Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Danger of Not Knowing the Islamic State (IS). By Ghassan Kadi 29 October 2014

THE DANGER OF NOT KNOWING THE ISLAMIC STATE (IS) :
By Ghassan Kadi
29 October 2014

I know that I have expressed views in recent times that go against the mainstream of the mindset of many friends of Syria. As a result, I had to weather quite a bit of harsh criticism, but this will not stop me from going on. I have serious concerns about the turns of the recent events, and I humbly believe that my opinion is based on a broader-than-average exposure to different angles of the crisis in Syria. I am not forcing my views on anyone, and all I am hoping for is that my views can shed more light about the underlying issues behind the IS, as there seems to be a fair deal of misconception about what it is and who directs it, and much of this is the direct result of the confusion caused by the rather big number of Islamist organizations and sponsors.

 
It is easy to get bogged down in the details of which organization, the name of its leader, his association with different sponsors, why and when different leaders and the followers rebunk from one organization to another. All of those complications mask the simple reality behind what the current IS state all about.


IS is a new name, but in reality not different from its Islamic fundamentalist predecessors. The origin can be traced back in recent history to Wahhabism, but on examining the roots, it can be traced back to a very ancient fundamentalist Fukih (theology) that is based on false interpretations of the Holy Quran. Such theology is much more ancient than Wahhabism and even European settlement in America. Hence, the United States of America and the CIA cannot be held accountable for its existence.


Wahhabism adopted and sponsored such pre-existing radical views, but it did not “invent” them. The discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia meant that the Saudis were able to sponsor and finance Islamic schools that taught this perverted version of Islam. The Saudi funds were not spent only on preaching, but also on military training and setting up militia groups in different regions of the world. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the invasion was seen by Islamists as the attack of a “Kafir” (heretic nonbeliever) Communist nation on a Muslim nation. As a result, and in accordance with a Brzezinski-initiated plan, Afghanistan became a fertile ground for Jihadis, Saudi funds and American support.


At that point in time, the Islamists and the Americans found common interests. Even Bin Laden was on America’s side during this stage. This alliance however was not a permanent mark as some insist and refuse to see otherwise. The Al-Qaeda/American alliance broke up when America put boots on Saudi soil leading up to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. To Bin Laden that was a redline. To him, the Muslim Holy Land was not to be desecrated by “Salibyin” (Crusaders).


Those who were fixated on seeing Bin Laden as an American lackey, especially those who could not understand his many speeches let alone be able to listen to them, could not understand the underlying nature of the conflict that turned Al-Qaeda from an ally of the Americans to a fierce foe. In all of his speeches, which were never translated into English in their entirety, Bin Laden had one single demand from the Americans, and that was for them to leave the Islamic land in general and the Islamic Holy Land in particular.


When the Americans refused to listen to this seemingly powerless and harmless man, America was targeted, and a REAL war took place between the former allies. The American invasion of Afghanistan and specifically the Tora Bora battles were not a Hollywood action movie.


To even imagine that those were divertive actions with some sort of hidden agendas cannot be substantiated by either hardcore evidence or deep analysis. Such inaccurate conclusions are not uncommon. When people do not understand any given observation, they tend to give it many false interpretations in an attempt to explain it. We can only go back to the days when humans thought that earth was flat and examine all the explanations they gave for sunrise and sunset.


To even imagine that the Islamists (whatever name they give themselves) are grouped together and work only and solely under the direct command of the United States is wrong and dangerous. It is wrong because its underpinning ideology is a theology that is many centuries old. It is dangerous because it deflects attention from the real culprit; and the culprit is that theology and not the United States.


Afghanistan and Syria had many interesting similarities, and just like the Islamist/American alliance fell apart in Afghanistan, it fell apart in Syria; albeit for different reasons.


In a different Syrian-based scenario, the gallant Syrian Army did not allow the “War On Syria” to go according to plan. Chess pieces began to tumble and by the time prince Bandar Bin Sultan lost his position as head of Saudi intelligence, the plot to topple Syria’s government was felled and different members of the Anti-Syrian Cocktail began to find their own way to get some form of a consolation prize.


By then, the Islamists who were brought into Syria by Bandar and the USA were very weary of broken Saudi and American promises of being handed over the affairs of the Syrian state to run under Sharia law. They felt they had to break loose and this is why they targeted their first attacks on the Iraqi oil fields, Mosul banks and Iraqi Army warehouses. Having achieved this, they became able to self –finance.


It was at that stage that the Saudis and Americans realized that Islamists they have trained and supported to fight in Syria have gone solo and can now threaten both American interests and the Saudi throne. Any failure to see this with clear vision diverts attention and effort.


In the meantime, as many continue to focus on the false belief that the “War On Syria” is going according to plan and that the USA and the IS are one, the IS continues to capitalize on its victories and lure more and more recruits.


America now well knows that it was a grave mistake to believe Bandar when he assured it that he could switch the Islamists on and off at will. It knows that the danger of the current fall-out with IS exceeds by many folds the dangers of the previous fall-out with Al-Qaeda. The Americans know that they now have “common interests” with the Syrian Government, but they are too cocky to admit it publically.


America did not only lose control of the IS, but also that of Turkey. Erdogan has his own regional aspirations that are totally at odds with both his NATO allies and former allies in the Anti-Syrian Cocktail.


Some words I used recently were taken out of context. To prevent such recurrence, I have to clarify that I am not calling for collaboration with the United States. All I am saying is that Syria and the West have now common interests in having a common enemy; the IS. Normally, such shifts result in shifts in alliances, and this is a matter of policy makers.


What is most pertinent here is that fighting the IS entails nipping its ideology in the bud, where is festers within decayed and ancient fundamentalist Islamist theology. Any diversion from this focal point of attention is dangerous and can lead to disastrous consequences.

 

2 comments:

  1. And what about the so called coalition against IS. It seems that the air attacks are not slowing IS down, on the contrary, it is making it stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shami there are many questions to ask. You might it helpful to read the article I just posted called "The Winners and the Losers"

    ReplyDelete