enemies together and what is it that allies us with a monarch? I’ve struggled to identify why we should support who in the world myself. The sad fact is that many times, we must simply support the lesser of many evils. As much as it would be preferable to lump all of our enemies together and call them all terrorists, islamists, facists, or communists, such an oversimplification would lead to failure to overcome the threat.
When operating in Baghdad in 2005, it was important to know the tactics of the Mehdi Militia, the Fedayeen as well as Ansar al-Islam, their preferred weapons and what parts of town they operated in. It wasn’t enough to know that they all wanted to kill you. It was also important to know that they wanted to kill each other and if you just happened to be in the middle of their fight, they simply got a bonus while you were just as dead though it was their poor aim at the other side that had killed you. It was important to know where to look for an Iranian supplied EFP vs. Syrian trained ambush.
The same is true on the international level. The Ba’athists are secular and originated in part by a Christian Syrian with admiration of the Nazi’s. They saw the power of hatred of the Jews, whom few will openly defend because of their non-indigenous citizenship of many countries while attaining success in business.
But they also oppose the rise of power of mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. The stronghold of Ba’athism is Syria. President Assad squashed the Muslim Brotherhood and ran it out of his nation but destroyed a whole ancient village to do so, every man, woman, child, building and beast of the field. He left nothing.
The Lebanese have a long history of business success. They were known as the Phoenicians in times past and even today you find them as the only successful business owners in places like Liberia. Terrorism in the 70’s was primarily the tool of nationalists like Qaddafi in Libya and the Ba’athists in Syria and Iraq. Saddam was a Ba’athist and rose to power in the terror inflicted on his own nation by him and his party. While he claimed to be a Sunni, he was actually quite secular. He pandered to terrorists in Palestine out of Pan-Arab nationalism rather than religious ideology.
In the 70’s arose a man named Khomeni, who became an Ayatollah and advocated the rule of the ‘ummah’ (islamic nation) by mullahs. He was exiled from Iran for many years but good ole’ Jimmy Carter pressed Iran to let him back in. There had been many years of opposition to the Shah of Iran at the time and this was a pro-democracy movement. Khomeni used that movement in his bid to overthrow the Shah.
Carter could have used the US influence in Iran to push for democratic, non-violent reform, but instead he refused to offer advice other than to allow violent dissidents back into the country. The fact the Shah listened to Carter on this dangerous course of action that was his downfall highlights the power Carter had to institute change.
The Constitution instituted by Khomeni states that the mullah ruling Iran is not simply the ruler of Iran, but of the world, particularly the islamic world. His power within Iran is so absolute that Stalin would have been jealous. His replacement Khameni espoused the same absolute powers but was chastised by Khomeni as being too moderate because he did not more vehemently support massacres. I’ll get more into that in a different article.
Hezbollah, Iran, and the Khameni are Shi’a based extremists. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban are Sunni based extremists. Both believe that ONLY mullah ruled Sharia law is valid. But they violently oppose each other, on some levels and cooperate at strategic and training levels. Each wants to be the mullah ruler over the world, beginning with a nation, spreading across the “ummah,” and finally all mankind. Even in our own nation, we can find islamists that believe Sharia law overrules national law, particularly western law. Ba’athists are secular and oppose Sharia law. All 3 are anti-Semitic and anti-US. All three are tyrannical in government and support terrorism.
Only Iran and Syria currently have a nation to export their ideology from at the moment. The Sudan is a recipient of this export of radical ideology from Iran but has also hosted Osama bin Laden. Algeria is also a battleground as is Pakistan in the bloody war of ideology.
Contrast that to Saudi Arabia, with its islamist citizenry but a secular monarch. The US has gently nudged the monarchy towards democratic reform. Recently, quiet diplomacy has resulted in the monarch righting a wrong, pardoning a rape victim for breaking the laws which led to her rape. This was very nearly undermined by strong non-diplomatic language by Canadians.
The Saud family barely maintains the reins of power in a nation with strong islamist tendencies. No doubt too strong of open support for the US by them would result in the loss of their rule to radical islamists. There aren’t any potential moderates to take the reins if the family falls from power. Clearly, the Sauds are the least of potential evils in that nation.
Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by what appears to be Al-Qaeda. Blame was quickly laid on her political opponent Musharraf, but they were both pro-democracy and "moderates" in the world of islam. There were threats and attempts made against both of them in the last several years, but Bhutto was the bigger enemy to Al-Qaeda and other islamists in Pakistan, despite her previous playing with the islamist fire.
Bhutto flagrantly showed her hair, which is viewed as a pornographic action punishable by death in islamist circles. She was a pro-democracy politician and a woman which itself marks her as the exact thing they despise. Most importantly, she consistently disregarded the advice of those paid to protect her.
She was a nightmare to the security teams charged with her protection. I will bet that her protection team was begging her not to put her head out the sunroof seconds before her death. They had successfully protected her at the political rally and were entering an unsecured area they could not have screened for weapons and explosives. There is one person from which a person cannot be fully protected, themselves.
While Musharraf is no saint, he is an ally against a common enemy. He walked a fine line to maintain power in a nation with some strong islamist tendencies. There are parts of his nation which even his Army fears to enter. He is in the end pro-democracy and rose to power because of his opposition to a coup against Bhutto. It was his view though that she was too soft on terrorists and that a stronger hand was needed to keep a lid on islamists.
We can also look to Turkey, where democracy has ruled for several decades. Today, Iranian supported islamists fight to gain control of the nation via democratic means. Turkey also battles against violent terrorists.
The Kurdish situation is a delicate one which requires diplomacy at the highest levels. I cannot recommend a policy on the Kurds nor predict an outcome to it. If the PKK is the terrorist organization claimed by the Turks and US State Department, then the Kurdish people must put an end to it. I have not properly researched the PKK to ascertain its true nature, but can understand why our Kurdish allies may not fully appreciate the danger the PKK poses to their cause.
In short, our enemies sometimes hate each other, such as Shi’a hating Sunni hating Ba’athists but they hate us more. In the Middle East, the saying is “The Enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
But I must also re-iterate: the “average” muslim is NOT our enemy. He is simply attempting to overcome the daily challenges of life. As he repeatedly sees that our common enemy is killing muslims at an alarming rate, his opinion turns against them, even if he does not become more supporting of us. We must carefully navigate these tangled webs to find the least tyrannical and most democratic leaders to support, even if that means supporting the monarch of Saudi Arabia in light of an open animosity from Al-Qaeda.
Already Iraq, while in the midst of turmoil is less hazardous, more democratic and more free under a parliamentary government than it was under the Ba’athist dictatorship of Saddam. Undoubtedly, Iran will continue to support terrorism in that nation as it is written in their Constitution to do so.
War on Terror News©2008-2010, ARM, all rights reserved, http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/
Iran’s biggest fear is the successful democracy of our allies, the Turks, not our military and they are fighting that by funding islamist politicians in Turkey.
Iran and Turkey have a common enemy in our ally the Kurds. But specifically it is the PKK, a communist guerilla and terrorist organization that is fighting our ally the Turks.
Syria maintains an unholy alliance with Iran, their ideological enemy. Together, they support the Iranian terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Neither Syria nor Iran wish to see democracy succeed on their borders. Both prefer anarchy outside their borders to a successful democracy and the Lebanese have a strong tendency to democracy and religious diversity.
Stumble It!
