Friday, December 16, 2011

The false monolith of political Islam....US believe their own propaganda....

The false monolith of political Islam....
By Brendan P O'Reilly

One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter Three

The leaders of the American government make the gravest mistake possible for a world power. They believe their own propaganda.....

Elected officials and media pundits warn American citizens of the ever-increasing peril of "Islamic terrorism”, "Islamic fundamentalism" or the supposedly extant ideology of "Islamofacism".

A multitude of states and organizations with extremely divergent objectives and methods are grouped together as a part of this monolithic threat. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the government of Iran, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas in Gaza and the Somali al-Shabaab are but a few of the many faces of the same worldwide monster in the eyes of many American leaders. These groups are said to be a united force of evil brought together by Islamist ideology and a hatred of America.

"Terrorism" (always implicitly if not explicitly associated with Islam) is the open-ended boogeyman of the American psyche, used to justify foreign wars and the erosion of domestic liberties. For this danger to seem real, it must be presented as a powerful conspiracy of inherently hostile forces. A perfect summary of this paranoid worldview is provided by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion on a case that allowed Guantanamo Bay prisoners the right to habeas corpus:
America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and 40 in Pennsylvania. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.
Notice how Scalia calls "the enemy" an "it" - a faceless, amorphous foe capable of changing shape and striking at will. According to the specific propaganda needs of the American ruling elite, "It" can be Shiite Hezbollah in 1983, or "It" can be Sunni al-Qaeda in 2001. "It" is Iraqi guerillas fighting the military occupation of their country, and at the same time "It" is the Taliban. "It" is the reason that the US government must destroy key provisions of our own constitution.

Besides engaging in the folly of dehumanizing this supposedly unified enemy, at no time does Scalia think about the various motives and methods of these non-state actors. Shooting a soldier in battle is quite obviously different than flying a plane full of civilians into a skyscraper, and various Saudis, Lebanese, Afghans and Iraqis have quite different reasons for disliking the United States. Scalia's sweeping generalization is contradicted not only by common sense, but also by Colonel Timothy J Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut during the 1983 bombing:
It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support - which I strongly opposed for a week - to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 ... American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision. [1]
United States Marines were attacked in Lebanon for intervening in the country's civil war. On the other hand, the motivations for Iraqi and Afghan insurgents are primarily personal and nationalistic. To conflate these disparate groups with the terrorists of al-Qaeda is not only unfair, it is a basis for self-defeating policy. One cannot defeat an enemy that one refuses to understand.

When former presidential candidate Herman Cain was asked about his position on the North Atlantic Treaty Orgization (NATO) intervention in Libya, he responded by asking "Do I agree with siding with the opposition? Do I agree with saying that [Muammar] Gaddafi should go? Do I agree that they now have a country where you've got Taliban and al-Qaida that's going to be part of the government?"

This confusion of North African Islamists with Afghan insurgents in the Hindu Kush would be laughable were it not reflective of a powerful strain of American discourse. Policymakers define the various forces of Islamism as a united threat in order to expand their political power at home and abroad. However, the policies enacted with this gross misunderstanding are inevitably self-defeating.

The past repeats itself
The American fallacy of the worldwide, ideological, monolithic enemy is not new. During the Cold War, Americans were told that international communism was a united front that threatened America itself. Groups as disparate as the Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, China, the Vietcong and the Khmer Rouge were all said to be the minions of this global communist conspiracy. This irrational theory was one of the primary factors for the disastrous decision-making that led to America's military intervention in Vietnam.

The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, North Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge were all "communist", but their mutual differences and animosities were manifold. By the 1960s, the Sino-Soviet split was turning into a gaping chasm, as their armies fought battles along their border. China and Vietnam had more than a thousand years of reciprocated animosity. The Cambodians also had a strong nationalistic aversion to Vietnamese power.

Undoubtedly, the Soviet Union presented a very real military threat to America. However, instead of wisely exploiting it's differences and rivalries with other communist nations for geological gain, the leaders of the United States implemented aggressive policies based on sweeping generalizations and simplistic thinking. Instead of viewing the conflict in Vietnam from a regional or historical perspective, Lyndon Johnson spoke of "the battle against communism".

America went to Southeast Asia to fight "communism", and was therefore defeated by the same nationalistic forces that had fought empires for time immemorial. Instead of learning from the military defeats of the Mongol, Chinese, Japanese, and French empires in Vietnam, the American government jumped headlong into a war to fight it's own cartoonish hallucination.

The end result was more than 58,000 dead American soldiers, more than a million dead Vietnamese, and the toxic legacy of Agent Orange. Countless lives were ruined by drug abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder, and billions of dollars wasted. For what end?

After the United States pursued a more realistic policy by engaging China and withdrawing from Vietnam, the monolith of international communism crumbled. The only thing that had united the interests of Soviet, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cambodian communists in Southeast Asia was a common enemy. Once that enemy left the region, these supposedly united forces began fighting each other. The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to drive out the Khmer Rouge, and China responded with a brief but bloody attack on the northern border of Vietnam.

Today Vietnam is a de-facto ally of America against a rising China, despite the fact that both nations are "communist".

Geopolitics 101
Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter Three

Iran, as the most significant Islamist regime in opposition to American domination, is the archetypical "bad guy" of American discourse. Undoubtedly, the Iranian regime supports the Syrian government, Hamas and Hezbollah as a counter to US and Israeli hegemony.

However, Iran's backing of these groups is based more on mutual interests than an ideological alliance. Syria is a secular state; Hezbollah is Shi'ite, and Hamas Sunni. The main force binding these political actors together is their mutual animosity with Israel. This coalition would be likely collapse in the event of a reasonable negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

In the past few years, American officials have accused Iran of aiding Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban. Such an alliance, if it exists, would be the direct result of the utterly incompetent foreign policy of the United States. Iraq and Iran fought a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s.

Furthermore, Iran has a long history of backing anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan. In 1998, Iran almost went to war against the Taliban after Taliban forces murdered eight Iranian diplomats in Mazar al-Sharif. Iran strongly condemned the September 11 attacks and welcomed the overthrow of the Taliban, going as far as to provide useful intelligence for attacking Taliban targets during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

Their reward? To be labeled part of the "axis of evil" in 2002 along with archrival Iraq and distant North Korea.

The differences between to the Iranian regime, Iraqi guerillas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban go far beyond important matters of nationality, culture and sect. For example, when the Taliban were in power they banned women's education. On the other hand, 65% of undergraduates in Iranian universities are women [2].

It seems al-Qaeda would almost certainty disapprove of the Iranian government's subsidizes for gender reassignment surgeries, or the provision in the Iranian constitution that mandates a Jewish member in the Iranian parliament.

Even al-Qaeda and the Taliban are only presently unified by their current animosity to America. In October 2001 the Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the United States stopped its bombing campaign [3]. The ongoing debacle in Afghanistan could have been avoided if the American government had been wise enough to make a distinction between different groups of Islamic fundamentalists.

Willful ignorance of one's supposed enemies is not even the most damaging effect of America's continued rhetoric about the monolithic face of political Islam. Describing these various groups and regimes as a unified threat is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By aggressively intervening in the Greater Middle East, the United States has created an interest for a variety of Islamist state and non-state actors to cooperate with each other. It is unthinkable that Iraqi nationalists, Iran, and the Taliban could work together - except in the face of a common enemy.

Political Islam is no more a unified alliance than were the various communist movements and government. If and when the United States ends its military interventions in the Muslim World, the various forces of political Islam are likely to turn on each other.

If the United States is serious about tackling the threat of transnational terrorism, it needs all the help it can get. Nationalist elements with rational goals must be engaged. Instead, the American government seems bent on creating as many enemies as possible.

It's policies of continued occupation in Afghanistan, threats against Syria and Iran, and ongoing antagonism to Hezbollah and the Palestinians are creating precisely the unified front it says to fear. Beyond these current follies in the Muslim world, the US seems bent on hostility towards it's Pakistani ally and the much more significant powers of Russia and China. These actions stem from a twisted worldview and the lack of the basic elements of strategy.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications. Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter Two

1. Colonel Timothy J Geraghty, US Marine Corps (Retired).
25 Years Later: We Came in Peace. USNI Magazine.
In Iran women race ahead, but still face gender block. Huffington Post.
3. Rory McCarthy.
New offer on Bin Laden. The Guardian.

Brendan P O'Reilly is a China-based writer and educator from Seattle. He is author of The Transcendent Harmony.

الشرق الأوسط الجديد والإمبراطورية الاخوانية

بعد عقود من التعلق بقيم الديمقراطية وحقوق الانسان، سمحت اعتداءت الحادي عشر من أيلول/سبتمبر التي استهدفت الولايات المتحدة الأميركية للمحافظين الجدد بالإمساك بمفاصل السياسة الأميركية وبات بالتالي بإمكانهم العمل على جعل فكرهم موضع الاختبار ونشر رسالة " أميركا المسيحانية"، الامبراطورية الثورية، التي وكما يقول مايكل ليدن " نحن مجتمع ثوري كبير في العالم ونريد الثورة. لا نريد الاستقرار. نريد إسقاط كل الظالمين المستبدين".

وكان إحتلال العراق وولادة نظرية " الشرق الأوسط الجديد" كأولى تجليات هذا الفكر الرسولي. فكما يقول ريشارد بيرل " كي يتم التمكن من صبّ نبيذ الديمقراطية، يجب الإطاحة بسدادة القنينة صدام حسين".

فتغيير النظام في العراق سيشكل الفجوة التي ستتمكن من خلالها الديمقراطية من الإنتشار والتوسع في العالم العربي، فتمتد نسائم الحرية كرقعة الزيت، ويتساقط الطغيان كأحجار الدومينو.

وحين نتحدث عن شرق أوسط جديد يفترض بنا بدايةً أن نتلفت ونمعن النظر في الشرق الأوسط القديم لنفهم ماهية التغيير والأهداف المرجوة منه.

فالشرق الأوسط القديم انما هو عبارة عن شرق أوسط تحكمه نخبة سنية متسلطة، للأقليات فيه أدوار شبه معدومة (باستثناء سوريا ولبنان).

من هنا فكل جديد يعني تعرض هذا البنيان السني للتضعضع والإهتزاز ما قد يسمح للمارد الشيعي من الخروج من القمقم. فيصبح بالتالي من السهل تفهم موقف المملكة العربية السعودية والأردن غير المحبذ لسقوط نظام صدام حسين الذي وعلى الرغم من سيئاته يبقى الضامن للسيطرة السنية في بلد ذي غالبية شيعية. تطور دفع بالعاهل الأردني عبدالله الثاني من التحذير علناً من خطر قيام " هلال شيعي" من إيران وصولاً إلى جنوب لبنان.

فعلى ما يقول ولي نصر في كتابه " صحوة الشيعة " :" هذا الشرق الأوسط القديم الأخذ في الزوال حالياً وسط حالة من الإضطراب الشديد كان في جوهره موئلاً للمؤسسة السنية الحاكمة، ومن أجلها، وفي متناولها، ورهن مشيئتها. أما الشرق الأوسط الجديد الذي يولد حالياً ولادة متشنجة ....فإن ثمة هوية جديدة تحدده على قدم المساواة، تلك هي هوية الشيعة".

ويبدو هذا الإستنتاج في حينه دقيقاً جداً. فاحتلال أفغانستان والعراق انما أتى بفائدة كبرى لإيران ما سمح ببسط نفوذها في هاتين الدولتين والتحكم بالكثير من مجريات الأمور فيهما.

كما أن " الأعضاء المنتخبين في الحكومة العراقية الناشئة ما بعد الحرب كانوا من أوائل القادة الشيعة الذين تقيم معهم الولايات المتحدة إتصالاً مباشراً وذا معنى منذ الثورة الإيرانية".

أما السيد حسن نصر الله فلم ينفك يذكر في أكثر من خطاب عن عروض تلقاها حزب الله من قبل الولايات المتحدة الأميركية والتي تقوم على المساومة، فمقابل تليين حزب الله لمواقفه فالولايات المتحدة مستعدة لقبول هيمنة شيعية متزايدة في لبنان، واستبدال المناصفة بالمثالثة.

ويستشف مما تقدم بأن العقلية التي ارادت الولايات المتحدة اظهارها من خلال نظرية الشرق الأوسط الجديد انما هي عقلية إنفتاح على الشيعة، طبعاً ليس محبةً بالشيعة انما كرد فعل ناجم عن الهوس الذي ولدته الأصولية السنية المتجسدة بتنظيم القاعدة في نفوس الشعب الاميركي.

انما حسابات الحقل اختلفت عن حسابات البيدر. فما لم يدركه الامركيون هو أنه إذا كان الشيعة في العراق يتمنون سقوط صدام حسين فإنهم لم يكونوا مطلقاً على إستعداد لتقبل وصاية أميركية.

أما إيران فعلى الرغم من الخدمة المجانية التي قدمتها لها الولايات المتحدة في العراق، فلم تكن على استعداد لتقاسم الأرباح.

أما حزب الله فتبين أنه شديد التمسك بأيديولوجيته ومبادئه على عكس الأحزاب اللبنانية التقليدية المتاجرة بالسياسة والقابلة للمساومات.

وإذا بالمجريات تتبدل... فبعد الزيارة الشهيرة ل "كولن باول" إلى دمشق والتهديدات التي حملها للقيادة السورية، إلى إغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري وإتهام حزب الله بإرتكاب الجريمة، من ثم حرب تموز عام 2006 وحرب غزة عام 2008، وفق تسلسل مريب، فشلت جميع محاولات إضعاف محور المقاومة والممانعة الذي يشكل العائق الأساسي في وجه رسم خريطة سياسية جديدة للمنطقة، إلى أن برزت الثورات العربية واستغلال القوى الغربية وحلفائها مطالب الشعوب المحقة بالحرية والعدالة الإجتماعية من خلال ما يعرف "بالثورة المضادة" لتحقيق ما فشلت بإنجازه بالقوة والمؤامرة خلال سنوات.

والواقع أن القوى الغربية تفاجأت بهذه الثورات عند اندلاعها وظهر ارتباكها جلياً في كيفية التعاطي مع ما يجري، فمن لا يذكر تصريح وزيرة الداخلية الفرنسية والتي أبدت من خلاله إستعداد فرنسا لإرسال قوات أمن فرنسية إلى تونس للمساعدة في قمع الإنتفاضة، أم تردد الولايات المتحدة الأميركية في كيفية التعاطي مع الثورة المصرية في بداياتها.

وبما أنها كانت ولا تزال الراعي الأساسي لأنظمة القمع والطغيان في المنطقة فرصيدها عند الشعوب المنتفضة لا يخولها تبوؤ الصدارة في مرحلة ما بعد الثورة، من هنا كانت الحاجة ملحة للاستعانة بوكلائها في المنطقة للعب هذا الدور وإدارة دفة الثورة وفقا لما تقتضيه المصالح الغربية... فإذا بقطر العرابة المالية للثورات وتركيا العرابة الاديولوجية من خلال نسختها المعتدلة من الإسلام السياسي.

إلا أن التحالف والعلاقة الوطيدة ما بين تركيا وإسرائيل كانت تشكل عقبة أمام تصدير النموذج التركي وتضعف من شعبية النسخة العربية من "العدالة والتنمية" المتمثل بحركة الاخوان المسلمين، فبات من الضرورة إختراع الشخصية البطولية لأردوغان كقائد قادر على التصدي لإسرائيل وبالتالي مداعبة مخيلة عشرات الملايين من العرب التواقين لأسطورة طالما انتظروها بعد عقود من خنوع الأنظمة. فولدت مسرحية " سفينة الحرية" التي دفع ثمنها مناضلون أتراك.

أما خوف اسرائيل المصطنع من المد الإسلامي الذي إجتاح شمال أفريقيا فيهدف إلى تسليف الاخوان المسلمين شرعية مقاومة تفتقر إليها أدبياتهم وأفعالهم. فمعاداة إسرائيل تكسب دوماً في الشارع العربي. ففي قضيّة فلسطين، أفتى "حسن البنّا" بعدم تدخّل الحكومات العربيّة وجيوشها. قال إنّه لو أصبح «القتال ضروريّاً»، فيجب أن يقوم الشعب الفلسطيني بالمهمّة.

أما تصاريح "برهان غليون" عن قطع العلاقات مع إيران وحزب الله والسعي لتحرير الجولان وفقاً لمقتضيات الشرعية الدولية، أو ما اعلنه جيفري فيلتمان عن أن الاخوان وعدوا الادارة الأميركية بأنهم سيلتزمون بإتفاقية كامب ديفيد فهي حتماً هدايا ثمينة ومجانية تعطى لإسرائيل ولا تثير الريبة بأي حل من الأحوال.

تبقى سوريا، بوابة تركيا إلى العالم العربي، العقبة الأساسية أم لم شامل الإمبراطورية الاخوانية الناشئة والسد المنيع أمام إنجاز الشرق الأوسط الجديد.

رضا كميل صوايا

The nasty Zionist streaks of Turkey are very visible now as the global Zionist elites are pimping out Turkey to do their dirty war bidding in Syria....and Lebanon. Constant attempts to paint Turkey as all good all the time is in perfect alignment with the entire Zionist blogosphere which is proclaiming Turkey as good, sane, reasonable - and claiming it is Turkey, not the US, pushing this war on Syria (but because they are so good, we should just trust them and let this be "their" war - something which have been selling globally, which is also for sale at every Zionist outlet on the planet right now and no, no, not the Zionists but this is really Turkey's war - is that how it goes? You all download the same talking points....

Turkey is a very mixed grab bag and I merely wanted to point out which parties in Turkey you keep quoting and praising - once again, the beloved friends of Israel. See below - this is the man whom you sell as being so wonderful.

Iranian Daily: Turkish President Partner To Zionist Plot....

The Iranian daily Jomhouri-e Eslami said that Turkish President Abdullah Gul's call to Hamas to recognize Israel, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, attests that he is partner to the Zionist-Western plot aimed at toppling Hamas, and warned Gul that recognizing Israel would only encourage it to continue its aggression.

The paper also reminded Gul that Israel was still refusing to apologize for the killing of Turkish civilians in the Gaza flotilla last May.