King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia has made a landmark gesture to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by inviting the President to perform the ritual hajj to Mecca. Since the revolution in Iran, Saudi Arabia has strictly controlled the number of pilgrims allowed from the predominantly Shiite Iran. Several times it has even banned Iranian pilgrims from attending the pilgrimage. Iranian attendance in the hajj has not been without problems, the 1987 riot which left hundreds dead being the most notable.
Times have changed it seems. The King has discussed providing Iran's fledgling nuclear programme with fuel and recently included the Islamic Republic in a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Iran, who has desperately lacked allies in the region, has embraced the overtures enthusiastically. As I discussed in my previous entry, Saudi Arabia is making a concerted effort to reestablish its moral and political dominance in the region. It is deeply worried about conflict in the war-torn Middle East spreading further into the Arabian Peninsula.
What the King has done must be understood as truly revolutionary. According to the Kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam, Shittes have been considered apostates, subject to the death penalty. His offer may be faced with opposition from the clerical community of Saudi Arabia who hold authority over the devout masses. King Abdullah is playing a dangerous political game. His authority derives from the prescriptions of wahibbist Islam and the support of the clerics. While we ought admire the King's peacemaking efforts in a region of the world which has seen more than its fair share of conflict, he will have to move cautiously.
By no means is the King without support in his reform efforts. The popular outcry in the case of the Shiite rape victim must lend further support to his attempts to reform the judiciary. King Abdullah has yet to face serious domestic opposition thanks in large part to the on-going war in Iraq. For various religious, political, and ideological reasons the large majority of the Muslim world oppose the U.S. military's presence in Iraq. Any move made by the King which furthers the peace process in the region will be welcomed. If nothing else, the King's diplomatic gestures appear to embrace the lesser of two evils. The current state of the region may even lead to another previously unthinkable proposition, the establishment of diplomatic ties with Israel.
Annapolis has largely been ridiculed as the latest rendition in a string of failed summits and conferences purporting to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, while the speeches and joint declarations of Annapolis resemble their predecessors at Oslo and Camp David, the Annapolis conference differs in one very important aspect. Never before has the United States sought the input and aid of the Middle Eastern nations. Never before have the Arab nations of the Middle East entertained such a proposition. The very fact that Ayman al-Zawahri of al Qaeda has condemned the Arab nations for attending the conference shows the radical nature of such a change in policy.
It is doubtful that Annapolis by itself will solve the issue of a Palestinian state and Israeli sovereignty, but the Israelis now face pressure from a truly international community. The Palestinians no longer negotiate from a position of supreme disadvantage. Even if Annapolis is not the solution, ten years from now we may very well look back at the conference as the turning point in the process. Saudi Arabia's ability to reassert itself in regional politics may very well determine the success or failure of this current effort to resolve the 60 year-old conflict.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
RE: Karzai's overtures to the Taliban
As previously posted here, Hamid Karzai has made overtures to what he saw as a fractured Taliban resistance movement. As reported by the Daily Telegraph today, Mullah Abdul Salaam, one of the senior Taliban commanders is discussing possible defection of himself and all his forces. It seems that President Karzai may be on to something.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
RE: Saudi Arabia's power play
King Abullah visited Pope Benedict XVI in Rome, I hope they kept the receipts for their respective gifts. I'm not sure what His Holiness will do with a jewel-encrusted gold sword, or what His Majesty will do with a 16th Century engraving of the Vatican.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
RSS feed
My RSS feed address is (http://seanmclain.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default) for all those who use that sort of thing. For those who don't know, RSS stands for real simple syndication and is a simple way to stay updated on updates to a particular website. If you are interested to learn about this tool visit www.google.com/reader. There are various sorts of RSS readers you can use for this purpose. I don't expect there to be much interest in this feature, but being the tech junkie that I am, I could not resist adding the RSS feature.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Saudi Arabia's power play
As King Abdullah prepared for his state visit to the United Kingdom, he took a moment to criticize the British for not doing enough against terrorism. When you consider that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, the King's accusation looks almost humorous. It was, however, momentous in that it came from the usually quiescent Saudi Kingdom. King Abdullah did not just spend his visit in accusations, he also called for the creation of a global 'intelligence clearinghouse' for the processing of terrorism intelligence.
King Abdullah's call for a centralized international hub for terrorism intelligence marked the latest in a series of moves by the kingdom to assert itself as a leader in international politics. Saudi Arabia's image has for decades suffered from a negative image among Westerners for its medieval views on individual rights, and among Muslims for its alleged pandering to Western interests. This was not always the case. For many years, Saudi Arabia had been the moral center of the Muslim world, and its oil supply made it an influential member of the international community.
Saudi dominance in the Islamic world suffered a serious blow during the first Gulf War. The presence of soldiers from the morally bankrupt West was widely derided by Arab nations and from Saudi Arabia's own clerics. The continuing presence of U.S. military personnel in the country has been a thorn in the Monarchy's side. It serves as the main ammunition for the various radical Islamist groups and for Iran who criticize the royal family for being Muslims in word alone.
For its part, the West erupted in fury towards Saudi Arabia when its most notorious son Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network committed the atrocities of 9/11. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals and critics of Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox Wahabbist Islam gained unprecedented attention.
Saudi Arabia was caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. Its brand of Islam which gave the royal family its authority among Muslims now threatened its ties with the countries whose oil consumers were responsible for its vast wealth. On the other hand, its dominant position as the defender of Islam was being seriously challenged by Osama bin Laden and his jihadist fighters.
Saudi Arabia has made a series of recent maneuvers aimed to regain a position of dominance among Muslims and the West. Recently the country launched the website www.alifta.com/ whose goal is to centralize the issuance of fatwas in Saudi Arabia. Fatwas, religious rulings, cover every aspect of muslim life. The rulings vary depending on the cleric issuing them and are often contradictory because of that. Recently the issuance of the 'breastfeeding fatwa' from a lecturer at the prestigious, thousand year old Al-Azhar Islamic University in Egypt led to a popular outcry among Muslims and mockery from the West. The lecturer alleged that the strict requirement of the veil for women when in the company of men could be surmounted through a series of symbolic breastfeedings to establish a family relationship. The call for a central authority for fatwas is not new nor limited to the Saudi monarchy, and neither is the use of the internet for seekers of religious guidance. The use of the web to obtain fatwa rulings has been gaining popularity especially among Muslims living in Western nations. Saudi Arabia is seeking to monopolize on this new use of the internet with the launch of its own fatwa website. Should this endeavor succeed, the monarchy could reestablish its religious validity and give its brand of Islam a new platform.
While it is no secret that King Abdullah is furious over the war in Iraq, it is only recently that he has began to voice his criticism in the press. In an effort to defuse the rising tension in the Middle East, the Saudis have even reached out to its Shiite enemy Iran. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Prince Saud recently reported that the conglomerate of Persian Gulf oil states, the Gulf Cooperation Council, were willing to provide Iran with uranium for its nuclear energy program. While the move is aimed to end warmongering between Washington and Tehran, it places Saudi Arabia in role of peacemaker in the region. That is not the usual position for the Saudis who financed the the mujahideen Afghan war against the Soviets, Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as numerous other militant movements in Egypt, Lebanon, and Algeria. Saudia Arabia's big brother policy towards to the Arab world has also included reconciliation talks between the Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions.
The impact of Riyadh's all-out offensive remains to be seen. The much-touted talks between Fatah and Hamas failed to lead to a successful Palestinian unity government and the fall of Gaza was highly embarrassing for the Saudi monarchy.
For the Saudi fatwa website to succeed it will need to surmount difficulties presented by the decentralized nature of the post-Ottoman Empire Muslim world. Muslims are currently more likely to seek advice from their local imam or sheikh than from a Saudi website. And so far noone takes seriously the idea of Saudi Arabia providing Iran with uranium. In fact, despite all Saudi Arabia's best efforts, their multitude of moral and political projects have received a lukewarm reception at best. Despite this, Saudi Arabia's initiatives could potentially lead to peace in the Middle East. In a region with a history for conflict that stretches for milennia, any realistic potential for peace ought not be scoffed at.
The King is a legitimate ally of the West whose weaponry and oil consumption is principally responsible for his position of power, but he walks a dangerous tight-rope. Wahabbist Islam gives the monarchy its mandate for rule, but many of its adherents are rabid in their anti-Western sentiments. Saudi Arabia which straddles the battle lines in the war on terror may be uniquely capable of brokering peace in the region. It remains to be seen if they are up to the task.
King Abdullah's call for a centralized international hub for terrorism intelligence marked the latest in a series of moves by the kingdom to assert itself as a leader in international politics. Saudi Arabia's image has for decades suffered from a negative image among Westerners for its medieval views on individual rights, and among Muslims for its alleged pandering to Western interests. This was not always the case. For many years, Saudi Arabia had been the moral center of the Muslim world, and its oil supply made it an influential member of the international community.
Saudi dominance in the Islamic world suffered a serious blow during the first Gulf War. The presence of soldiers from the morally bankrupt West was widely derided by Arab nations and from Saudi Arabia's own clerics. The continuing presence of U.S. military personnel in the country has been a thorn in the Monarchy's side. It serves as the main ammunition for the various radical Islamist groups and for Iran who criticize the royal family for being Muslims in word alone.
For its part, the West erupted in fury towards Saudi Arabia when its most notorious son Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network committed the atrocities of 9/11. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals and critics of Saudi Arabia's ultra-orthodox Wahabbist Islam gained unprecedented attention.
Saudi Arabia was caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. Its brand of Islam which gave the royal family its authority among Muslims now threatened its ties with the countries whose oil consumers were responsible for its vast wealth. On the other hand, its dominant position as the defender of Islam was being seriously challenged by Osama bin Laden and his jihadist fighters.
Saudi Arabia has made a series of recent maneuvers aimed to regain a position of dominance among Muslims and the West. Recently the country launched the website www.alifta.com/ whose goal is to centralize the issuance of fatwas in Saudi Arabia. Fatwas, religious rulings, cover every aspect of muslim life. The rulings vary depending on the cleric issuing them and are often contradictory because of that. Recently the issuance of the 'breastfeeding fatwa' from a lecturer at the prestigious, thousand year old Al-Azhar Islamic University in Egypt led to a popular outcry among Muslims and mockery from the West. The lecturer alleged that the strict requirement of the veil for women when in the company of men could be surmounted through a series of symbolic breastfeedings to establish a family relationship. The call for a central authority for fatwas is not new nor limited to the Saudi monarchy, and neither is the use of the internet for seekers of religious guidance. The use of the web to obtain fatwa rulings has been gaining popularity especially among Muslims living in Western nations. Saudi Arabia is seeking to monopolize on this new use of the internet with the launch of its own fatwa website. Should this endeavor succeed, the monarchy could reestablish its religious validity and give its brand of Islam a new platform.
While it is no secret that King Abdullah is furious over the war in Iraq, it is only recently that he has began to voice his criticism in the press. In an effort to defuse the rising tension in the Middle East, the Saudis have even reached out to its Shiite enemy Iran. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Prince Saud recently reported that the conglomerate of Persian Gulf oil states, the Gulf Cooperation Council, were willing to provide Iran with uranium for its nuclear energy program. While the move is aimed to end warmongering between Washington and Tehran, it places Saudi Arabia in role of peacemaker in the region. That is not the usual position for the Saudis who financed the the mujahideen Afghan war against the Soviets, Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as numerous other militant movements in Egypt, Lebanon, and Algeria. Saudia Arabia's big brother policy towards to the Arab world has also included reconciliation talks between the Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions.
The impact of Riyadh's all-out offensive remains to be seen. The much-touted talks between Fatah and Hamas failed to lead to a successful Palestinian unity government and the fall of Gaza was highly embarrassing for the Saudi monarchy.
For the Saudi fatwa website to succeed it will need to surmount difficulties presented by the decentralized nature of the post-Ottoman Empire Muslim world. Muslims are currently more likely to seek advice from their local imam or sheikh than from a Saudi website. And so far noone takes seriously the idea of Saudi Arabia providing Iran with uranium. In fact, despite all Saudi Arabia's best efforts, their multitude of moral and political projects have received a lukewarm reception at best. Despite this, Saudi Arabia's initiatives could potentially lead to peace in the Middle East. In a region with a history for conflict that stretches for milennia, any realistic potential for peace ought not be scoffed at.
The King is a legitimate ally of the West whose weaponry and oil consumption is principally responsible for his position of power, but he walks a dangerous tight-rope. Wahabbist Islam gives the monarchy its mandate for rule, but many of its adherents are rabid in their anti-Western sentiments. Saudi Arabia which straddles the battle lines in the war on terror may be uniquely capable of brokering peace in the region. It remains to be seen if they are up to the task.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Osama bin Laden admits 'mistakes' in Iraq
An audiotape recently released purports to carry a message from Osama bin Laden encouraging unity among the Sunni tribal groups and al Qaeda fighters in Iraq. The tape calls for unity under the aegis of the "Islamic nation" and chides the various anti-coalition militants in Iraq for their disunity. Bin Laden goes on to admit what he calls mistakes committed by al Qaeda in Iraq, referring to that group's attacks on Sunni tribal leaders. The leaders of Anbar Awakening in al Anbar and Salahuddin Awakening in Samarra were assassinated by al Qaeda and provoked an outcry against the tactics of foreign militants in Iraq. An Islamist website recently posted a message announcing a new coalition of anti-al Qaeda and anti-Occupation militants called the "Political Council of Iraqi Resistance." One gets the impression that al Qaeda suffered a serious blow to its viability as a movement in Iraq with its assaults on co-religious leaders.
Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan made a similar stand against foreign militant activities in his country. The difference in Iraq is that it appears to be more of a grassroots program and therefore the condemnation has more teeth. It is unclear if the assassinations were carried out by rogue elements within al Qaeda in Iraq or whether bin Laden is backpedaling as a result of the popular Sunni outcry against the foreign militants. Regardless, it appears bin Laden, or whomever represents the central authority of al Qaeda is trying to reassert its moral authority as protector of true Islam. That authority which was responsible for creating a popular sympathy within the Muslim world suffered a huge blow as a result of its swift reprisals against fellow Muslims.
Cracks are appearing in the moral armor of the major militant groups in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr's disbanded his militia as a result of attacks on fellow Shiites during an important religious festival and al Qaeda's attacks on fellow Sunnis has led to some tribal groups siding with America and her allies. It remains to be seen whether the coalition forces in Iraq can seize what appears to be a shift in initiative.
This is especially important since one of the few stable regions of Iraq, the Kurdish regions to the North, are teetering on violent conflict with Turkey. The current popular movements against foreign militants in Iraq may be nothing more than a marriage of convenience, but they present an opportunity for the US-led coalition to make real strides in the security situation. While the central government in Iraq has been unable to project any meaningful authority, it may be possible to achieve the goal of a stable Iraq despite them.
Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan made a similar stand against foreign militant activities in his country. The difference in Iraq is that it appears to be more of a grassroots program and therefore the condemnation has more teeth. It is unclear if the assassinations were carried out by rogue elements within al Qaeda in Iraq or whether bin Laden is backpedaling as a result of the popular Sunni outcry against the foreign militants. Regardless, it appears bin Laden, or whomever represents the central authority of al Qaeda is trying to reassert its moral authority as protector of true Islam. That authority which was responsible for creating a popular sympathy within the Muslim world suffered a huge blow as a result of its swift reprisals against fellow Muslims.
Cracks are appearing in the moral armor of the major militant groups in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr's disbanded his militia as a result of attacks on fellow Shiites during an important religious festival and al Qaeda's attacks on fellow Sunnis has led to some tribal groups siding with America and her allies. It remains to be seen whether the coalition forces in Iraq can seize what appears to be a shift in initiative.
This is especially important since one of the few stable regions of Iraq, the Kurdish regions to the North, are teetering on violent conflict with Turkey. The current popular movements against foreign militants in Iraq may be nothing more than a marriage of convenience, but they present an opportunity for the US-led coalition to make real strides in the security situation. While the central government in Iraq has been unable to project any meaningful authority, it may be possible to achieve the goal of a stable Iraq despite them.
On a scale of 10 this is an 11
The Middle East Media Research Institute (www.memri.org) has translated a short Hamas film that can be seen here. It is set during the second intifada and is perhaps one of the more disturbing things I've ever seen. It glorifies the rock-slinging child martyr and is heavy on anti-Israeli propoganda. I don't think anyone can say that Israel's handling of the Palestinian situation is without fault, but it is hard to come to defense of the Palestinian cause when they produce such films.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The ghosts of Cold Wars past
Apparently Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is preparing for a visit to Russia for discussion with President Vladimir Putin. Putin has just wrapped a conference with the five nations bordering the Caspian Sea, most notably Iran. Putin voiced his support for Iran's nuclear program and the countries signed a document stating that none of the five Caspian states would allow military strikes to be launched from their soil against any of the others. Prime Minister Olmert is expected to voice concerns over Iran's nuclear program to the Kremlin. This is not Olmert's first visit to Moscow, but the timing of this one causes one's eyebrows to raise.
Recent analysis of the most recent Israeli air strike on Syrian soil show that the site was most likely a nascent nuclear facility. Some believe that the air strike was a trial run for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities should the Iranians refuse to bow to international pressure. Now it seems the Kremlin has thrown tentative backing behind Tehran by siding with the Ahmadinejad's claim that his country's nuclear program is purely for peaceful means. Israel should be highly concerned with this turn of events. Israel suffered some near misses with Soviet intervention during their wars with the Arabs. Moscow came close on several occasions to intervening on the side of the Arabs.
Israel may not be planning any immediate strikes on Iranian sites, but it is undeniable that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The spectre of possible reprisal from Russia surely gives them pause. Olmert is hurrying off to Moscow to try and head off such a nightmare scenario. Will the U.S.'s war on terror and Iran's nuclear ambitions drag the world into another bout of Cold War-esque proxy conflicts? Hopefully not, but that is not such a remote possibility as it was a month ago.
Recent analysis of the most recent Israeli air strike on Syrian soil show that the site was most likely a nascent nuclear facility. Some believe that the air strike was a trial run for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities should the Iranians refuse to bow to international pressure. Now it seems the Kremlin has thrown tentative backing behind Tehran by siding with the Ahmadinejad's claim that his country's nuclear program is purely for peaceful means. Israel should be highly concerned with this turn of events. Israel suffered some near misses with Soviet intervention during their wars with the Arabs. Moscow came close on several occasions to intervening on the side of the Arabs.
Israel may not be planning any immediate strikes on Iranian sites, but it is undeniable that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The spectre of possible reprisal from Russia surely gives them pause. Olmert is hurrying off to Moscow to try and head off such a nightmare scenario. Will the U.S.'s war on terror and Iran's nuclear ambitions drag the world into another bout of Cold War-esque proxy conflicts? Hopefully not, but that is not such a remote possibility as it was a month ago.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Another blow to Iraqi stability: Turkey preparing for military strikes in Northern Iraq
A motion before the Turkish parliament will determine whether the Turkish military will be permitted to cross the Iraqi border in pursuit of Kurdish PKK fighters. The motion would permit the military to make as many incursions across the border as necessary for one year. The PKK is a communist militia who seeks an autonomous Kurdistan in the eastern regions of Turkey. They are believed to be using the newly stable Kurdish province of Iraq as a staging ground for their attacks on targets in Turkey. The locals in that province of Iraq sympathize with the PKK's desires for autonomy and have resisted the Maliki government's persistent calls that they halt the PKK's activities in Iraq. The U.S. is understandably concerned over Turkey's apparent desire to invade Iraq. Any move to destabilize that region would endanger the routes through which most of the United States' military supplies move. The Kurds have been viewed as the most reliable allies of the U.S. led coalition out of the three major groups that make up Iraq. The U.S. risks angering the country which houses American airfields and supply bases in Turkey or antagonizing the only benign region of Iraq.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged a diplomatic solution to the tensions on the northern border. The question is who will deal with the Turks to bring about a cessation of attacks originating from Iraq? Maliki's government does not assert real authority outside the Green Zone in Baghdad where they struggle to reach consensus on any significant issues. The Kurds have shown themselves unwilling to crack down on their ethnic brethren and sympathize with the PKK's activities in Turkey. Will the U.S. step in to suppress the PKK? Should the U.S. military attempt to conduct military operations against Kurds it risks alienating the populace of yet another region in Iraq and creating another war zone in the country. The U.S. will be unwilling to risk such a disaster.
The Turks, not unreasonably, see their only recourse as unilateral actions against the PKK. The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted on a resolution dubbing the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, and their Kurdish subjects, a holocaust. The resolution led to an outcry from Ankara and their ambassador was temporarily recalled in protest. The vote will occur in the Turkish parliament on Wednesday, and there is every reason to believe they will approve military strikes into Northern Iraq.
Unless Turkey is willing to commit military forces to occupy Northern Iraq, they will not halt the attacks by the PKK on Turkish soil. They cannot hope to root out the 3,000 or so PKK fighters hiding among a friendly local populace without a sustained military presence. Kurdish news sources are claiming that a Turkish invasion would quickly become a 'quagmire'. That is certainly a distinct possibility in the largely pro-PKK Kurdish regions of Iraq. Irregardless of whether Turkey would be willing to invade and suppress a Kurdish population in Iraq, the U.S. would not stand for it. In all likelihood, a Turkish military offensive will result in limited successes followed by a withdrawal and the eventual resumption of attacks by the PKK.
It should be noted that Turkey is not blameless in their Kurdish problem. The father of modern Turkey, Ataturk, brutally suppressed the Kurds in his attempt to secularize the Muslim Kurds. The newly secular Turkey attempted to forcibly assimilate their diverse populace, and the Kurds resisted such assimilation especially when it came to their ethnic language and Islam.
In recent history Turkey, much like Pakistan, has escaped criticism from the U.S. over its treatment of various minority groups due to their willingness to ingratiate themselves with the Americans. Turkey has been unwilling to admit wrong doing and has felt no compulsion to do so, largely due to its friendly relations with the most powerful military in the world. The unwillingness of the Turks to entertain notions that they may have committed egregious sins against any of their citizens has built up decades of resentment in the Kurds and Armenians. The Armenians have been largely powerless to make any response, the Kurds however have reacted violently. Turkey, like every nation, must come to terms with its checkered past if it wishes to reconcile itself with what amounts to seven percent of its population. In the immediate future, Turkey cannot sit still while Kurdish rebels bomb their cities and attack their military. The real solution to the problem will require Turkey to come to terms with its past. The likelihood of that happening in time to prevent a disastrous result to Wednesday's vote is highly unlikely.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged a diplomatic solution to the tensions on the northern border. The question is who will deal with the Turks to bring about a cessation of attacks originating from Iraq? Maliki's government does not assert real authority outside the Green Zone in Baghdad where they struggle to reach consensus on any significant issues. The Kurds have shown themselves unwilling to crack down on their ethnic brethren and sympathize with the PKK's activities in Turkey. Will the U.S. step in to suppress the PKK? Should the U.S. military attempt to conduct military operations against Kurds it risks alienating the populace of yet another region in Iraq and creating another war zone in the country. The U.S. will be unwilling to risk such a disaster.
The Turks, not unreasonably, see their only recourse as unilateral actions against the PKK. The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted on a resolution dubbing the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, and their Kurdish subjects, a holocaust. The resolution led to an outcry from Ankara and their ambassador was temporarily recalled in protest. The vote will occur in the Turkish parliament on Wednesday, and there is every reason to believe they will approve military strikes into Northern Iraq.
Unless Turkey is willing to commit military forces to occupy Northern Iraq, they will not halt the attacks by the PKK on Turkish soil. They cannot hope to root out the 3,000 or so PKK fighters hiding among a friendly local populace without a sustained military presence. Kurdish news sources are claiming that a Turkish invasion would quickly become a 'quagmire'. That is certainly a distinct possibility in the largely pro-PKK Kurdish regions of Iraq. Irregardless of whether Turkey would be willing to invade and suppress a Kurdish population in Iraq, the U.S. would not stand for it. In all likelihood, a Turkish military offensive will result in limited successes followed by a withdrawal and the eventual resumption of attacks by the PKK.
It should be noted that Turkey is not blameless in their Kurdish problem. The father of modern Turkey, Ataturk, brutally suppressed the Kurds in his attempt to secularize the Muslim Kurds. The newly secular Turkey attempted to forcibly assimilate their diverse populace, and the Kurds resisted such assimilation especially when it came to their ethnic language and Islam.
In recent history Turkey, much like Pakistan, has escaped criticism from the U.S. over its treatment of various minority groups due to their willingness to ingratiate themselves with the Americans. Turkey has been unwilling to admit wrong doing and has felt no compulsion to do so, largely due to its friendly relations with the most powerful military in the world. The unwillingness of the Turks to entertain notions that they may have committed egregious sins against any of their citizens has built up decades of resentment in the Kurds and Armenians. The Armenians have been largely powerless to make any response, the Kurds however have reacted violently. Turkey, like every nation, must come to terms with its checkered past if it wishes to reconcile itself with what amounts to seven percent of its population. In the immediate future, Turkey cannot sit still while Kurdish rebels bomb their cities and attack their military. The real solution to the problem will require Turkey to come to terms with its past. The likelihood of that happening in time to prevent a disastrous result to Wednesday's vote is highly unlikely.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Hamas seeks to reconcile with Fatah at the end of Ramadan
Hamas' Ismail Haniya recently made overtures for reconciliation with Abbas and his Fatah party after having violently expelled them from Gaza in June. While Abbas has made no formal reply to his former prime minister, it is doubtful that Mr. Haniya will receive a favorable response. The security situation in Gaza has steadily been deteriorating due to embargoes, Israeli military strikes, worker strikes and street protests. Haniya, it seems, has been forced to come to terms with a possibly fatal mistake when he attempted to snatch sole control over Palestinian politics.
The former unity government was formed after negotiations which resulted in the Mecca accord. In February a Saudi brokered deal led to a central Palestinian government composed of both Hamas and Fatah. Only four months later, violence erupted in Gaza and Hamas seized sole control of that area.
The Palestinians are once more at a crossroads as the US-sponsored peace talks prepare to kick off in November. Hamas has been calling on all Arab nations to boycott the talks and many Arab nations have only conditionally accepted the invitation to attend. Al Jazeera reported that Haniya, making a speech before prayer marking Eid-al-Fitr, called on Abbas to refuse any calls for concessions from Israel or the U.S. Mr. Abbas will ultimately succeed or fail based on his performance in November. While Hamas is down, it is definitely not out. Any resentment built up towards Hamas in the past few months will fade if Abbas is seen as either ineffectual or an agent of the United States and Israel. However, if he can win real victories with the Israelis (over border issues especially), he will be lauded as the sole representative of the Palestinian cause.
The former unity government was formed after negotiations which resulted in the Mecca accord. In February a Saudi brokered deal led to a central Palestinian government composed of both Hamas and Fatah. Only four months later, violence erupted in Gaza and Hamas seized sole control of that area.
The Palestinians are once more at a crossroads as the US-sponsored peace talks prepare to kick off in November. Hamas has been calling on all Arab nations to boycott the talks and many Arab nations have only conditionally accepted the invitation to attend. Al Jazeera reported that Haniya, making a speech before prayer marking Eid-al-Fitr, called on Abbas to refuse any calls for concessions from Israel or the U.S. Mr. Abbas will ultimately succeed or fail based on his performance in November. While Hamas is down, it is definitely not out. Any resentment built up towards Hamas in the past few months will fade if Abbas is seen as either ineffectual or an agent of the United States and Israel. However, if he can win real victories with the Israelis (over border issues especially), he will be lauded as the sole representative of the Palestinian cause.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Karzai government reaches out to Taliban: Desperation or Realism?
The BBC reported that President Hamid Karzai has made a tentative offer for reconciliation talks with the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. This offer does not apply to all that falls under the broad umbrella of today's Taliban which comprises Afghanis opposed to the NATO occupation of the country, Pakistani nationals, and other foreign sympathizers. As Karzai's spokesman Hamayun Hamidzada put it, "What we're doing is opening the door of negotiation for those Taleban who are actually Afghan."
This new stance by the Karzai government appears to have several possible causes. In August the much-touted meeting of the jirga between influential Pakistani and Afghani tribal figures aimed to stem the rising tide of militant activity and recruitment was ineffectual. In fact, the aftermath of the jirga has been marked by an increase in attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan and on Pakistani forces in the tribal regions of Pakistan. The failure of the jirga is probably partially due to the fact that the Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami (a fundamentalist mujahideen party led by Hekmatyr who helped drive the Soviet army from Afghanistan in the 80s) were barred from participation.
Karzai's current willingness to reach out to the insurgency probably has alot to do with the failure of diplomatic solutions which exclude the Taliban. It remains to be seen whether such a gesture will be welcomed or even effective. The Taliban has become a diverse organization with different goals and opinions. The only common thread that seems hold the organization together is the desire for the return of an Islamist state governed by their draconian interpretation of sharia law.
While the central Taliban leadership has refused to meet with Karzai until foreign forces have left the country, it appears that local groups have been willing to talk. As Mr. Hamizada put it, the Afghan government is reaching out to talk "with those who actually wanted to join the political process, or just come back as ordinary citizens." Essentially, the Karzai government is offering amnesty to local grown anti-government forces. The very existence of diverse goals and methodologies of the various Taliban groups shows that this could possibly be step in the right direction.
Not surpisingly, Afghanistan suffers a level of suicide attacks second only to Iraq. A New York Times article which summarized a report to the United Nations stated that the number of suicide attacks by the Taliban has risen at an alarming rate from 17 in 2005, to 123 in 2006, and as of August 2007 the number stands at 103. This all points to the increasing strength of the Taliban fed by the movement's increasing strength in the Pakistani tribal regions. A 2006 article in Pakistan's Newsline magazine reported the words of a cleric in charge of a madrassa along Pakistan's border: "There is no dearth of people willing to join the fighting. The fear of American military might has vanished." The sharp increase of Taliban activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to back up this dire claim. That same Newsline article also carried a brief interview of a Taliban fighter by the name of Samiul Haq. Haq claims that the insurgency is receiving support from Pakistan's tribal regions, and disturbingly (but not really surprisingly) private Saudi sources. Haq believes that local Pakistani support is key to the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "We cannot fight for long without support from our sympathisers in the local administration," he told Newsline.
The failure of the Karzai government to achieve any real security or economic growth in Afghanistan is the prime cause behind the Taliban's resurgence. The campaign of suicide bombings in Afghanistan did not start until 2003 two years after the fall of the Taliban regime. The US-led coalition and fledgling Afghan army have failed to crush the Taliban insurgency with military might and it appears that it won't succeed anytime soon. A diplomatic solution may be all that is left for Karzai's government. Whether or not this will be just another failed strategy in the region is still up in the air. Karzai appears to want to appeal to Afghani nationalism and to drive a wedge into what he views as a divided organization. Maybe he knows something we don't, or maybe he's desperate. Only time will tell.
This new stance by the Karzai government appears to have several possible causes. In August the much-touted meeting of the jirga between influential Pakistani and Afghani tribal figures aimed to stem the rising tide of militant activity and recruitment was ineffectual. In fact, the aftermath of the jirga has been marked by an increase in attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan and on Pakistani forces in the tribal regions of Pakistan. The failure of the jirga is probably partially due to the fact that the Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami (a fundamentalist mujahideen party led by Hekmatyr who helped drive the Soviet army from Afghanistan in the 80s) were barred from participation.
Karzai's current willingness to reach out to the insurgency probably has alot to do with the failure of diplomatic solutions which exclude the Taliban. It remains to be seen whether such a gesture will be welcomed or even effective. The Taliban has become a diverse organization with different goals and opinions. The only common thread that seems hold the organization together is the desire for the return of an Islamist state governed by their draconian interpretation of sharia law.
While the central Taliban leadership has refused to meet with Karzai until foreign forces have left the country, it appears that local groups have been willing to talk. As Mr. Hamizada put it, the Afghan government is reaching out to talk "with those who actually wanted to join the political process, or just come back as ordinary citizens." Essentially, the Karzai government is offering amnesty to local grown anti-government forces. The very existence of diverse goals and methodologies of the various Taliban groups shows that this could possibly be step in the right direction.
Not surpisingly, Afghanistan suffers a level of suicide attacks second only to Iraq. A New York Times article which summarized a report to the United Nations stated that the number of suicide attacks by the Taliban has risen at an alarming rate from 17 in 2005, to 123 in 2006, and as of August 2007 the number stands at 103. This all points to the increasing strength of the Taliban fed by the movement's increasing strength in the Pakistani tribal regions. A 2006 article in Pakistan's Newsline magazine reported the words of a cleric in charge of a madrassa along Pakistan's border: "There is no dearth of people willing to join the fighting. The fear of American military might has vanished." The sharp increase of Taliban activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to back up this dire claim. That same Newsline article also carried a brief interview of a Taliban fighter by the name of Samiul Haq. Haq claims that the insurgency is receiving support from Pakistan's tribal regions, and disturbingly (but not really surprisingly) private Saudi sources. Haq believes that local Pakistani support is key to the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "We cannot fight for long without support from our sympathisers in the local administration," he told Newsline.
The failure of the Karzai government to achieve any real security or economic growth in Afghanistan is the prime cause behind the Taliban's resurgence. The campaign of suicide bombings in Afghanistan did not start until 2003 two years after the fall of the Taliban regime. The US-led coalition and fledgling Afghan army have failed to crush the Taliban insurgency with military might and it appears that it won't succeed anytime soon. A diplomatic solution may be all that is left for Karzai's government. Whether or not this will be just another failed strategy in the region is still up in the air. Karzai appears to want to appeal to Afghani nationalism and to drive a wedge into what he views as a divided organization. Maybe he knows something we don't, or maybe he's desperate. Only time will tell.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ahmadinejad does New York
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, notorious Holocaust denier who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" is due to speak to Columbia University later today. In typical form Ahmadinejad has raised the ire of just about everyone. His request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero was denied citing security and logistical difficulties and condemned by New York officials as an insult to families who lost loved ones to 9/11. The Iranian President is expected to face large numbers of protesters organized by and composed of Jewish groups, New York city officials, and university students.
Iran has protested recently that it has no need for nuclear weaponry and down-played its effectiveness in the current international political situation. As Ahmadinejad put it in his own unique brand of rhetoric, he told CBS's 60 Minutes, "[i]n political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would resolve the problem the Americans have in Iraq." Iran has tried to portray itself as a peace-seeker, while American governmental sources have complained that Iran is helping to arm insurgent groups and seeks to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq.
Perhaps more disturbing that some of Ahmadinejad's outlandish rhetoric is the U.S. public's reaction to the visit. The condemnation of the President surrounding his request for a visit to Ground Zero is absolutely ridiculous. Iran has less of a connection to the attacks on New York than does that Wahibbist regime of Saudi Arabia that spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers. Although New York did turn down the $10 million offered by Saudi Arabia, Giuliani took Saudi Prince Walid on a tour of Ground Zero. The denial to Ahmadinejad is irrational on the part of New Yorkers.
Ahmadinejad does indeed represent an adversary to our interests and allies in the Middle East, but he also represents the last viable Islamist regime. He should be listened to with interest and not ostracized. People, the Bush administration included, dismiss Ahmadinejad as the crazy man in charge of a fanatical nation of Islamic extremists.
The influence of Iran on Iraq is very real and will not disappear no matter how many sanctions we place on it. Why the U.S. refuses to acknowledge reality and deal with the nation who, regardless of our preferences, will play an important role in the development of Iraq is baffling. If Iraq should have taught us anything, sanctions do not destroy regimes, they destroy the people under the regime. Important infrastructure and facilities in Iraq were destroyed by our own bombing campaigns and by cannibalizing mobs oppressed by years of hardship-inducing sanctions. If we need any further demonstration of the futility of using the threat of economic sanctions we need only to look at the ordeal of the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. Hardship and warfare only served to build support for the Ayatollah's regime.
Iran has protested recently that it has no need for nuclear weaponry and down-played its effectiveness in the current international political situation. As Ahmadinejad put it in his own unique brand of rhetoric, he told CBS's 60 Minutes, "[i]n political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would resolve the problem the Americans have in Iraq." Iran has tried to portray itself as a peace-seeker, while American governmental sources have complained that Iran is helping to arm insurgent groups and seeks to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq.
Perhaps more disturbing that some of Ahmadinejad's outlandish rhetoric is the U.S. public's reaction to the visit. The condemnation of the President surrounding his request for a visit to Ground Zero is absolutely ridiculous. Iran has less of a connection to the attacks on New York than does that Wahibbist regime of Saudi Arabia that spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers. Although New York did turn down the $10 million offered by Saudi Arabia, Giuliani took Saudi Prince Walid on a tour of Ground Zero. The denial to Ahmadinejad is irrational on the part of New Yorkers.
Ahmadinejad does indeed represent an adversary to our interests and allies in the Middle East, but he also represents the last viable Islamist regime. He should be listened to with interest and not ostracized. People, the Bush administration included, dismiss Ahmadinejad as the crazy man in charge of a fanatical nation of Islamic extremists.
The influence of Iran on Iraq is very real and will not disappear no matter how many sanctions we place on it. Why the U.S. refuses to acknowledge reality and deal with the nation who, regardless of our preferences, will play an important role in the development of Iraq is baffling. If Iraq should have taught us anything, sanctions do not destroy regimes, they destroy the people under the regime. Important infrastructure and facilities in Iraq were destroyed by our own bombing campaigns and by cannibalizing mobs oppressed by years of hardship-inducing sanctions. If we need any further demonstration of the futility of using the threat of economic sanctions we need only to look at the ordeal of the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. Hardship and warfare only served to build support for the Ayatollah's regime.
Notes from the front line in Iraq
Michael J. Totten's excellent blog the Middle East Journal carries an interview with the 3rd Infantry Division's Lieutenant Colonel Michael Silverman and deserves a read. LtCol Silverman's work in Ramadi is encouraging and Totten's article is intriguing. His work gives insight into the region rarely seen in the blurbs we generally receive in popular media outlets.
Where there's smoke...
There was much speculation that the air strike carried out by Israel in Syria was on nuclear facilities or materiel provided by North Korea. Much skepticism surrounds this theory since one of its most vocal proponents is the controversial former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Bolton who made it his personal crusade to stem what he believed was the proliferation of WMD in the Middle East, became something of a pariah when it became clear that no WMD would be found in Iraq.
However, al Jazeera recently reported that the North Korean government hosted a Syrian delegation. North Korea was extremely quick to condemn the air strike by Israel and almost equally quick in denying providing Syria with nuclear materiel or technology. It is strange, therefore, that they would invite the Syrian delegation which can only endanger its position before the upcoming resumption of talks regarding the dismantling of its nuclear programme. Lacking hard evidence, intelligence agencies have been cautious about claiming North Korea is liquidating its nuclear programme in Syria and/or Iran. Syria has been on the United States' nuclear watch list since Syria began investigation uranium deposits found inside the country.
There remains no confirmation of the nature of the target, however anonymous Israeli military and government sources quoted in Haaretz claim the target was either a conventional weapons factory, nuclear enrichment facility, or nuclear materiel shipments. One doubts if we will ever know the actual identity of the target, but as the title of this entry states: where there's smoke, there's fire...
However, al Jazeera recently reported that the North Korean government hosted a Syrian delegation. North Korea was extremely quick to condemn the air strike by Israel and almost equally quick in denying providing Syria with nuclear materiel or technology. It is strange, therefore, that they would invite the Syrian delegation which can only endanger its position before the upcoming resumption of talks regarding the dismantling of its nuclear programme. Lacking hard evidence, intelligence agencies have been cautious about claiming North Korea is liquidating its nuclear programme in Syria and/or Iran. Syria has been on the United States' nuclear watch list since Syria began investigation uranium deposits found inside the country.
There remains no confirmation of the nature of the target, however anonymous Israeli military and government sources quoted in Haaretz claim the target was either a conventional weapons factory, nuclear enrichment facility, or nuclear materiel shipments. One doubts if we will ever know the actual identity of the target, but as the title of this entry states: where there's smoke, there's fire...
Friday, September 21, 2007
Here we go again...
As Israel was declaring the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity", Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert began preparations for a new round of talks in November with his Palestinian counter-part Mahmoud Abbas. Olmert has bowed recently to popular pressure following response to his Deputy Prime Minister's statements that Israel would consider dividing Jerusalem in two. The city of Jerusalem has been a sticking point in peace talks between Israel and Palestinian leaders. The Palestinians want a divided Jerusalem as a dual capital and a return to the boundary lines of 1967 following the Six Day War, as laid out in U.N. resolution 242. Deputy Minister Ramon sparked outrage and protests among Israel's Parliament, the Knesset, when he suggested that Israel adopt resolution 242 in its upcoming talks with Abbas' government.
As a result Olmert, who has been under heavy fire from opposition parties, has backed down from the plan as laid out by Ramon. He wishes, instead, to have the talks lay out "general principles." Unfortunately for Olmert, the Bush White House is having none of that. While Olmert is afraid for his legacy, Bush faces much the same dilemma as his predecessor Clinton did. Recently it seems that everyone's favorite pet project upon leaving the power is the Palestinian "problem." Bush seeks to succeed where Clinton's Camp David talks failed, and he has dispatched Condoleezza Rice to make that emminently clear to Mr. Olmert.
One of the men in line to replace Olmert is Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is seen by many Israelis as the sensible alternative to the more hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu. Barak has urged Olmert not to bow to pressure from Washington. Barak spoke with Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, and claimed Bush wanted a "withdrawal from Israeli principles that have stood for 40 years, merely to gain favor in the eyes of an American president who is leaving office in a year." Ouch....
However, this is just more posturing from Barak who seeks to recover Labor Party leadership from Mr. Olmert. Barak is widely seen as the popular candidate to restore tarnished confidence in the Israeli army with his military credentials and provide reason in the debate of the status of the Palestinians. His opponent Binyamin Netanyahu represents the right-wing Likud party and stands ready to take over should Barak and the Labor party stumble. This partisanship is precisely the reason that the November peace summit in New York will be yet another dismal failure in a string of dismal failures. Neither the Palestinians or the Israelis have ever been able to deliver on substantial promises and as a result have ceased to trust one another. Israel whose Knesset is made up of 18 political parties with shifting allegiances, struggles to make controversial concessions such as cessation of settlement building. The Palestinians, especially under the late Yassir Arafat, consistently fail to control its many militia groups. The principle cause of the failures is the inability of the U.S. and others to acknowledge the internal idealogical struggles of the Palestinians and Israelis. Until all aspects of Israel and Palestine can come to terms with an agreement there will be no Palestinian state.
Recently, the Palestinian Authority was split in two when Hamas ejected Fatah security men and officials from the Gaza strip. Abbas responded by dissolving the Hamas-led government and Gaza has been isolated ever since. President Abbas has since become become the golden boy of the West as they attempt to ply the stick-and-carrot method to the Palestinians. There are some signs that Palestinians are tiring of Hamas' heavy-handed methods in Gaza. As they have attempted to enforce more Islamic morals on the populace there, some Gazans responded with street protests.
Olmert's government probably seeks to isolate Hamas in Gaza in preparation for his upcoming summit. However, Hamas isn't just going to disappear. For one, it is not a movement isolated in Gaza, it has members in the West Bank and many of its senior leadership is in exile. If Olmert and Abbas are sincere in their wishes for a peaceful resolution to years of bloodshed, all aspects of Israel and a future Palestine should be involved. A lame duck Israeli Prime Minister and a hamstringed Palestinian President cannot possibly hope to achieve lasting peace by themselves.
As a result Olmert, who has been under heavy fire from opposition parties, has backed down from the plan as laid out by Ramon. He wishes, instead, to have the talks lay out "general principles." Unfortunately for Olmert, the Bush White House is having none of that. While Olmert is afraid for his legacy, Bush faces much the same dilemma as his predecessor Clinton did. Recently it seems that everyone's favorite pet project upon leaving the power is the Palestinian "problem." Bush seeks to succeed where Clinton's Camp David talks failed, and he has dispatched Condoleezza Rice to make that emminently clear to Mr. Olmert.
One of the men in line to replace Olmert is Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is seen by many Israelis as the sensible alternative to the more hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu. Barak has urged Olmert not to bow to pressure from Washington. Barak spoke with Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, and claimed Bush wanted a "withdrawal from Israeli principles that have stood for 40 years, merely to gain favor in the eyes of an American president who is leaving office in a year." Ouch....
However, this is just more posturing from Barak who seeks to recover Labor Party leadership from Mr. Olmert. Barak is widely seen as the popular candidate to restore tarnished confidence in the Israeli army with his military credentials and provide reason in the debate of the status of the Palestinians. His opponent Binyamin Netanyahu represents the right-wing Likud party and stands ready to take over should Barak and the Labor party stumble. This partisanship is precisely the reason that the November peace summit in New York will be yet another dismal failure in a string of dismal failures. Neither the Palestinians or the Israelis have ever been able to deliver on substantial promises and as a result have ceased to trust one another. Israel whose Knesset is made up of 18 political parties with shifting allegiances, struggles to make controversial concessions such as cessation of settlement building. The Palestinians, especially under the late Yassir Arafat, consistently fail to control its many militia groups. The principle cause of the failures is the inability of the U.S. and others to acknowledge the internal idealogical struggles of the Palestinians and Israelis. Until all aspects of Israel and Palestine can come to terms with an agreement there will be no Palestinian state.
Recently, the Palestinian Authority was split in two when Hamas ejected Fatah security men and officials from the Gaza strip. Abbas responded by dissolving the Hamas-led government and Gaza has been isolated ever since. President Abbas has since become become the golden boy of the West as they attempt to ply the stick-and-carrot method to the Palestinians. There are some signs that Palestinians are tiring of Hamas' heavy-handed methods in Gaza. As they have attempted to enforce more Islamic morals on the populace there, some Gazans responded with street protests.
Olmert's government probably seeks to isolate Hamas in Gaza in preparation for his upcoming summit. However, Hamas isn't just going to disappear. For one, it is not a movement isolated in Gaza, it has members in the West Bank and many of its senior leadership is in exile. If Olmert and Abbas are sincere in their wishes for a peaceful resolution to years of bloodshed, all aspects of Israel and a future Palestine should be involved. A lame duck Israeli Prime Minister and a hamstringed Palestinian President cannot possibly hope to achieve lasting peace by themselves.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Blame Syria
The Lebanese MP Antoine Ghanem, the Maronite (Christian) Phalangist and possible Presidential candidate in the looming election was killed along with several others in a car bombing in Sin el-Fil, Lebanon. This killing is the latest in a string of assassinations of prominent anti-Syrian figures in Lebanon since the killing of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.
Ghanem's death imperils the anti-Syrian coalition's majority in parliament and has implications over their ability to dominate the selection of the current pro-Syrian president's successor. The coalition was swept into power following internal and international outrage over the killing of Hariri. Many members of that anti-Syrian coalition have gone to ground following this latest bombing.
This bombing follows hard on the heels of an embarrassing few weeks for Syria. The alleged and now confirmed air-strike by Israel on a mysterious target in Syria has led to uncharacteristic silence by both nations.
The murder of this particular MP from the Pro-Israel Phalangist party whose militias allied themselves with Israel during that country's occupation of Lebanon stinks of petty retribution on Syria's part. Something terribly embarrassing happened to Syria, and Israel's success has led to much ridiculous posturing from Assad and now Iran. No doubt the coming weeks will reveal more about the bombing as well as the mysterious air-strike. One doubts however that the killing of Antoine Ghanem will work to Syria's favor.
Ghanem's death imperils the anti-Syrian coalition's majority in parliament and has implications over their ability to dominate the selection of the current pro-Syrian president's successor. The coalition was swept into power following internal and international outrage over the killing of Hariri. Many members of that anti-Syrian coalition have gone to ground following this latest bombing.
This bombing follows hard on the heels of an embarrassing few weeks for Syria. The alleged and now confirmed air-strike by Israel on a mysterious target in Syria has led to uncharacteristic silence by both nations.
The murder of this particular MP from the Pro-Israel Phalangist party whose militias allied themselves with Israel during that country's occupation of Lebanon stinks of petty retribution on Syria's part. Something terribly embarrassing happened to Syria, and Israel's success has led to much ridiculous posturing from Assad and now Iran. No doubt the coming weeks will reveal more about the bombing as well as the mysterious air-strike. One doubts however that the killing of Antoine Ghanem will work to Syria's favor.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Anbar Awakening leader Abu Risha assassinated
One of the few bright spots in the war in Iraq has been the popular movement against alQaeda in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. Recently the leader of the Anbar Awakening movement, Sattar Abu Risha, was assassinated. This is by all accounts a blow to that movement's successes. Abu Risha led an effort to recruit thousands of policemen in the region and showed a willingness to open dialogue with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movement's activities is its shared belief system with alQaeda. Intra-sectarian violence is an aberration that goes beyond the normal prohibition against killing fellow Muslims. Anbar Awakenings' efforts are an indictment by fellow Sunnis against alQaeda's extremist interpretations of Islam. English-speaking news sources reported that chants claiming that alQaeda was "an enemy of Allah" were heard from mourners.
It is arguable that the US military's alliance with tribal leaders is a short-sighted success. The Sunni tribal leaders have no real confidence in the Shiite led government. There is no guarantee that the thousands of young men in Anbar now on the Iraqi government payroll is a sign of reconciliation between the religious factions.
Sectarian violence remains the largest problem in Iraq. Ending these killings is the key to success in the US's efforts. The cause of the hatred hearkens back to the Iran-Iraq war when the Shiite population was suppressed in Iraq out a of fear they were sympathetic to Khomeini's regime. The Iraqi government is torn between serving two masters. There is the visible American presence in the country which the Iraqi government must work with, but there is also a heavy Iranian influence in the militias and in the government. Most troubling is the fact that Shiite Iraqis see Iran as its greatest ally, and not the United States.
Shiite Iraq has valid complaints with their Sunni former overseers, however such sectarian hatred is fruitless. It is because of this that winning in Iraq will not come from a military or political solution. "Winning the war" requires a religious solution. That is why alQaeda being called an enemy of Allah is such a significant development.
America makes a very poor arbitrator between the religious sects in Iraq. Shiites still bear a grudge against our country. The failed uprising and subsequent slaughter of the Shiites following the first Gulf war, who claim they were instigated by a CIA run radio campaign, remains very much on the minds of Iraqis. Many Shiites probably look to the success of post-Khomeini Iran as encouragement. The Sunnis, fearing retribution, distrust the Shiite dominated government. These old grudges need addressing and require arbitration. The US should withdraw itself from these debates and seek outside help in arbitrating between the sects. Unfortunately that outside help would come from an Arab world full of dictators and selfish interests. We have only to look at the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the Arab world for proof of that.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movement's activities is its shared belief system with alQaeda. Intra-sectarian violence is an aberration that goes beyond the normal prohibition against killing fellow Muslims. Anbar Awakenings' efforts are an indictment by fellow Sunnis against alQaeda's extremist interpretations of Islam. English-speaking news sources reported that chants claiming that alQaeda was "an enemy of Allah" were heard from mourners.
It is arguable that the US military's alliance with tribal leaders is a short-sighted success. The Sunni tribal leaders have no real confidence in the Shiite led government. There is no guarantee that the thousands of young men in Anbar now on the Iraqi government payroll is a sign of reconciliation between the religious factions.
Sectarian violence remains the largest problem in Iraq. Ending these killings is the key to success in the US's efforts. The cause of the hatred hearkens back to the Iran-Iraq war when the Shiite population was suppressed in Iraq out a of fear they were sympathetic to Khomeini's regime. The Iraqi government is torn between serving two masters. There is the visible American presence in the country which the Iraqi government must work with, but there is also a heavy Iranian influence in the militias and in the government. Most troubling is the fact that Shiite Iraqis see Iran as its greatest ally, and not the United States.
Shiite Iraq has valid complaints with their Sunni former overseers, however such sectarian hatred is fruitless. It is because of this that winning in Iraq will not come from a military or political solution. "Winning the war" requires a religious solution. That is why alQaeda being called an enemy of Allah is such a significant development.
America makes a very poor arbitrator between the religious sects in Iraq. Shiites still bear a grudge against our country. The failed uprising and subsequent slaughter of the Shiites following the first Gulf war, who claim they were instigated by a CIA run radio campaign, remains very much on the minds of Iraqis. Many Shiites probably look to the success of post-Khomeini Iran as encouragement. The Sunnis, fearing retribution, distrust the Shiite dominated government. These old grudges need addressing and require arbitration. The US should withdraw itself from these debates and seek outside help in arbitrating between the sects. Unfortunately that outside help would come from an Arab world full of dictators and selfish interests. We have only to look at the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the Arab world for proof of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
