The Unknown

There’s an important article about the Middle East in The New Yorker this month. Here’s a teaser, and I’ll add more later. Rumsfeld believes that one long-held belief among Middle East analysts is overdue for reconsideration: the idea that doctrinal differences prevent Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and religious and secular Muslims, from pursuing common projects … Continue reading “The Unknown”

There’s an important article about the Middle East in The New Yorker this month. Here’s a teaser, and I’ll add more later.

Rumsfeld believes that one long-held belief among Middle East analysts is overdue for reconsideration: the idea that doctrinal differences prevent Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and religious and secular Muslims, from pursuing common projects in anti-American terrorism. This is a subject of great relevance today, because the Bush Administration contends that Baghdad is a sponsor of Al Qaeda; critics of the Administration’s foreign policy argue that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are natural enemies. “The argument is that Al Qaeda has got a religious motivation, somehow or other, and the Iraqi regime is considered to be a secular regime,” Rumsfeld said. “The answer to that is, so what? The Iraqi regime will use anything it can to its advantage. Why wouldn’t they use any implement at hand?”

9 thoughts on “The Unknown”

  1. Well, it’s probably true that simple differences of ideology won’t prohibit a coalition arising to thwart US ambitions in the region.

    The Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, Christian Armenians and even some Jews all got together to try to oust the British from the region. They used similar tactics of terrorism, obviously perhaps without the efficacy or dangers modern terrorism entails. Notably, the British had the same sort of reaction: bomb them all. Wiping out villages which may harbour terrorist cells was a common tactic. Ariel Sharon and George Bush Jnr. (tutored by the writing of the Israeli foreign minister) have learned the historical lesson on using these tactics well.

    Now, the lesson they didn’t seem to learn is that if you position an occupying force on foreign soil expect the natives to work together to vanquish the aggressors, even if they are sworn enemies. No matter how many vassals are put in place to govern the locals, no matter how pure or glorious your intentions and no matter how much cash you plough into the local economy. An occupying force is always resented.

    However, that said the parallel networks of a terrorist organisation and military dictatorship only can cooperate so much. Admittedly, their leaders were trained by the same agency they are competing for the head spot.

    It seems not only are the links between Iraq’s dictator and Al-Quada weak or non-existent (no matter how much the political adminsitration pushes the FBI or CIA to manufacture them) but they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy by pushing the US agenda on the region with force.

    In other words, the more troops you put in the Middle East, the more Iraqis or Afghanis or Palestinians that are killed, more and more disaffected will take arms and use deplorable terrorist tactics in vengeance.

    So keep trying to make the links and I’m sure in 20 years time when the ruins of this policy are self-evident you’ll see them.

  2. Richard

    Hello again. Thought I’d check your site out. Having seen how many responses you get here, I now know why you invaded the Viggo Mortensen messageboard – you were lonely.

  3. Mr. Razavi, you are a deeply ignorant and prejudiced man.

    We have not and will not be bombing innocent villagers.

    The administration doesn’t need to manufacture evidence, since investigators have had this evidence since long before the CIA or FBI took it seriously. Investigative reporters uncovered the evidence and reported on it before our government took it seriously.

    The occupational forces in Japan and Germany did not fail after World War II.

    Most oppressive occupiers do not plough money into local economies, they remove it.

    Mr. Razavi, you are a very silly person. But tell me, does the hatred in your soul cause you pain? With all that bile, I imagine you must suffer a lot of discomfort. I do wonder why I’m bothering with responding to you, though. Pity mostly, I suspect.

  4. Now, the lesson they didn’t seem to learn is that if you position an occupying force on foreign soil expect the natives to work together to vanquish the aggressors, even if they are sworn enemies.

    Actually, history refutes this often-cited claim. One example would be Malaya, a former British colony until post-WW II independence, which requested the British military to return in the 1950s to help them combat native communists. They were successful.

    People are reasonably intelligent, and most would prefer a short period of foreign occupation to the torturous rule of a despot like Saddam, who has murdered, tortured, and “disappeared” hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

  5. Mr Razavi, You havent got a clue what your talking about. I often find it best not to quote a fact until i know one to quote. Your shit about the british is slightly out, and its attitudes of generalization and exaduration like that that cause all the problems in the world today, like racism, hate etc. All i can say on the matter is, BULLSHIT.

Comments are closed.