MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-11-08 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout-NYLXS] subboring thoughts before the election
|
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9534.htm
November 4, 2016 MEMRI Daily Brief No.109
Two Presidents, One Fatal Historic Move
By: Yigal Carmon and Anna Mahjar-Barducci*
With the anticipated uprooting of the Islamic State (ISIS) from Mosul,
and the subsequent collapse of its stronghold in Raqqa, thanks to
American guidance and military involvement, President Barack Obama will
have successfully completed the historic process begun by President
George W. Bush with the uprooting of the murderous dictator Saddam
Hussein and his regime. The most militant sect within Shi'ite Islam,
Iran's Rule of the Jurisprudent (Velayat-e Faqih), will be granted an
historic victory over Sunni Islam. Iran will then become the regional
hegemonic power from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean, threatening
both Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Putting An End To A Millennium Of Sunni Domination In Iraq
Indeed, the Bush administration, while granting the Shi'ite majority in
Iraq the advantage it deserved as per democratic principles, tried hard
to secure for the Sunnis their relative share in government. But this
attempt was eroded by the Shi'ite politicians, who were aided – and
controlled – by Iran. Not only did the U.S. fail to protect the Sunnis'
share of power – even though the Sunni tribes had helped it fight the
Al-Qaeda insurgency in Iraq – but it actually delivered them into the
hands of Iran's Shi'ite protégé-turned-Iraqi-prime minister, Nouri
Al-Maliki, who stripped them of all power, and during whose tenure they
were persecuted. The more established Sunni leadership, in shock from
its rapid transformation, within a few short years, from its perceived
status as rightful and divinely empowered ruler to downtrodden minority
under the boot of its erstwhile subjects, was impotent in the face of
the U.S.'s consistent support of the Iraqi-Iranian upsurge.
ISIS – A Violent Embodiment Of The Sunnis' Reaction To Their Loss Of Power
Even though most Sunnis abhor ISIS's murderous ways, the organization's
emergence was a violent embodiment of the Sunni reaction to this total
loss of power to the Shi'ites, as facilitated by the U.S. But the
Islamic State began long before Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi declared the
Caliphate in June 2014. It started with Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, who in
2004-6 focused on targeting both the Shi'ites, whom he viewed as
usurpers of the Sunnis' rightful rule of Iraq, and the Americans, whom
he saw as responsible for the Iraqi Sunnis' demise. In 2006, Abu Omar
Al-Baghdadi declared the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). At its inception,
ISIS comprised a mélange of Sunnis: Islamists, non-Islamists, and
Ba'athists. Also, unlike Al-Qaeda which prioritizes fighting the West,
ISIS originally prized territory and the principle of hijra (immigration
to it) over jihad against the West, which for religious, ideological,
and strategic reasons was at the bottom of its priorities. For ISIS,
Iraqi Shi'ites and Iran were far more important targets than the West;
that, however, has shifted as the West has become increasingly engaged
in fighting it, as reflected by all ISIS's messages to its supporters in
the West.[1]
Can The American Upset Of An Historic Millennium-Long Order Endure?
Will the Sunnis, who comprise 90% of the Islamic world, acquiesce to
their defeat in Iraq and accept the newly empowered geostrategic
hegemony of Iran from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean?
Iran's leaders always stress that they have never attacked another
country. However true, the reason for this is that they have always
recognized their weakness in a direct confrontation with the Sunni
majority. Fully aware of the real balance of power, beyond their own
self-serving propaganda, they have always refrained from direct conflict
with the Sunni world, and whenever they had to face down Sunni elements,
they have done so only by means of Arab proxies.
Two countries apparently will not accept the emerging Iranian threat to
their national security: Turkey, whose president Erdogan's neo-Ottoman
ultranationalism does not presage acquiescence to the new
Shi'ite-dominated reality, and Saudi Arabia, which already feels
threatened – not only geostrategically, by the Iran-supported Houthi
rebels in Yemen to its south, but also religiously, by Iran's increasing
dispute of the Saudi role as Custodian of the Holy Places. Moreover,
ISIS may yet prove resurgent in Iraq's Sunni-majority areas, where it
can expect support from many in the Sunni world. In addition, the
uprooting of ISIS from its Syria-Iraq territorial base means that its
hardened foreign fighters from Western countries will be returning home
– and will exact vengeance. These fighters' primary targets will be the
U.S. and other coalition member countries, and Shi'ites wherever they
can be found.
The U.S. has gotten itself into a situation in which Iraqi Sunnis,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others in the Sunni world perceive it as the
great betrayer that sides with the Shi'ites in Iraq and with Iran. What
the Sunnis see is that the U.S., whether Democratic or Republican, not
only ended the millennium of Sunni domination in what is today Iraq, but
also that instead of punishing Iran for its attempts to obtain nuclear
weapons, it negotiated with it and ended up recognizing it as a nuclear
power and lifting the sanctions on it – even though Iran is continuing
to develop ballistic missiles, to sponsor terrorism, and to violate
human rights.[2]
How Did This Happen?
How did it happen that a country which since President Franklin
Roosevelt was the creator and guarantor of world order has catalyzed
regional disorder, which will spill over into the West? Around the time
of the invasion of Iraq in April 2003, experts and political leaders
alike publicly discussed the many aspects of such a move: the
assessment, that turned out to be mistaken, that Saddam had weapons of
mass destruction; his human rights violations, including the use of
chemical weapons and other methods of mass murder against his own
people; the problematics of contending with Iraq as a rogue state that
attacks its neighbors; the erosion of the sanctions regime against it:
and, primarily, the issue of instituting democracy in the country. The
one issue that was not discussed, however, was the historic act of
shifting the rule from Sunni to Shi'ite. In the case of uprooting ISIS
from Mosul, too, what is discussed today is the risk that Shi'ite
forces, both governmental and militias, will make the battle over Mosul
into a vengeance-fest against the city's Sunni population, and not the
long-term ramifications of what will happen after the operation is
successfully concluded.
It is not that the Bush administration did not think in terms of
historic change. It did. But the change it aimed for was instituting
democracy in Iraq – while the change that went almost ignored was that
the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a representative ruling
council would terminate a millennium of Sunni-dominated stability in the
region.
There are always compelling and worthy reasons, some strategic and some
moral, for uprooting evil – and they obscure the one consideration that
always eludes us at the decisive moment. That consideration is that the
new reality may prove worse, which is what happened, and which may
worsen still further in the near future.
In Praise Of Hindsight
This article was written in hindsight. The authors make no claim to
having had such insight at the time. Some critics, most of them
European, did view the invasion as illegitimate, because it would change
the country's nature and structure. Like others, we thought this
argument overly legalistic, and believed not only that an invasion was
legitimate, but that it was morally incumbent upon the U.S. to intervene
on behalf of those facing mass murder.
Since nearly everyone failed to foresee the consequences of the historic
change brought about by the Bush-Obama policy, whether aimed at
instituting democracy (Bush) or at establishing a new regional
equilibrium (Obama), the question arises: How can leaders avoid repeats
of this debacle, which we see again and again, not only in this case but
also in others? It would appear that the golden rule for leaders to
follow in determining a course of action is: Do not introduce historic
change.
The obvious challenge is what to do in the face of evil. Every minority
in danger of mass murder understandably prays that the U.S. will feel
morally bound to fight evil. However, this moral imperative should be
implemented without introducing structural changes. George Bush senior
struck this balance in Operation Desert Storm. Namely, he pushed Saddam
out of Kuwait back to his own borders, severely damaged his military
forces, and imposed sanctions – but did not oust Saddam in order to
introduce democracy.
The world's democracies can and should help peoples under the yoke of
dictatorship. But the onus of structural change rests upon the peoples
involved. Also, when supporting anti-dictatorial forces, great care must
be taken to properly and accurately identify which of them are
democratic and progressive, and deserving of support – and not, as
President Obama did, help elements like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
which are neither democratic nor progressive. This was not the only
mistake made by Obama; in Iran's 2009 civil uprising, he stood by the
regime of the Islamic Republic as it violently repressed the democratic
Green Movement. Indeed, experts can help apply this rule of refraining
from introducing structural change in each individual case. But the
ultimate responsibility for upholding this rule rests solely upon the
leaders.
*Yigal Carmon is President and Founder of MEMRI. Anna Mahjar-Barducci is
Director of the MEMRI Russian Media Studies Project.
Endnotes:
[1] The extent to which ISIS considers jihad against the West at the
bottom of its priorities is amply reflected in statements by the late
ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, who in a message to ISIS fighters
said: "The Islamic State did not launch a war against you, as your lying
government and your media claim. You are the ones who initiated
hostilities against us. And the side that initiated hostilities is the
evil one. You will pay for it dearly when your economies collapse. You
will pay dearly when your sons are sent to fight us. And they return
crippled and damaged, in coffins, or as lunatics. You will pay when each
of you feels afraid to travel abroad. You will pay when you walk the
streets in trepidation for fear of the Muslims. You will not be safe in
your own beds. You will pay the price when your crusader war fails. And
then we will invade the very heart of your country. After that you will
never again be aggressive towards anyone." Addressing ISIS fighters, he
went on to say: "Why is it that the world is united against you? Why
have the nations of unbelief entrenched together against you? What
threat do you pose to the distant place of Australia, for it to send its
legions towards you? Does Canada have anything to do with you?" See
MEMRI JTTM report Responding To U.S.-Led Campaign, ISIS Spokesman Calls
To Kill Westerners, Including Civilians, By Any Means Possible,
September 22, 2014.
[2] Despite all that President Obama has done for the Iranian regime,
not only have he and his administration received no recognition
whatsoever from Iran for its efforts to extricate it from its
international isolation, but the U.S. is more reviled than ever as the
Great Satan; it is also subjected to various hostile Iranian acts such
as the arrest of American citizens, the arrest and humiliation of
American soldiers, escalated calls of "death to America," and continued
incitement against it.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
