Awakenings?

22 Jan, '07

There is a very interesting analysis piece on UPI today which discusses the situation in Iraq and attributes the majority of blame on a variety of factors, the main one is the 1911 British support of Al-Saud and their Wahabi cohorts as well as the staunch developed relationship between the troika: UK, USA and KSA.

Here’s one part:

If U.S. forces are gasping for breath in Iraq, it is in large part due to the deliberate decision of previous U.S. administrations to see Arab nationalism as a threat to Western primacy, whereas in fact, the principal target of this ideology is what may be called the “Wahabi International.” In Iraq, the skeletal clusters of al-Qaida are able to operate on the present scale only through their opportunistic alliance with Iraqi nationalists, most of whom loathed Saddam Hussein for his clannish and cruel rule, even as circumstances forced them to join the Baath Party.

Today, however, U.S. policy in the Middle East is in danger of igniting a threat that in its future effects could dwarf that posed by Wahabi terrorism. This is the Shiites. Unlike Sunnis and even Wahabis, who need to be nudged toward “martyrdom,” believing Shiites would need far less motivation to persuade them to put on human bomb jackets. The war on terror would face a new front, and the modern Napoleons in the White House their Moscow winter.

Conspiracy theorists among the Shiites believe that it is Saudi links with the Bush family and well-connected others that are fuelling what is unmistakably a U.S. policy that places Saudi Wahabi interests above those of the West

If your head is not spinning yet, you should go and read the full article which will lead you to conclude that the blame is apportioned to everyone in semi-equal measure.

I am unsure; however, of the assertion that the Shi’a would be that slap-happy of donning a one-way ticket to the welcoming arms of 72 virgins; had they been, they would have participated in that sport a long time ago (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc.) yet – as far as I can gather – none has been recorded of a Shi’i partaking in this. Although I do remember reading somewhere that the Iranians sent donkeys and children into mine fields to clear them up in the Iran/Iraq war of the ’80s. That could be the anecdotal evidence the author used, but since then I am unaware of a Shi’a donning that vest. I am amenable to correction; however.

That said, I fail to see any reason in which anyone regardless of religious or political affiliation doing this. To me, blowing oneself is not martyrdom by my standards, but abject stupidity.

If they are looking for credits toward their afterlife and if credit is distributed by the level of pain one suffers, then a negotiation table participation collected points would far exceed those credits given for blowing oneself up! The end result in this case of course might be a resolution that might benefit countless future generations, the alternative is just accumulating the curses of those very same future generations. Your choice.

And then the article says:

And if Washington is concerned about the marginalization of the Shiites even in countries such as Bahrain, where they form the bulk of the population, that is yet to be communicated, even as the Khalilzads bully the Shiites into giving a disproportionate share of power to the Sunni, especially that faction owing allegiance to the Wahabi faith.

Unless George Bush shows as much concern for the Shiites in countries where they are disenfranchised and discriminated against, their anger against the country he leads will grow to levels that could tip them toward a Wahabi-style jihad against the West, an outcome that would spell catastrophe for the globe.

It is interesting that the analysis is now trying to find out the root of Shi’a discontent, and unsurprisingly, it is disenfranchisement and discrimination which they have suffered from for 1400 years or so. Bringing this suffering home, the Bahraini Shi’a are undergoing this marginalisation right now as attested by the Bandargate scandal which not only remains unresolved, but has had fuel poured on its fires by the release of a leaked document detailing members of the ruling family alleged various strategic and tactical initiatives to further marginalise the Shi’a in Bahrain.

The conclusion of the analysis supports the requirement of the American administration and their allies to at least treat everyone with an even hand and insist of their local satraps to do the same:

The present borders of the countries there reflect only the perceptions of France and Britain in the early part of the last century as to what their interests were. By seeking to preserve the poisonous legacy of their 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, President George W. Bush may leave for his successors a foe even more lethal than that left by Casey and Brzezinski to their successors.

The Shiites have, in Mao Zedong’s words, “stood up.” It is time to show that the West is their ally and not part of the ongoing Wahabi campaign to batter them back into submission.

Will there be anyone listening to these warnings? I hope there is. Because to me and regardless of the various things mentioned in the analysis (which was done by the director of the School of Geopolitics at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education in India) one just needs to exercise a little bit of critical thinking to arrive at a logical conclusion: you cannot hope to give your rule longevity by subjugating any proportion of your citizenry. That might have worked in the Middle Ages, in this day and age; however, there is no hope of the rule by force to stand a chance in hell.

Wise up guys, before its too late to save your own skins.

Filed in: General
Tagged with:

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Just me says:

    I can’t see what is informative or new about this article. It’s the same old neo-orientalist message of goodie vs baddie, friend or foe simplified binary analysis of a situation america has messed up.

    A useful conclusion would have been – the US should stay out and stop taking sides with shi3a or sunnis.
    And if they really want to clear up the mess, then bring the regional and domestic players to the table.

  2. Aliandra says:


    And if they really want to clear up the mess, then bring the regional and domestic players to the table.

    Just Me, the only people that can solve this mess are the Iraqis themselves, not their regional brethren. Most of the killing is Iraqi on Iraqi. If they didn’t hate other so intensely, no outside prompting would succeed in getting them to engage in civil mass slaughter.

    By seeking to preserve the poisonous legacy of their 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, President George W. Bush

    Iraq was cobbled together out of some Ottoman provinces by the Europeans. If the Iraqis want to break it up, George Bush isn’t preventing them. As I understand it, most of them want to stay together (except for the Kurds).

  3. can we talk says:

    Aliandra,

    If they didn’t hate other so intensely, no outside prompting would succeed in getting them to engage in civil mass slaughter.

    that is so not true. it has become a continuous cycle of revenge for the revenge, it is not a question of hate at all.

  4. Johnster says:

    Yeah blame it on the Brits, why not? After all, look at mess in the UK – all due to the Romans.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Heheheheh

    Why don’t we just start shouting “Holocaust” as others before us have…

  6. jasra jedi says:

    Aliandra:

    You state “If the Iraqis want to break it up, George Bush isn’t preventing them. As I understand it, most of them want to stay together (except for the Kurds).”

    Oh, but he is. Because, guess which domain the Oil falls into if Iraq is divided into three?

    And, have you been following the discusson on how oil revenues get divided between the Sunni, Shia, Kurdish areas? No? Oh … it must be because the US mainline press doesn’t cover it … Better to coat the discussion under a moral blanket than to talk about the real power that can make a government; revenues.

  7. Aliandra says:

    Jasra;

    Oh, but he is. Because, guess which domain the Oil falls into if Iraq is divided into three?

    Yes, Jasra, he was advised by those 3000 Jews that didn’t show up to work on Sept 11.

  8. Jasra-Jedi says:

    Aliandra,

    I am not being facetious. I am actually being serious here. And I dont believe in the 3000 Jews not showing up to the WTC.

    Look at the oil revenues in Iraq. Look at the central government. Follow the logic of what happens if the country splits into Kurdistan, Sunnitown and Shiaville. Look where the oil is geographically, and do the math as to which entity will end being the most powerful.

    Then look at the effect on Turkey if there is a Kurdistan.

    And look at the effect on Saudi Arabia is there is a strong and powerful Shiaville up north. (And then maybe take a quick look and find out where the oil is in saudi Arabia).

    And then, my dear little muchaha (legal though), take a minute to think logically in your little head and tell me why saudi Arabia just released a strong statement talking against the division of Iraq and maybe, just maybe, you will realize that it is NOT in the US or Saudi Arabia or Israel’s interest to have a divided Iraq. Which is why Bush wants a ‘surge’.

    And then, once you have fully come to grips with the ME question, maybe then you will elevate your comments to talk about the shorting of Airline Stocks on Sep 10 …

    If we are to talk conspiracy theory, darling, please do it properly.

  9. forzaq8 says:

    ” as far as I can gather – none has been recorded of a Shi’i partaking in this ”
    as i can remmber the marines attack in lebanon was by a truck suicide driver

    and what is this about disenfranchisement and discrimination for 1400 years , as far as i recall the abbasid were shia friendly

  10. Ibn says:

    Aliandra,

    Yes, Jasra, he was advised by those 3000 Jews that didn’t show up to work on Sept 11.

    Thats a pretty low blow Aliandra.

    Contending that someone’s geo-political arguments are as valid as an irrational conspiracy theory of “blame the Jews again”, suggests to me that the legs your world-view stand on are made of the same stuff as the intelligence that said Iraq had WMD. (I wont name the exact material).

    Well, maybe thats all youve got. 🙂

    -Ibn

  11. mahmood says:

    Forza, let me rephrase that then:

    as far as I can gather – none has been recorded of a Shi’i partaking in donning a bomb-jacket and exploding oneself in the midst of civilians and innocent victims

    happy?

    I am not condoning suicide bombers or extremists regardless of their hue. To me they are all criminal cowards believing more in collateral damage than actual “military” operation against what is termed as legitimate targets.

    Are the extremist Shi’a above this act? No, the operative word here is extremist. However, what I said that as far as I know no Shi’i has yet donned a bomb-jacket and exploded themselves in a crowded marketplace.

Back to Top