Syria: White House Accepts Reality
The Wall Street Journal has a quite interesting piece about the changing U.S. policies towards Syria: Behind Assad's Comeback, a Mismatch in Commitments (the piece is paywalled but you can access it via a search engine):
In the early days of the Syrian rebellion, U.S. intelligence agencies made a prediction: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's days were numbered, an assessment repeated publicly by President Barack Obama and top U.S. intelligence officials.
That assessment was obviously wrong and has been changed to a likely similar wrong one:
The intelligence assessments that once showed Mr. Assad on the verge of defeat now say he could remain in power for the foreseeable future in key parts of the country bordering Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast. The U.S. doesn't think he will be able to retake the whole country again, U.S. intelligence agencies believe.
The now Al-Qaeda led insurgency in Syria and Iraq depends on money and other support it is getting from the outside, especially from Saudi Arabia. As soon as that support stops the insurgency will be on the verge of dying off. The U.S. has so far continued a quite contradictory policy of supporting the insurgency in Syria while providing weapons to Iraq to fight the same insurgents there. That can not and will not work. If it wants to rein in the takfiris, as it should, it will have to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to end its support. A sign that such may eventually happen from the WSJ piece:
Saudi officials fumed at the U.S. for failing to launch strikes against Mr. Assad over the chemical weapons attack, and Prince Bandar threatened to scale back cooperation with the CIA.The frustration was mutual. In private meetings with U.S. officials, Mr. Kerry singled out Prince Bandar as "the problem," complaining about his conduct, according to meeting participants.
...
A former senior Obama administration official said Saudi leaders misread U.S. sentiment. The White House, the former official said, had no obligation to come to the rescue "when they picked a fight they couldn't win."
U.S. support for the insurgency, even the "moderate" one, has mostly stopped and reality has set in:
A longtime American diplomat in the region said that, for now, it looks like Messrs. Assad, Nasrallah and Soleimani have "won".
We shall now be on the look out for some public signs of U.S. misgivings towards the Saudis if only to convince king Abdullah to send the by now rather hapless prince Bandar back into the desert.
Posted by b on January 2, 2014 at 13:55 UTC | Permalink
Gotta love this bit...
"A former senior Obama administration official said Saudi leaders misread U.S. sentiment. The White House, the former official said, had no obligation to come to the rescue "when they picked a fight they couldn't win"
If the former official had tacked "with Russia" on the end of that statement, I'd be in hospital getting my ribs fixed and the Saudi princes would all be peeing their pants.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 2 2014 14:43 utc | 2
- The former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, already had doubts whether the US should support the rebels in Syria. She said something along the lines of "Do we support Al Qaida in Syria ?".
- I do think Saudi Arabia will become less important to the US and the US WILL make up with IRAN !!!! Keywords: "Natural gas".
@TomV: it's Always a struggle for economic resources: Tax-revenues, oil & gas export revenues in combination with ideological indoctrination. And using religion is only a way to disguise the true intentions of the powerstruggle.
Posted by: Willy2 | Jan 2 2014 15:06 utc | 3
I find it most irritating that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia -- a country that does nothing but pump crude out of the ground, and that is openly run by a fascist royal family, and whose citizens were the large majority of the alleged 9/11 hijackers -- has such a loud voice in US foreign policy, not to mention domestic, monetary and energy policy. The US is still back peddling after the American people stood up and managed to avoid the invasion of Syria, which we have now learned was a Saudi idea from the get-go.
Saudi Arabia is only second to Israel when it comes to wagging the US dog and taking a dump on the American people.
Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 2 2014 15:44 utc | 4
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. First of all, you all remember the Yinon Plan, which was precisely to split every state within spitting distance of Plucky Little Israel up into puny ethnic statelets which would be forced to become clients. And that is what all this is aiming at. Hopefully, it's just wishful thinking, since nobody else is going to want the south and east of Syria anyway. They are mostly ungovernable deserts full of dissident tribes. Second, to my eyes all this repudiation of Bandar is just elaboration of the basic deniability scheme. It is a scheme, a general cut-out you can apply anywhere, and the US has applied it in many places over many years and is bound to apply it more and more, everywhere from Egypt to Thailand.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 2 2014 15:55 utc | 5
A deal with Iran and the eventual release of Iranian oil and gas onto the world market and the resulting drop in price, means pressure on the Saudis, who need high prices to bribe surrounding states, but more importantly to stop their own citizens from forming necktie parties. Now that's one party I would love to participate in.
Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 2 2014 16:36 utc | 6
Puppets join political fight in Egypt? Or is it just paranoia?
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/90618/Egypt/Politics-/Wannabe-wants-Vodafone-puppet-jailed-for-threateni.aspx
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 16:46 utc | 7
I submitted this to the new year thread but it never made it:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9000-qatar-emir-support-for-muslim-brotherhood-is-a-qdutyq
Quote:
"[The Americans] are certain that the Assad regime in Syria is more stable and likely to be a better protector of US interests" -- Emir of Qatar, Shaikh Tamim bin-Hamad
Posted by: Paul | Jan 2 2014 16:46 utc | 8
They don't care about the succession of Mohamad. They are brainwashed into believing that judgement day will come after a big fight between good and evil that will bring back Jesus to lead the Muslim armies and fight the Antechrist.
Sounds familiar?
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 16:48 utc | 9
Puppets join political fight in Egypt? Or is it just paranoia? Posted by: Mina | Jan 2, 2014 11:46:26 AM | 7He says he "knows too much about Freemasonry." The only way to "know too much about Freemasonry"is to become a Freemason. Believe me, I know.
;-)
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 2 2014 17:15 utc | 10
Those jihadis are brainwashed to the max. The suicide bombers that are trained in Pakistan are serially abused and tortured to a point where they see killing themselves as a better option than living. Google about Pakistani trained bombers.
Posted by: Shoes | Jan 2 2014 17:21 utc | 11
I don't think there is going to be any let up by the Saudis in their support for the jihadis in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. I think that was the point of Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud's much-talked about editorial a couple weeks back. Jihad in the Levant is here to stay. If anything, Saudi commitment is increasing, i.e., the $3 billion bid to purchase the Lebanese Army.
In any event, we can expect more skullduggery in the next three weeks prior to Geneva II.
Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jan 2 2014 17:26 utc | 12
@ 1 TomV
Can anyone explain in non-religious terms (political economy) what the objective is of Sunni fighter’s (el k dah, takfiris, whatever).
There would be a few ways to answer that. The textbook definition of Jihadist/Salafist goals would be the revival of the Caliphate (considered the Golden Age of Sunni Muslim power). Osama Bin Laden expanded on this pointing towards 2 enemies "The Near Enemy" and the "Far Enemy" standing in the way of the Caliphate being recreated. The near enemies are the local (mainly secular) puppet states of the Middle East, and the far enemy being the major powers (mainly the US, which controls those puppet states).
It should also be mentioned that you wanted non-religious terms for groups like Takfiri's. But the word Takfiri itself is exclusively religious and refers to "a muslim who accuses other muslims of being impure or not pious enough". This is where the Sunni/Shia friction comes in, but it is also shown amoung Sunni's themselves with Takfiri groups whipping people in Syria for smoking cigarettes or drinking alchohol (as in signs of not being a pious enough Muslim).
But all that would just be the textbook definition. A reading of the current situation would be that Sunni fighters have now allied themselves with one of there "Near Enemies" by siding with Saudi Arabia. It should be mentioned that Bin Laden spent a large amount of his speeches talking about overthrowing the Saudi monarchy but now these groups are taking money from the Saudi's.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 2 2014 17:44 utc | 13
it's all about natural gas. Syria is very strategic geographically. Saudi Arabia wants to compete with Russia on exporting natural gas which would go through Syria and then to Turkey. Russia wants a pipeline to go through Syria and Iran. It's a multi billion dollar industry and with Assad staying loyal to Russia, the Saudis will continue to send money and arms until they have control.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/guest-post-us-going-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 2 2014 17:51 utc | 14
The comment section in this trash deserves an award!
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9000-qatar-emir-support-for-muslim-brotherhood-is-a-qdutyq
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 17:58 utc | 15
@ TomV #1;
Excellent question. You have put your finger on an -IMO- very important (and sadly very often neglected) point.
No one becomes a suicide bomber or a mass murderer or starts to eat human parts because of "brain washing" or to fight on who should have succeeded Mohammad 1400 years ago! Nor does any one makes a revolution to force women of middle class to put hijab on their head or to bring corporal punishment for drinking alcohol or breaking the fast in Ramadan.
People who are associated with political Islam very often try to explain things in that way by saying that people are outraged because their "Islamic" values have been offended, but IMO -and I can see you agree with me- that is a load of plain hogwash.
Beneath all these lies reasons directly related to -as you said it yourself- political economy.
I am not a political analyst, and my exposure to political economy is fairly limited, besides even Karl Marx has not always elaborated on the tangible link between the politics and historical events of his own time and his theories on political economy.
So I am not sure how valuable my ideas on the matter would be, but I tend to think that no one with a decent roof on his head, a decent healthcare, an economically active life, and a viable prospect of a decent education and a decent job for his children would entertain the idea of leaving his family and loved ones in his old country to join a bunch of rag-tag lunatic army so that he can BBQ human parts or go victim to an air assault by Assad or for that matter by the USA.
On the other hand if you have NOTHING TO LOOSE, if you are destitute, if you are marginalized and discriminated against in the society in which you live (eg. Western Europe), in short if you have ZERO hope for the future of yourself and your children, then you become an excellent candidate to be bought off by some meager monthly money paid by Qatar or S. Arabia to go and fight for some "holly" cause and die if necessary.
Show me a big number of "rebels" or "suicide bombers" who are professional engineers, doctors, lawyers or university professors with a steady income and a decent healthcare and I will change my opinion. The vast majority of the "rebels" are invariably uneducated people who are destitute.
And look at the PPP GDP of Islamic countries and their GINI index in Yemen, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, etc etc. and you will see a large army of rebels ready to be bought off by the Saudies.
And after each NATO intervention the life standards and the conditions for the majority of the population in the victimized country increases by the order of magnitude, and voila... we have an increase in the number of jihadies and AQ sympathizers everywhere that the good old NATO intervenes.
They intervene and in doing so they create their "army" or rebels. The only problem for them (ie. the West) is that this is a very unreliable army and at any time may return against you.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 2 2014 18:10 utc | 16
@ Colm O’Toole # 13
Thank you for you informed response. I guess I am still skeptical about the religion being the ‘cause’ of the conflict. Again, by way of analogy, I have some familiarity with the European post- Reformation religious wars and the Crusades before them. Clearly, there is an enormous amount of documentation supporting the religious motives of the combatants. Yet, looking deeper, one finds that there are also very significant economic variables at play.
Given the enormous wealth at stake in the current Middle East conflicts, it seems reasonable to infer that there are similar economic issues. In terms of nation states those are obvious, we know what the economic interests are of US, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. (oil, trade routes, pipe lines, etc.). But what brings an Algerian or Libyan or Pakistani, etc. to Syria or Lebanon? Clearly, there is a lot of “non-pious Muslims” in those countries that can be whipped, etc.
And, if religion is the cause, why now? Clearly, these non-pious issues are not new? And, why not against the infidels?
Also, interesting, the people in the Middle East with the most grievances, it seems to me, are the Palestinians. And, yet they are the most docile.
These are rhetorical questions; of course, there are no simple answers. Just wondering?
Best
Tom V
Posted by: TomV | Jan 2 2014 18:12 utc | 17
Correction to my previous message (#16).
I wrote:
"And after each NATO intervention the life standards and the conditions for the majority of the population in the victimized country increases by the order of magnitude..."
It should ave been:
"And after each NATO intervention the life standards and the conditions for the majority of the population in the victimized country deteriorates by the order of magnitude..."
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 2 2014 18:13 utc | 18
From the Angry Arab blog a link to a Foreign Policy article. If this account is true a fictional novelist couldn't have made it up.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/01/how_zionist_extremists_helped_create_britain_s_surveillance_state#sthash.g98y1GtS.dpbs
Posted by: midan | Jan 2 2014 18:54 utc | 19
1/17 What you are saying is not true.
See A short history of suicide bombing
After the Second World War the US and UK encouraged and strengthened radical Islamic movements in the Middle East to in order to contain the spread of the Soviet Union and prevent the rise of nationalist movements hostile to the West.It was also during the 1970s that the Saudi Arabian government began to spend billions of dollars to promote Wahhabism, an ultra conservative reading of Islam, around the world.
With a few exceptions, conflicts between these groups and the secular state have provided the main context for suicide bombings.
Of the 36 countries where suicide bombings have been recorded by the University of Chicago, only four (Finland, China, Bolivia, and Sri Lanka) have not involved groups with links to radical Islam.
....
The first large suicide bombing campaign after the Second World War occurred in the 1980s during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
You can doubt some of the facts and analysis of above article. All in all the picture is correct. Religion is a very powerful motivational force, though, I agree with you, it is not the cause of political acts. The Taliban are supported by Pakistan to prevent a Pashtun national movement that would take a large part of Pakistani territory. Hamas is used to split the Palestinians.
The Shia / Sunni "conflict" is completely artificial and it is not working politically - I guess Saudi is now faced by a de facto Christian, Sunni, Shia, Russian, and maybe US alliance of people who refuse to see the future in Wahhabism and a desert tribal system.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 2 2014 19:14 utc | 20
@ Somebody #20;
I don't think that "suicide missions" are about Islam or any other religion. In my opinion the role of religion has been highly exaggerated. People do not endanger their neck for the sake of some religious value or so that they can go to paradise. I am not denying that the suicidal jihadi hopes to go to paradise. But the paradise in the heavens becomes very attractive ONLY when you are in the Hell on earth!
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 2 2014 19:42 utc | 21
Pirouz
I know university professors who DO believe that Mubarak's fulul had bought all the oil and wheat of the "best of ever" (which know one saw or documented) harvest last year and dumped it in the Nile. If you don't call it brainwashing I do. People in the Middle East buy every rumour, believe any lie, because they have been made into believing in completely irrational stuff, including all the crazy legends (carried also by Sufis) about the "end of the world" and the big fight against the Antechrist.
Just check that among other things http://youtu.be/LhdC14lRcKs
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/MW/dajjal.htm
Kurdish friends told me some suicide bombers have been found with a key and brand new clothes to "open the gate of paradise" and be ready for their wedding in heaven...
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 20:12 utc | 22
"Show me a big number of "rebels" or "suicide bombers" who are professional engineers, doctors, lawyers or university professors with a steady income and a decent healthcare and I will change my opinion."
Just check for the links posted here about kids from Sweden, Ireland, and elsewhere who went to Syria to explose themselves at a checkpoint and give a chance to their "friends" to make a video saying "they seized the checkpoint" that will give them a fat check from an individual in the Gulf who can do djihad fro mhis couch this way. And check the names on www.syrianperspective, and just google the names of the guys from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco. I would bet they are not all from the lower classes.
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 20:15 utc | 23
Pirouz, just how long have you NOT traveled in an Arab country? If you know mainly Shiites, maybe you met some people from older generations who have usually received a much more rationalist approach (i. e. "these are symbols"). But I met some guys who explained me that on judgement's day Ali would fly above Aden's volcano...
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 20:18 utc | 24
@Mina
What you are saying is at the minimum foolish. Muslim thinkers, particularly the religous scholars, are generally well aware of the state of the knowledge in today's world. if you are talking about the mass in general why are you only focusing on Muslim and the middle-east, you should know better than anyone else that the mass opinion can be manipulated every where in the world and this is done more systematically in the West. Just go 12 or 13 years back and check how the war on terror was initiated.
Posted by: ATH | Jan 2 2014 20:31 utc | 25
Mina,
I am not saying that they are all from lower classes. But the vast majority ARE. In all revolutions or rebellions, "the leaders" may come from middle class, a few of the low-rank foot soldiers may come from educated parts of the society, but the VAST majority come from those who have nothing to loose.
By definition those who have got nothing to loose become "brave" and easily risk their necks. On the other hand, those who come from a comfortable home, with a full belly and are worried that they may get fired tomorrow if they don't show up at work (because they have been arrested) become very conservative and they get very easily scared. Shoot a couple of rounds into the air and they run-off back to their comfortable homes. This does not mean that there are no exceptions. As I said "leaders" usually come from educated middle class, but those are exceptions and constitute a minority. The vast majority are destitute, and it is not the "religion" which pushes them to Syria, it is the Saudi/Qatari monthly payment.
As for those who leave their homes in Western Europe and go to fight in jihad, as I mentioned in my message #16:
"... if you are marginalized and discriminated against in the society in which you live (eg. Western Europe), ..."
Look at the story of the two "Somalian" sisters from Norway, who joined the rebels in Syria. Who brainwashed them? Their parents are not apparently that religious and obviously they didn't like their daughter joining the "jihad" in Syria. They had been living in Norway since 2000, one of them being 16 and the other 19. Meaning that at the time they went to Norway they were 3 and 6 respectively. By any measure they should be "Norwegian" by now. Their parents have chosen Norway to live, and they were worried sick about their daughters. So if two girls who have lived in norway since they were 3 and 6, are still not Norwegian and see themselves as jihadies, whose fault is it? Did Norwaegian government brainwash them or is it the result of marginalization of the muslim immigrants that after 13 years of emigration to Norway, a pair of 16 and 19 year-old sisters still don't see themselves as part of Norwegian society and identify themselves more with Syria (to which they have never paid a visit)?
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 2 2014 20:47 utc | 26
21) You are right, that hell however can be psychological more than hunger. Extreme religion can be a way out of that.
There are a few hundred Europeans fighting in Syria. Presumably motivated by a mix of getting bored at home, misinformation and youthful adventurism.
Merah's 2010 odyssey included Cairo, where his brother Abdelkader then lived, as well as Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Israel, where according to French officials he was briefly detained and relieved of a knife by police. Israeli officials have not confirmed he was there.French officials say Merah entered Afghanistan in the fall of 2010 through its northern border with Tajikistan, and traveled south to the Taliban heartland in Kandahar.
That is quite an itinery for a kid from the banlieues.
What alternatives do we offer?
Posted by: somebody | Jan 2 2014 21:05 utc | 27
I think we differ on how to interpret "opium for the people".
Do you think these Norwegian sisters were able to find the networks sending people to Syria without being connected with the cyber networks who carry the very apocalyptic rhetoric i am refering to above? This have been in every mosque for the last 20 years, and interestingly it connects with stuff that appear also in some "margin/extreme" literature you would find in crazy jewish or protestant gatherings as well (some people who worked on "Christian Zionism" noted that)
Of course you will always find Yemenis in any djihad because they rank among the poorers on this planet, but check the numbers of Saudis who exploded themselves in Iraq and Syria. Are they poor, in your standards? They are certainly deprived of freedom, but to start with they are deprived of the freedom to think rationally. In Europe and the US, in turn, we have guys who go djihad in Iraq or Syria coz they think they are "fighting the empire"
There was a programme on Dream (an Egyptian channel) a couple of years ago where a guy was interwiewing some kids between 8 and 12 who work in Cairo's poor districts with car spare parts and cleaning, and when they were asking them what was their dream, instead of being a child worker and if they could save some money, they were saying "first I would offer my parents a trip to the hajj and then maybe i would study or get married". The hajj is minimum 3,000 euros, even from next door Egypt.
Posted by: Mina | Jan 2 2014 21:24 utc | 28
@Mina;
By the way "Ali flying over Aden's volcano" or a "key to the gates of paradise" is very good for a person who is about to die. When you face your mortality you get an incentive to believe in life after death, or as it is sometimes said: "There are no atheists in a foxhole".
So yes the belief in Ali's this or that action on the judgement day may make the decision making process (the decision to choose a very likely death) easier but it is not that faith which motivates you. It is rather like the anesthetic which makes the process of surgery much easier, but it is not for the sake of anesthesia that you go through surgery, it is because of your fatal illness that you lie under the surgeon's knife. Anesthetics only make the process easier.
In conclusion as I said before: it is not the paradise in the heavens it is the Hell on earth (together with minor financial relief coming from the Qatari/Saudi monthly payment) which makes you behave the way you do. Had it not been that way, the Saudies and Qataries would not resort to distributing cash among their jihadies, the promise of heaven would do the trick by itself.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 2 2014 21:26 utc | 29
Can anyone explain in non-religious terms (political economy) what the objective is of Sunni fighter’s (el k dah, takfiris, whatever). I cannot believe these men and women killing themselves has anything to do with who is the legitimate successor of Mohammad any more than I believe the Crusades or intra European religious wars had anything to do with Christ.
While there are always some extreme believers in any religion that will act the extreme, but when masses across many countries with different histories, languages, pick up guns and leave home or even have TNT strapped to their chest, they have some motivation other than theological debates. Some material force is motivating them. Ironically, as Assad has pointed out, they never attack Israeli people or interests or for that matter with minor exceptions American. The Sunni sects are clearly at war with the Shia. But Why?
Posted by: TomV | Jan 2, 2014 9:30:40 AM | 1
you really dont know by now?
what women? the jihadis are all men.
the jihadis like the crusaders BELIEVED what they are/were doing was the will of their god. Some were led by the media and imams that president Assad was killing muslims hence it was halal to go to syria to fight
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1367013246
...others believe here is a chance to set up an(other) islamic state...
wold Mohammed approve their killing? no.,..but then they assume he would...They also havent asked allah...they just assume he approves
Posted by: brian | Jan 2 2014 22:16 utc | 30
It should also be mentioned that you wanted non-religious terms for groups like Takfiri's. But the word Takfiri itself is exclusively religious and refers to "a muslim who accuses other muslims of being impure or not pious enough". This is where the Sunni/Shia friction comes in, but it is also shown amoung Sunni's themselves with Takfiri groups whipping people in Syria for smoking cigarettes or drinking alchohol (as in signs of not being a pious enough Muslim).
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 2, 2014 12:44:10 PM | 13
useful commment by Colm...on Takfiri, its root is Kufr or infidel...The contrast with syrias urbane inclusive outlook is what drives the many of the jihadhis wild and to wild excesses likwe cannibalism/beheading
Posted by: brian | Jan 2 2014 22:20 utc | 31
Posted by: TomV | Jan 2, 2014 1:12:06 PM | 17
not sure why you deny the zeal of the jihadis and wonder if its all economic(aka money) driven...when any video of their actions has them screaming ALLAH AKBAR not MONEY AKBAR!
why go to syria? the recruiters are alqaeda, as interviews with captured jihadis reveal, and behind alqaeda is likely USRAEL, getting rid of syria is a first step, for USA, on the long road to Beijing.
only religious zealots are stupid enough and bold enough to be useful tools of machievellian statecraft
Posted by: brian | Jan 2 2014 22:24 utc | 32
the original mujahadeen in the US war agaist the soviets in afghanistan were not driven by their love of mammon but by their love of allah, and hatred for the secular socialist state that then existed
Posted by: brian | Jan 2 2014 22:26 utc | 33
Congrats B to reaching the 4 million visitors milestone. I'd like to echo the comments offering to chip in when it comes to managing the costs to keep your awesome blog 'on air'. Greetings, J.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 3 2014 0:15 utc | 34
Take it for what its worth:
Israeli study of foreign fighters in Syria suggests Shiites may outnumber SunnisJERUSALEM – A group of former military intelligence analysts in Israel who combed through jihadist Web sites and other open-source material have produced new estimates of the growing phenomenon of foreign fighters waging civil war in Syria. Their data suggest that Shiite foreign fighters in Syria may actually outnumber those who are Sunni.
According to the study released this week by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center in Tel Aviv, there are currently 6,000 to 7,000 Sunni foreign fighters in Syria battling forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. The number of Shiite foreigners fighting on Assad's behalf is estimated at 7,000 to 8,000. [...]
Experts say that, far more than Afghanistan or Iraq in decades past, Syria's rebel movement is drawing thousands of young men to fight.
Why?
“Because it is cheap, and it is easy,” said Reuven Erlich, a retired colonel in Israel’s military intelligence directorate and now director of the center that produced the report. “You can make jihad for the price of plane ticket to Istanbul.”
From there it’s an overnight bus ride to the Syrian border, where recruiters are easily reached by calling cellphone numbers widely in circulation. [...]
Erlich and his team drew other conclusions, as well: The majority of foreign fighters are young men (average age 23 to 26), often with decent educations but no military experience, and so begin their service in support roles, as go-fers and cooks. They train for 45 days and their stays in Syria are often brief. Many leave for home after three to five months.
“Many come during their school vacations,” Erlich said.
Some are propelled by religious fervor, while others are looking for adventure, seeing the Syrian rebels as romantic figures, according to accounts offered by the fighters on Web sites read by the Israelis. [...]”
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 3 2014 1:12 utc | 35
Ah, I'd like to present a counter point to Pirouz if I may.
It is too simple to look at the motivations of the individuals. We have to look at the driving forces in the society - most of which, due to the advances in public relations and propaganda - are coming from the top of societies down. And I think that is what we are seeing. I bet you do find a great many of the Jihadis who leave comfortable homes to go fight. John Walker Lindh is one example. The numerous Westerners who have gone to fight in the so-called "Arab Spring" are others.
I would suggest that, given the right reasoning and social conditions, anyone can be convinced to commit the most barbaric violence. And in fact, I think you'll agree, that most obvious examples of barbaric violence during the 20th Century have not been carried out by the poor and destitute looking to make a buck, but instead have been carried out by the middle classes of the wealthy nations spurred on to violence by their "leaders" - in a word: fascism. And those aspects of fascism which tend to take on a religious quality - supremacism, anti-communism, manifest destiny - which seem to be the most compelling factors.
I think you'd agree that Germany of the 1930s was, in fact, quite a rich society. As was Japan. As was Italy. All the citizens of those countries were quite well off - especially in comparison to the mass of their victims (if we consider Russia and China) - and yet in all three cases, they were convinced to quite happily march off into war. The same applies to the Cold War conflicts in Latin America. In those cases it was the middle classes who were egged on by CIA propaganda to commit unspeakable atrocities. And I think the fact that we see this kind of really barbaric violence (the beheadings, the cannibalism, the torture and mutilation) across the world points to the possibility that this is not some kind of natural state of humanity when driven to poverty, but is actually the outgrowth of a society sick at the top. We must consider the fact that these crimes are most likely a well-thought out tactic devised in an Washington DC suburban office park, by highly paid military "strategists" as part of very expensive and extensively studied psychological warfare operations.
I think you give too much credence to human rationality. Anyone of use could be convinced to do anything by a sick society. Just like a US middle class kid could be yearning to prove his patriotism and be "one of the guys" - even if it meant dropping napalm on some Vietnamese kids
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 3 2014 1:29 utc | 36
@35 Er... unfortunately, I want to take that as a bunch of Israeli horseshit.
Are they perhaps counting Iranian and Hezbollah forces - I guess they are "foreign Shiite" fighters. But to try and make the organized forces of well established political entities - including states - with the sprouting fungus of al Qaeda aligned miscreants in Syria seems like... well, seems like exactly some bullshit the Israelis would try and spin.
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 3 2014 1:39 utc | 37
I should add that I don't think the fighters motivations have anything to do with Islam per se - it is just one more rationalization to offer those with violent propensities.
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 3 2014 1:42 utc | 38
Surely there is a pretty flat distinction between 'jihadis' and 'suicide bombers'. I'm going to be blunt about this: suicide bombers are statistically more likely to be women, poor, impressionable, almost doomed to slave status within their own societies. Jihadis are more likely to be men, adventurous, swashbuckling, often quite highly educated (but as is usual in all Asian societies, that means, technically or scientifically rather than humanistically educated). These two types are polar opposites. I suggest you read about Jonestown. Jim Jones was white, something like Elvis Presley minus the glitter. I would be pretty interested to establish but can't prove that his lieutenants were 'mulattos' (vile word, means mules, but you get the picture). His followers, the famous 913 suicidees, were almost all black. What creates these nightmarish contrasts is the compounded race/class system of oppression, projected onto a global scale and then introjected into a billion very fallible human minds and hearts.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 3 2014 1:43 utc | 39
I should have said "the compounded race/class/gender system of oppression, projected onto the global fantasy screen of Hollywood, and then reintrojected into a billion human minds and hearts, each impressionable in the way that corresponds to its scripted fantasy niche, against which the first and often the only obvious mode of rebellion is subtly included in the script itself, which is what gives it its dynamic." It's 2 am here and I can't sleep, so I am in a nasty mood, heh heh
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 3 2014 2:11 utc | 40
Several killed in explosion in Beirut suburb
Al-Akhbar, Jan 2 2014
A suicide bomber detonated a car rigged with explosives in the southern suburbs of Beirut on Thursday, killing at least four people and injuring 77. The health ministry said a further 67 people were treated in hospitals for minor wounds and released, while 10 people remained hospitalized for severe injuries. The explosion damaged at least six buildings, reduced cars to twisted metal and shattered windows. The Lebanese army said a preliminary probe indicated a 20 kg bomb was used in the explosion. The vehicle driven by the suicide bomber was identified as an olive green Jeep Grand Cherokee, license plate number 341580 G. Thursday’s explosion, the fourth such bombing in Beirut’s southern, Shi’a-majority suburbs since Jul 2013, took place on al-Arid Street in Haret Hreik, Dahiyeh. The attack appeared to target civilians.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 3 2014 2:31 utc | 41
@ guest77, bingo. The relevant paragraph from the article, which I didn't include in my copy paste, reads:
[...] The researchers found that an additional 7,000 to 8,000 foreign Shiites fighting in Syria on behalf of the Assad government, including at any given time “several thousand” members of the Lebanon-based Shiite militant group Hezbollah. [...]
The article itself however is almost exclusively about foreigners joining the various anti-Assad militants. The reason for me linking the piece are the parts I highlighted in bold, that a substantial number of those are educated and comparatively fairly well off young men in search of adventure. The Sunni Shia rift is for many of them a non issue, if Assad and his forces would be Buddhist they'd still be there - testosterone overload is all it takes.
As you nicely made the point @ 36, history shows fuckwits prepared to go the extra mile when it comes to murdering their fellow beings are just as likely to come from the upper and middle classes as they are found amongst the poor and uneducated.
Rowan @ 39, I am not sure where you got your info from, but the stats I can find seem to indicate that women are a minority amongst suicide bombers. Via Wiki:
[...] According to a report issued by intelligence analysts in the U.S. army in 2011, "Although women make up roughly 15% of the suicide bombers within groups which utilize females, they were responsible for 65% of assassinations; 20% of women who committed a suicide attack did so with the purpose of assassinating a specific individual, compared with 4% of male attackers."The report further stated that female suicide bombers often were "grieving the loss of family members [and] seeking revenge against those they feel are responsible for the loss, unable to produce children, [and/or] dishonored through sexual indiscretion." Female suicide bombers are thus presented as being predominantly motivated by non-political factors, as opposed to their male counterparts. [...]
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 3 2014 4:03 utc | 42
@guest77 (#36);
Maybe I didn't express myself as I should have. In fact going back and forth between what you wrote and what I had written and seeing the truth of parts of your message and how my message may have led to the wrong impression, I feel more and more convinced that I should have perhaps been clearer about what I meant.
I am not trying to say that the poor and destitute are responsible for the atrocities in the world; on the contrary I believe they are the victims of the atrocities. Furthermore the poor and destitute are the driving engine of any revolution. Perhaps the following quotation from Bertolt Brecht will make my position a bit clearer:
"What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?"
So, no I don't think that the poor and destitute who are responsible for the global crimes, but the fact remains that the main foot-soldiers of any mass action, be it a progressive revolution or a reactionary aggression by a mercenary army of Jihadies, are the poor and the destitute.
Since you are an American you know the situation in USA much better than I do, so tell me guest, which class constitutes the bulk of the US marine and army privates? I don't think that there are too many senator kids who lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan, or am I wrong? Why do the hispanic and poor blacks join the US armed forces to fight over seas? Is it because they are very "patriotic"? Is it because the poor in USA is very idealistic about "liberal values" which must be shoved down the throat of the middle easterns? are the blacks and hispanic thirsty for middle eastern blood?
Well a same sort of reasoning -IMO- applies to the jihadies in Syria. It is not their obsession with Islamic values, or that they want to go berserk to shove their Islamic beliefs down the throat of those heretic Shiites, christians, etc. etc. Not any more than the poor and hopeless join the US armed forces for "patriotic reasons". They do it for the meager Qatari/Saudi money.
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 3 2014 4:44 utc | 43
This is the best discourse I’ve read on why young men go off to war.
U.S. Grant in his autobiography described young gentlemen hired as greeters in San Francisco Gold Rush Honk-Tonks as “Strangers in a Strange Land”. Young males have always left home to make their own way. Today there still enough residue wealth left that a third stay at home with their folks with no good jobs. The determined outcasts go on a jihad or join the Marines.
Humans evolved in the tribal society. It is innate that we defend our family and home, peculiar institutions and all. Volunteered, drafted, shanghaied, or sold a bill of goods by their Imam or government, to the trenches we go, generation after generation.
To win wars; in addition to having a sufficient number of cannon fodder and adequate supplies; there has to be reason for the soldiers to accept the death of their comrades. There was no good reason to die in Vietnam; our only goal was to survive a year, and we mutinied. Two years after I left, the Communists retook the valley where I was stationed.
Abraham Lincoln won the American Civil War because he had the manpower, supplies and gave meaning to the Union soldiers’ sacrifice:
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Strange; from Wall Street to the House of Saud they believe that the never-ending wars can be won by mercenaries, despite all the lessons of history to the contrary. 21st Century neo-liberal greed trumps everything. This is our new reality.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Jan 3 2014 5:03 utc | 44
36) Germany was in an economic crisis when Hitler came to power - it was the great depression, remember. Fascism was supported on an international scale as an antidote to communism, much like Islamism has been considered an antidote to communism and nationalism. The root conflict remains no matter the solution. Germany solved its economic problems by a war economy and by making Jews/Communists/Socialists/Dissenters the scapegoat.
The foreign fighters will be a problem for their countries when they return, the potential for the perpetuation of the Syrian conflict are the refugee camps. Something like half of people living there are children.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 3 2014 5:08 utc | 45
MISDIRECTION, SMOKE, MIRRORS, CHAOS...
"BY WAY OF DECEPTION THOU SHALT MAKE WAR(cuz you're damn pussies)
Posted by: Samuel Adams | Jan 3 2014 5:19 utc | 46
:-)) The Wall Street Journal is upping the ante
"Hezbollah Upgrades Missile Threat to Israel" go via search engine to beat the paywall- basically telling Israel to shut up.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 3 2014 7:56 utc | 47
re #36: No, Germany was in a catastrophic economic slump with hyper-inflation, and unemployment was more than rife.
Re #7, #10: Fahita has made it into the waPo.
re #39, #40, #42: You're right of course, Juan. I had no statistic behind my assertion that suicide bombers were more likely to be women. I think the 15% figure is remarkably low, and it is a few years old, but my main impression came from anecdotal reports from, I think, Pakistan. Even in terms of my analogy to Jonestown, the 913 suicidees were by no means overwhelmingly female. They were black, and that is the aspect of Jonestown that was conspicuously absent in the media reporting at the time. It might be possible to show that suicide bombers are on average less well-educated and of lower socioeconomic status than Jihadis in the non-suicidal sense, don't you think? I mean, my argument is that suicide bombers, unlike Jihadis in the non-suicidal sense, are likely to be people who have no hopes in this world.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 3 2014 7:59 utc | 48
the real brilliance of the entire M.E. "freedom campaign" is cui bono?
ONLY Israel. Israel who sponsored it, planned it and steers it. Its Muslim rivals are all in shambles, killing each other off, so that soon the zionists can seize the spoils and rule the region, supreme. There has been no serious accountability- or even notice- of the Palestinian issue; all the while the settlements steal more and more land.
Coup de grace? The blackening of Muslim prestige and sealing their reputation as the "real problem in the ME"- not Israel.
Of course none of this could be accomplished without the volunteering of the stupid jihadis as cannon fodder. What a carnival of fools in service to psychopaths.
Posted by: Graha | Jan 3 2014 8:03 utc | 49
media support for islamic terrorism: lies to mislead the public in support of a war of aggression by some very nasty customers
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202201357288329&set=a.10202193457330835.1073741890.1021408357&type=1&theater
Posted by: brian | Jan 3 2014 11:33 utc | 50
Sunni Shia war reconsidered
Above I wrote a couple of pieces (#1 & 17), reasoning based on analogy with European Crusades and religions Post Reformation wars, I did not think religion was the primary cause of the Sunni Shia wars; rather their must be some economic/political motivations.
This morning reading about that in Iraq Al-qaeda I came across the expression “Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant”. The word Levant is packed with history and it brought to mind another word “Caliphate”. I realize that using Christian European analogies to explain Islamic Middle East phenomena is so obviously fallacious that I’m embarrassed.
In short, my new hypothesis of the cause of the Shia Sunni war is that it truly is a desire to resurrect the historic Moslem transnational Caliphate. And, Saudi Arabia is not driving that war for Saudi national interest. It truly does see itself as the center of some future Caliphate. That may be why it is, so far as I know, the only Moslem state where the ‘robe’ and ‘head-scarf’ is the prevailing style of dress. The Caliphate style of dress!
Posted by: TomV | Jan 3 2014 12:09 utc | 51
In arabic, it's "ad-Dawla al-Islāmiyya fi al-'Irāq wa-sh-Shām." Etymologically, "Shām" means "land of the left hand", referring to the fact that for someone in the Hejaz facing east, north is to the left. The name "Yemen" correspondingly means "land of the right hand."
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 3 2014 13:08 utc | 52
@51
its not really a sunni shia war...sunnis in syria arent waging wars on shia...
there are two main motifs:
1. set up an islamic caliphate(this is the foreign wahhabi sunni idea)
2. free syrians from the tyranny of assad (the media driven idea)
Posted by: brian | Jan 3 2014 13:39 utc | 53
re 51-52
Etymologically, "Shām" means "land of the left hand", referring to the fact that for someone in the Hejaz facing east, north is to the left.
That is right, though the way it is used is more important. Sham means the whole geographical Syrian area - Antakya, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel. (It also means incidentally the city of Damascus alone). ISIL and ISIS both use misleading translations: 'Levant' is strictly only the coast, and not inner Syria. 'Syria' implies only the present republic. ISIS uses 'Sham' because it implies the whole lot, the full extent of medieval Syria, and thus is somewhat irredentist.
Posted by: alexno | Jan 3 2014 13:41 utc | 54
Tom @ 51, may I suggest you check out this article published in Asia Times Online last year. Here a few choice quotes (emphasis mine):
[...] The real culprit for the rise of religious extremism and terrorism in the Islamic world is Saudi Arabia. The Aal-e-Saud (descendants of Saud) have no hereditary claim to the Throne of Mecca since they are not the descendants of the prophet, nor even from the Quresh. They were the most primitive marauding nomadic tribesmen of Najd who defeated the Sharifs of Mecca violently after the collapse of the Ottomans in World War I. Their title to the throne of Saudi Arabia is de facto, not de jure, since neither do they have a hereditary claim nor do they hold elections to ascertain the will of the Saudi people. Thus they are the illegitimate rulers of Saudi Arabia and they feel insecure because of that; which explains their heavy-handed tactics is dealing with any kind of dissent, opposition or movement for reform. [...]Shi'ite Muslims have their Imams and Marjahs (religious authorities) but it is generally believed that Sunni Islam discourages the authority of the clergy. In this sense, Sunni Islam is closer to Protestantism, theoretically, because it promotes an individual and personal interpretation of scriptures and religion. It might be true about the Hanafies and other educated schools of thought in Islam; but on a popular level, the House of Saud plays the same role in Islam that the Pope plays in Catholicism. By virtue of their physical possession of the holy places of Islam – Mecca and Medina – they are the ex officio Caliphs of Islam. The title of the Saudi King, Khadim-ul-Haramain-al-Shareefain (Servant of the House of God), makes him a vice-regent of God on Earth. And the title of the Caliph of Islam is not limited to a nation-state, he wields enormous influence and clout throughout the Commonwealth of Islam: the Muslim Ummah. [...]
The illegitimate, hence insecure, tyrants adopt different strategies to maintain their hold on power. They heed to the pragmatic advice of Machiavelli: “Invent enemies and then slay them in order to control your subjects.” The virulently anti-Shi'ite rhetoric of the Salafis and Takfiris is a Machiavellian approach. The Salafis and Takfiris cannot construct a positive narrative that specifies their achievements; that’s why they construct a negative narrative that casts the Evil Other in a negative light.
The Sunni-Shi'ite conflict is essentially political and economic but is presented to the lay Muslim in a veneer of religiosity. Since Saudi Arabia produces 10 to 15 million barrels of oil per day (equivalent to 15% to 20% of global oil production) it can single-handedly bring down the price of a barrel of oil to US$50 or single-handedly raise it to $200, a nightmare for the global industrialized economies. With 90% of the Saudi oil installations situated along the Persian Gulf, this sparsely populated region comprises the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and its Shi'ite majority. Any separatist tendency is accordingly met with sternest possible reaction. Saudi Arabia sent its own battalions to help the Bahraini regime quell the Shi'ite majority rebellion in Bahrain, which is also geographically very close to the Eastern Province. [...]
Whoever in the 21st century dreams of, in your words, resurrecting the historic Moslem transnational Caliphate, has major delusions of grandeur. Possibly due to widespread inbreeding in Saudi Arabia, resulting from the traditional practice of encouraging marriage between close relatives.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 3 2014 14:02 utc | 55
Pirouzs: you are right to make your point and it is true but is not the whole picture. but the US military is not composed Entirely of the poor looking to make a better life. Many do in fact feel deeply patriotic And of the officers i would guess that the majority are from comfortable homes. Those joining for strictly economic reasons certainly dropped when faced with going to Iraq and Afghanistan.
My only point is to say that the jihadis are there because someone has enticed them - their personal reasons for going are probably as many and varied. Just as Germany could have found many ways to improve its living standards - it was the choice of the German power elite to choose war and genocide. It doesn't good to blame the German economy - prevent the German people as a whole - for those crimes.
Your point is well taken though. We just should consider that poor young men will always exist - the difference is in what their society encourages them to do.
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 3 2014 14:23 utc | 56
Pirouz, sorry for the spelling error.
Rowan, your desire to cram people into groups and draw conclusions as to their motives based on their identities - this time their sex - seems to have failed you here.
Posted by: guest77 | Jan 3 2014 14:28 utc | 57
Iraqi tribesmen and troops attack Islamist militants in Ramadi
If this story is true, this is what should be happening in Syria (I do believe it is). According to that, the Sunni tribal chiefs have made a deal with Maliki, and that, hopefully, will allow the extermination of the ISIS fighters in Ramadi.
I fear, though, that the situation may possibly deteriorate into an Aleppo-like siege. I hope not.
Posted by: alexno | Jan 3 2014 15:27 utc | 58
Rowan, your desire to cram people into groups and draw conclusions as to their motives based on their identities - this time their sex - seems to have failed you here. Posted by: guest77 | Jan 3, 2014 9:28:25 AM | 57So it is. But perhaps I can claim first sighting of the New Moon, although technically, Rabi Al-Awaal of 1435 AH (and Shevat of 5774 AM) began yesterday.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 3 2014 17:14 utc | 59
@51 -Tom you have asked a very good question, which has got many dimensions and angles to it and entire books can be written on each angle. I will keep it short and brief:
In essence, there is no full scale Sunni-Shiah war going on in the Muslim World - its more a struggle between the Saudis, who are trying to spread the Salafi/Hanbali/Wahabi school of thought in to the Levant and make it the dominant Islamic world viewpoint of the locals there VERSUS - in the case of Syria - is the Syrian govt. which is headed by a president, who is of Alawite background, and is an strategic ally of Iran. The Saudis and the backers of the rebels, expected a quick victory, via the armed groups. The Saudis fall back position, if they fail, is enticing the US/EU to bomb the govt. out of power allowing rebels to take over key cities - ala. Afghanistan, when US bombed Taliban and Northern Alliance fighters moving in OR what happened in Libya. Both of these Saudi position has not worked in the 2st point and, thanks to Russian/Iranian diplomacy, 2nd did not happen.
Now, you must understand that within Sunni Islam, there is a intellectual/theological battle going on as to what is Sunni Islam and who are the religous leaders of that understanding. The Saudis, who follow Wahabism, which originated in the desset of Najd, want Wahabism - a.k.a Salafism - which is an form of Hanbalism, to be THE Islam of the masses. According to their dawah/propogation, most Sunni Muslims in the Muslim World are not following "true Islam". Due to them not following "true Islam", Islam became weak and defeated, the Ottoman Sultan been part of that. They think, due to the sudden oil wealth they have, God has blessed them with this as they are following true Islam, as propagated by Ibn Abdal Wahab in the 18thC. The Al-Sauds made a pact with the Al-Sheikhs (Ibn Wahabs clan), where the Al-Sheikhs will give religous cover to the Saudis political ambitions. This is symbolised in the 2 swords under the date tree, which is the national symbol of KSA. They are very quick to accuse others of innovation (bidah), polythiesm (shirk) and heresy/unbelief (kufr). They reject the concept of Sufism, reject the 4 legal school of thoughts (madhabs), and they only accept the Quran and Sunnah as the sources of Shariah Law and reject philosophy and logic and they tend to follow the preaching and works ob Ibn Taymiyyah. Anyway on the other side, Islam as understood and taught by Al-Azhar University, and other major Muslim centre of learnings, consider Sunni Islam, to be somebody, who follows one of the Sunni legal schools (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali) in terms of the Shariah and beliefs in either the Ashari or Maturidi theological schools. Sufism is accepted as an Islamic science and Sufi shaykhs are honored and reverred. They also expect that one must be qualified in the various Islamic sciences to teach/speak about Islam and there is a certification system for this called ijazahs when one has mastered one of the sciences. They tend to follow the works of Imam Ghazzali. This can be called "traditional Islam" as opposed to "wahabi Islam".
The Saudis are trying to legitimise themselve by being the "champions" of Islam by spreading Wahabi Islam to other countries over the last 40years - they have had some traction. Wahabi/Salafi preachers are now everywhere spreading Islam they understand to masses. The Saudis literally have spend billions on Wahabi Islam propagation, under the guidance of the Al-Shaykh familily. This includes building new msoques, madrasahs, providing free literature - via publishing houses like Dar as-Salam, re-editing and dsitributing classical Islamic texts, translating classical islamic texts which are heavily edited and have long introductions on Wahabism by their senior scholars, holding international conferences in Mecca, etc. Unfortunately, Salafism/Wahabism tends to make its adherents very angry young men, there are many reasons for this and since they do not respect national borders or authorities, will tend to graivtate towards violence to purify the govt. and will have animosity towards other Muslims who do not follow their way. The Saudis view that by controlling Islam and the holy places, will give them religious legitimacy and keep them in political power. See how they got their scholars to pass a death fatwa on the Syrian producer of a film about Ibn Saud - as they believe he is a hero of Islam and untouchable. They also do not want political opposition to their world view hence they oppose the Muslim Brotherhoods political outlook and aslo oppose Shiasm, not because they are Shias per-se but because of the political doctrine of Velyat-al-Faqih.
In Syria, Shaykh Ramadan Al-Bouti - who was a very very senior Sunni scholar, opposed the so called uprising as he saw what it was all about and preached against fighting the Syrian govt. Before the Syrian crisis erupted, he was one of the senior scholars who challenged Wahabism and warned Sunni Muslims about it - debating the Wahabi senior scholars, including the late Shakyh Albani. He was a deep thorn in the side of the Wahabi project in the Levant. Hence they murdered him - but his position has been filled by his son, who is a senior scholar in his onw right.
From looking at the statements of Syrian and Iranian religious and political officials, they will not only militarily fight to get rid of the takfiri militants, but they will now fight Wahabism/Salafism on the religious and ideological level, by giving space to traditional Sunni Scholars to win back the everyday people away from Salafism via theological/religious arguments and also, the hell the various Salafi/Wahabi/Takfiri groups have created for general people whereever they have been or controlled.
Anyway I have covered a the religous/theological angle - I think its best, if you live in America to contact Prof Assad Abu-Khalil (Angry Arab), Prof. Hamid Algar, Dr Umar Faruq Abd-allah who can give a more advice. Also, look at the writings of Prof. T.J. Winters from England, aka Abdal Hakim Murad. And check out Col. Pat Langs blog as he has talked about this after the Boston bombing. Also ask this question at goingtotehran.com - you will get some very good responses (response here are good aswell).
Posted by: Irshad | Jan 3 2014 17:18 utc | 60
@Tom, please see this recent article too:
Volgograd and the Conquest of Eurasia: Has the House of Saud seen its Stalingrad?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/volgograd-and-the-conquest-of-eurasia-will-the-house-of-saud-see-its-stalingrad/5363440
Posted by: Irshad | Jan 3 2014 17:55 utc | 61
re 60
Your analysis is good and has a lot of value.
Nevertheless, Saudi looks to be pushing a Sunni-Shi'a War. Obviously the problem is the Shi'a population who happen to be sitting on the Saudi Oil-fields.
The Wahhabi policy is not new. Aurangzeb, the Moghul emperor in India (1618-1707), pushed a restoration of strict Sunni Islam, against the syncretist policies of his predecessors. A century later his dynasty was suppressed by the British. If he'd been more open, the Moghul domains might have survived.
The Wahhabis are barking up an impossible tree. The Shi'a will not be displaced from the government in Iraq. In Syria who knows what will happen. Shi'ism will remain in Iraq, and thus Shi'ism in the Eastern Province of Saudi will always have moral support. The Saudis have to make peace with them.
Posted by: alexno | Jan 3 2014 22:29 utc | 62
someone hates free health care
'Syria's hospitals targeted by NATO-backed armed groups.
Since 2011 NATO-backed armed groups have systematically attacked more than two thirds of Syria's public hospitals, and have murdered, kidnapped or injured more than 300 health workers. The most recent example of this was the destruction of Aleppo's specialist Al-Kindi hospital.
Syria's Health Minister Dr Sa'ad al Nayef told a visiting Australian solidarity delegation on 22 December that foreign backed terrorists had detonated two truck bombs, completely destroying the hospital. Dr Malek Ali, Syria's Minister for Higher Education told Syria's SANA news agency that Al-Kindi, was a functioning educational hospital co-managed by his ministry.
In an Orwellian revision of events the BBC (21 December) reported the destruction of Al-Kindi with the headline: "Syria rebels take back strategic hospital in Aleppo". The introduction claimed the "massive suicide lorry bomb" had managed "to seize back a strategic ruined hospital occupied by Assad loyalists." Al-Kindi was said to have been "a disused building" and "according to an unconfirmed report, 35 rebels died in the attack".
The BBC double-speak needs a little translation. These "rebels" were the mostly non-Syrian troops of the al Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al Nusra, funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and allowed free entry into northern Syria by the government of Turkey. The "Assad loyalists" were the staff of a large public hospital.
Dr al Nayef told the Australian delegation that, since the crisis began in March 2011, 67 of the country's 94 national hospitals had been attacked and damaged, with 41 out of service. 174 health workers had been killed, 127 wounded and 33 kidnapped.
In addition, 1921 primary health centres had been damaged, and 678 were out of service. 421 ambulances had been lost or were out of service, and 197 support vehicles had been damaged, with 169 out of service.
The scale of destruction of health facilities, combined with attacks on schools, universities and massacres of civilians (often falsely blamed on the government), shows the NATO-backed armed groups have been intent on destroying a functioning state, and have no interest in trying to win public support.
Attacks on public hospitals have been carried out by both the Muslim Brotherhood-linked FSA and the Saudi backed groups al Nusra, ISIS and the Islamic Front.
Minister al Nayef showed the delegation video of the FSA (Farouk Brigade) attacking Homs National Hospital on 6 April 2012, another of the damage to Al- Salamiyeh National Hospital (Hama) after an attack on 21 January 2013 and a third video of the damage to Al Zahrway Hospital (Damascus) after yet another terrorist attack on 5 May 2013.
The Health Minister also gave the delegation details of the 26 November 2013 terrorist attack on Deir-Ateya Hospital in Rural Damascus, where 11 medical staff (2 Anesthesiologists, 3 Resident doctors, 4 Nurses and 2 Drivers) were stabbed to death.
Health services have been free in Syria and the Health Ministry says that "despite all the pressures and the economic siege" the ministry continues to provide free medical and health services, with "nearly 4.5 million citizens" visiting public hospitals in the last year and "more than 30 million" free consultations, treatments and other health services.'
Posted by: brian | Jan 3 2014 23:06 utc | 63
I'm having trouble accessing the whole WSJ piece, but from what I picked up of it from the lunch club, this appears to be the paragraph with the highest percentage of fact:
Saudi officials fumed at the U.S. for failing to launch strikes against Mr. Assad over the chemical weapons attack, and Prince Bandar threatened to scale back cooperation with the CIA. The frustration was mutual. In private meetings with U.S. officials, Mr. Kerry singled out Prince Bandar as "the problem," complaining about his conduct, according to meeting participants.... A former senior Obama administration official said Saudi leaders misread U.S. sentiment. The White House, the former official said, had no obligation to come to the rescue "when they picked a fight they couldn't win."
Aside from this morsel, the rest of the piece appears to be the neocon/neolib scribes at the WSJ helping to forward the most recent tweak to the hasbara that Hezbollah is a huge menace throughout the region and Israel is rightly preparing to defend itself: in Lebanon, Saudi and/or Israeli terrorist operatives are trying to foment civil war between March 14 takfiri factions and March 8 Hezbollah/Aoun factions through a series of suicide bombs and assassinations, while the Saudis are bribing March 14 leaders with $3 billion in (French) armaments -- but only if they will quickly form a government without Hezbollah and set the Lebanese Army on Hezbollah (while the Lebanese Army has a reputation of not doing much, its members are well-aware that the attacks it has experienced have come from Takfiri militants, not Hezbollah). Nasrallah is not biting, trying to avoid civil war.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jan 4 2014 2:16 utc | 64
ISIS has its own twitter?
Syricide @Syricide 2h
Now #ISIS supporters are crying about the western backed #FSA
Cant make this shit up ..
أنصار دولة الإسلام
@Islamic_States
picture of #ISIS brothers (my brothers) who martyred by #fsa, while the Islamic front calls ISIS as oppresors. pic.twitter.com/Y6YryD7Ah3
=============
ISIS guy says:
@Islamic_States
If the so-called terrorists are those who only adhere to Quran and Hadith, then we bear witness,that we are terrorists @abualbawi ex-secular
anti-nationalism & tribalism...
ie he is for international islamism and on that basis is happy to attack nation states .
Posted by: brian | Jan 4 2014 3:25 utc | 65
'Saudi officials fumed at the U.S. for failing to launch strikes against Mr. Assad'
interesting language...was the idea to have a dozen missiles target the person of president Assad while leaving Damascus untouched?
Posted by: brian | Jan 4 2014 3:27 utc | 66
@KeepingtheLeith 6h
PT:
Mustafaa Hinnu
Yusuf Ma'roof
Mahmoud Al-Naa'ima
Sayfund Jaraaheedi
19 others without identification.
ليث أبو فاضل @KeepingtheLeith 6h
PT:
Murak Al-Mahdi (Sudanese)
Fawaz Al-Utayba (Saudi)
Yunus Al-Anfi (Saudi)
Muhammad Al-Aswaani (Egyptian)
Abdul-Basset Abdul-Rahman
ليث أبو فاضل @KeepingtheLeith 6h
PT Rubayya Terrorists:
Wissaam Al-Imbeeni (Saudi)
Luke Baroodi (Brit?)
Seedaar Sindar (Bangladeshi)
Yusuf Marouf (Jordanian)
ليث أبو فاضل @KeepingtheLeith 6h
Al-Rubayya: The #SAA utilized drones to track down a Jabhat al-Nusra unit in this Latakia village. 32 terrorists killed by the SAA and SAAF.
Posted by: brian | Jan 4 2014 3:45 utc | 67
young british nationals : devout muslms go on jihad with alqaeda in syria: goal? to kill syrians and establish an islamic emirate.... a look into the minds of jihadis...likely lads deluded by media lies or extremists bent on turning a secular state into islamist hell?
Syria: "...Over the past few weeks, foreign fighters from ISIS and their subgroup the Muhajireen Brigade have been busy uploading selfies across Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, in an effort to publicise their cause and win more recruits to the Syrian jihad. They offer a bizarre and fascinating look inside Syria’s most feared and least understood militant groups..." http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/syrian-jihadist-selfies-tell-us-a-lot-about-their-war
the psychology is a very interesting mix of modern western values and strict sharia
Posted by: brian | Jan 4 2014 5:58 utc | 68
'Above are two other recent British martyrs, Choukri Ellekhlifi, 22, and Mohammed el-Araj, 23. The pair are shown here at a jihadist internet café in Atmeh, a Syrian border town that is now firmly under ISIS control. After they died, another British fighter wrote this glowing tribute to el-Araj on Facebook:
“This brother need no introduction. Those who knew him knew he was always working for his deen! He had the best manners, he came with a brother and left this world with the brother! They where tight and where both at the top of their classes and within a month where graduated as commandos and started teaching others! They both got married and left their wives within a week an went fi sabilillah coz they cud not sit around whilst the ummah was in this state! They were harsh towards the disbelievers and humble towards those who breathed la illaha illa llah, they didn't bother arguing with a Muslim even if they where in the right! Wollahi they stood out from amongst those who are the best of us in jihaad! May Allah the all mighty, the all wise, the magnificent, the ruler over all, the king of all kings accept all their efforts, forgive them their sins, allow us to reunite with them, keep firm those whom they left behind, keep us all steadfast upon the haqq and to earn HIS Allah swt pleasures until HE the supreme looks at us and smiles! Peace and blessing be to the best of man kind our beloved muhammed s.a.w, his family and the sahaba r.a. My brother philistini who beat us to the finish line! We soon come insha ALLAH ta'la.”
The high casualty rate suffered by British and other European jihadists – referred to in the martyr tributes below – at least partially refutes claims by the relatively secular FSA rebels that ISIS and their allies rarely, if ever, fight the regime:'
......
'Another British jihadist tumblr account states that Turkish border guards facilitated their illegal entry into Syria, despite Turkey’s recent denials of support for jihadist groups (the bracketed notes are his own):
“a huge army vehicle from the Turkish army appeared from the border we were about to cross. On top of it was a machine gun with a soldier in control of it and two more men inside. A few of the brothers thought this was it, that we were going to attain martyrdom or be arrested, strangely enough my heart felt at ease and content. They commanded us to get out of the car and asked us to open our luggage. They asked us were we jaysh al-hur [Free Syrian Army] but we replied no we are here for sadaqah and we weren’t lying as we had no intentions of being anything to do with jaysh al-hur (free Syrian army) as many among them are murtadūn (apostates).'
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/syrian-jihadist-selfies-tell-us-a-lot-about-their-war
Posted by: brian | Jan 4 2014 6:26 utc | 69
'Above are two other recent British martyrs, Choukri Ellekhlifi, 22, and Mohammed el-Araj, 23. The pair are shown here at a jihadist internet café in Atmeh, a Syrian border town that is now firmly under ISIS control. After they died, another British fighter wrote this glowing tribute to el-Araj on Facebook:
“This brother need no introduction. Those who knew him knew he was always working for his deen! He had the best manners, he came with a brother and left this world with the brother! They where tight and where both at the top of their classes and within a month where graduated as commandos and started teaching others! They both got married and left their wives within a week an went fi sabilillah coz they cud not sit around whilst the ummah was in this state! They were harsh towards the disbelievers and humble towards those who breathed la illaha illa llah, they didn't bother arguing with a Muslim even if they where in the right! Wollahi they stood out from amongst those who are the best of us in jihaad! May Allah the all mighty, the all wise, the magnificent, the ruler over all, the king of all kings accept all their efforts, forgive them their sins, allow us to reunite with them, keep firm those whom they left behind, keep us all steadfast upon the haqq and to earn HIS Allah swt pleasures until HE the supreme looks at us and smiles! Peace and blessing be to the best of man kind our beloved muhammed s.a.w, his family and the sahaba r.a. My brother philistini who beat us to the finish line! We soon come insha ALLAH ta'la.”
The high casualty rate suffered by British and other European jihadists – referred to in the martyr tributes below – at least partially refutes claims by the relatively secular FSA rebels that ISIS and their allies rarely, if ever, fight the regime:'
......
'Another British jihadist tumblr account states that Turkish border guards facilitated their illegal entry into Syria, despite Turkey’s recent denials of support for jihadist groups (the bracketed notes are his own):
“a huge army vehicle from the Turkish army appeared from the border we were about to cross. On top of it was a machine gun with a soldier in control of it and two more men inside. A few of the brothers thought this was it, that we were going to attain martyrdom or be arrested, strangely enough my heart felt at ease and content. They commanded us to get out of the car and asked us to open our luggage. They asked us were we jaysh al-hur [Free Syrian Army] but we replied no we are here for sadaqah and we weren’t lying as we had no intentions of being anything to do with jaysh al-hur (free Syrian army) as many among them are murtadūn (apostates).'
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/syrian-jihadist-selfies-tell-us-a-lot-about-their-war
Posted by: brian | Jan 4 2014 6:29 utc | 70
Are the Saudis using Syria and Lebanon to get rid of their own extremists and dissidents?
The Saudi governemnt is unable to control the financing by private rich GCC citizens and charities of the Al Qaeda dissidents. They know that Al Qaeda could easily destabilise this weak and pro-West family led regime. They know that the USA won't help them militarily and they cannot count on their 'army'
Therefore they have found a solution: Using their religious sheikhs, the Kingdom is encouraging the Al Qaeda members and other dangerous extremists to go to Syria and Lebanon. Then, in Syria, they are financing the Islamic Front and in Lebanon they just offered 3b $ to the Lebanese army to exterminate Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
This way, they avoid the need to use their territory and their arm to do that dirty job.
Posted by: Virgile | Jan 4 2014 18:09 utc | 71
TomV’s question at 1
Can anyone explain in non-religious terms (political economy) what the objective is of Sunni fighter’s (el k dah, takfiris, whatever). I cannot believe these men and women killing themselves has anything to do with who is the legitimate successor of Mohammad any more than I believe the Crusades or intra European religious wars had anything to do with Christ.
A partial answer in a few points :
(Taking Syria as an ex. but a generalist response)
1. Desperately poor young men with no future will join violent movements, and they most often simply adhere without organizing themselves. They may travel, come from abroad (Their number has been growing in the past 10 years - joblessness, climate, war, starvation..) They may masquerade as the representatives of Allah (any brand.) Nothing to do with religion at all.
Then there are all those caught in the middle who have no choice but to take sides to save their lives. These may be older males, families, whole villages, civil orgs, etc. Again, not religious, but just saving your skin.
2. When the rule of law and social cohesion breaks down ppl turn tribal, relying on circuits of ‘trust’ that supposedly existed before, these might be religious, ethnic, nationalist, anything, but with family always a point of loyalty. That is the general mechanism.
3. The far-away Overlords like to provoke strife (divide to rule) and will go along with any division. The Orientalist pov (e.g. as bruited the media) will inflate religious differences (to ignore all others such as geographical, political, economic) to make the ppl seem ‘backward’, involved in centuries old quarrels, debates.
4. Taking all this together, those who have power to federate (outside of the collapsed State) do so under a ‘religious’ banner, and they may be mightily compensated - because that is what is being primed, pumped, and does speak to many ppl who have nothing else to hang onto, and religious bodies often have a past of instituted social out reach (not in Syria, but see for ex. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.)
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 4 2014 19:07 utc | 72
TomV’s question at 1 - I am late but maybe some will get something out of this..
Can anyone explain in non-religious terms (political economy) what the objective is of Sunni fighter’s (el k dah, takfiris, whatever). I cannot believe these men and women killing themselves has anything to do with who is the legitimate successor of Mohammad any more than I believe the Crusades or intra European religious wars had anything to do with Christ.
A partial answer in a few points :
(Taking Syria as an ex. but this is a generalist response)
1. Desperately poor young men with no future will join violent or criminal movements, and they most often simply adhere to x without organizing themselves - they don’t know each other! They may travel, come from abroad (Their number has been growing in the past 10 years - no jobs, climate, war, starvation..) They may masquerade as the representatives of Allah (any type.) Nothing to do with religion at all.
Then there are all those caught in the middle who have no choice but to take sides to save their lives. These may be older males, families, whole villages, civil orgs, etc. Just saving your skin.
2. When the rule of law and social cohesion breaks, violence and hunger set in, ppl turn tribal, relying on circuits of ‘trust’ that supposedly existed before, these might be religious, ethnic, nationalist, territorial, anything, but with family always a point of loyalty. That is the general mechanism. Religion often overlaps with territory, language, class, position in society, particularly in ‘strong, equalizing, dictatorial or just heavy-handed’ States which disallow or wash away (or so is the claim) differences while just gingerly tolerating the necessary. So the spiritual realm (aka brands of religious dogma) gain a wedge.
3. The far away / close (depending) Overlords like to provoke strife (divide to rule) and will go along with any division. The Orientalist pov (e.g. as bruited the media) inflates religious differences (to ignore all others such as geographical, political, economic) to make the ppl seem ‘backward’, involved in centuries old quarrels, debates.
4. In situations of confused civil / proxy war and the like successful killing and attacks (incl. suicide attacks) are a show of strength to gain more power - but as we see today it is often difficult to identify a ‘clear’ enemy, so (say) a few Christians hanging about will have to do.
All together, those who have power to federate (outside of the collapsed State) do so under a ‘religious’ banner, and they may be mightily compensated with aid and monies - because that is what is being primed, pumped, and does speak to many ppl who have nothing else to hang onto. Religious bodies often have a past of instituted social out-reach (not in Syria, but see for ex. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And boy do the generals there regret letting THAT get out of hand..) and speak the tongue of universal values that resonate.
Atheists pray in crashing airplanes, I have heard.
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 5 2014 15:03 utc | 73
The comments to this entry are closed.
Can anyone explain in non-religious terms (political economy) what the objective is of Sunni fighter’s (el k dah, takfiris, whatever). I cannot believe these men and women killing themselves has anything to do with who is the legitimate successor of Mohammad any more than I believe the Crusades or intra European religious wars had anything to do with Christ.
While there are always some extreme believers in any religion that will act the extreme, but when masses across many countries with different histories, languages, pick up guns and leave home or even have TNT strapped to their chest, they have some motivation other than theological debates. Some material force is motivating them. Ironically, as Assad has pointed out, they never attack Israeli people or interests or for that matter with minor exceptions American. The Sunni sects are clearly at war with the Shia. But Why?
Posted by: TomV | Jan 2 2014 14:30 utc | 1