Doc's Talk: Iraqi "Nation State" Idiocy

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Iraqi "Nation State" Idiocy

Yisrael Ne'eman

The West is once again playing "make believe" in claiming that Iraq is a secular nation state similar to those in Europe. The EU and Americans continue in the ridiculous policy of calling for "unity" between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds (who are also Sunnis but not Arabs) in the hope everyone will rally around the Iraqi flag. Iraq is no more a nation state with a secular Mesopotamian Arab identity as the determining factor any more than the Sykes-Picot Agreement and border demarcations of yesteryear between Syria and Iraq count for anything in today's Arab/Muslim World divided by religious denominations and loyalties. Secular Arab nationalism is at best a secondary or more likely a tertiary identity. First there is religious sect, then tribe, clan or family loyalties and only afterwards do we find a loose collective Arab identity. Even here the original Ba'ath ideal of a unifying Arab ID is as far off the mark as the Bolsheviks were when uniting the USSR and developing a new identity around the "new Soviet man." Such leaders as Bashar Assad of Syria or the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq were and are about as close to the Ba'ath ideal as Stalin was to building a true equality based communist state.

The West must internalize the fact that Middle Eastern loyalties are religious, ethnic and sectarian. If not, tried and true failed policies will repeat themselves without end. The West cannot impose the fictitious Iraqi-Syrian border demarcation as drawn up in London and Paris (known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement) after WWI when those on both sides of the frontier have much more in common with each other than they do with either of the regimes in Baghdad or Damascus. Today the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) represents not only radical Sunni interests sweeping eastern Syria and western Iraq but also many of the tribes and disillusioned formally Ba'ath Sunni forces supporting Saddam Hussein who find themselves without influence in what is left of the above mentioned entities. Policy makers need to refrain from defining either Iraq or Syria as "states," they are rather broken down entities reforming themselves into new political frameworks. The ISIL is assembling a third, radical Sunni entity between Baghdad and Damascus, threatening both with a new hybrid state to include Sunni al-Qaeda theology integrated with a Ba'athist (but in essence Stalinist) praetorian ideal.

American and western attempts at peace or conflict resolution are useless and just going through the motions. The Islamist perspective of an ever expanding homeland transcending artificial boundaries is the reality. The USA/West have no real policy options. Intervention is of no use and will only result in casualties with no democratic influence or change of lifestyle. Non-intervention is seen as "accepting defeat" but no one truly believes this is a war that can be won by the secular and/or democratic West harboring ideals so far removed from Jihadi Islam and the Ba'ath leadership of today. In essence the West (including Israel) must accept this reality.

So what is the solution? Strange as it may sound the West must let Iran get directly involved on the side of the Iraqi Shiites without easing up on any sanctions or forming an alliance of any sort. Iran and their Hezbollah proxies are already deeply involved in rescuing the Assad regime from extinction. It is likewise in their interests to save Shiite eastern Iraq. Many conservatives demand some form of western intervention to halt the ISIL advance and to keep Iranian influence from dominating eastern Iraq. Bombings and drone strikes will do little good against the ISIL and even "boots on the ground" may win a temporary victory for al-Maliki but as we have seen, once the Americans/EU are gone it is all back to square one of sectarian and religious slaughter. Secondly, Iran is the most influential factor in Shiite Iraq, it is about time they paid for it. Why should the West commit unlimited amounts of men and resources in the name of Iranian influence? Democratizing Iraq is not about to happen anytime soon. The Islamic Awakening of 2011 (it was never an "Arab Spring") will continue for at least a generation (and most likely two) before the next step of true democratic ideals will permeate the Middle East and not just appear with a few high profile intellectuals and western educated student leaders who make for wonderful interviewees and photo-ops.

At present everyone needs Iran including Israel, but only temporarily. And let it be repeated - there should be no deals and no lessening of sanctions. What we have is a confluence of interests which may last a few years and maybe even a decade or two. Iran already has advisors and some troops in Iraq but is not seeking a full-fledged conflict and most likely ISIL will not be able to overcome the Iraqi Shiite defense of Baghdad. But should they have no choice, the Iranians will be forced to fight rather than allow Baghdad to fall to ISIL with the resulting expulsions, Shiite flight, massive refugee problems and massacres. Iran will be involved in a two-front war (Syria and Iraq) with its resources stretched to the maximum. Such economic weakening may cause more instability in Tehran and the accompanying demands for reforms. Without a credible liberalization process the ayatollahs may face a rebellion.

The West cannot halt ISIL or Iranian influence in Shiite Iraq, yet it will still be able to pressure Tehran into freezing its nuclear program. The Iranians will certainly choose a free hand to help the Iraqi Shiites and secure their western front while avoiding new clashes and sanctions from the West over nuclear development.

As for ISIL in alliance with its Ba'athist and tribal allies, they will have the Tigris and Euphrates River water resources in the mid-stream region they control. So far oil installations are being retained in eastern Syria while the Mosul and Baiji refineries in Iraq are the scenes of intense battle. The developing Jihadi state has no port. Certain analysts believe this to be the ISIL Achilles heel. But who seriously believes that Kuwait and/or northern Saudi Arabia are not endangered? ISIL does not recognize state boundaries. There is no reason for this three way alliance not to seek more oil and a port on the Persian Gulf. We are not in 1991 anymore, one cannot expect Barak Obama to send troops. Would the US/EU intervene to halt an ISIL takeover of Kuwait in the northwest Persian Gulf? For sure there will be air and drone strikes, but a commitment of hundreds of thousands of American and NATO troops seems unlikely.

Has anyone considered an ISIL link-up with the Saudi Wahhabists? Remember them? Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden found their roots and inspiration from the Wahhabists. ISIL is the more extreme break off from Wahhabism and al-Qaeda. But the newly developing Islamic State is being "moderated" (as far as Islamic law and identity are concerned) by their Sunni tribal allies and former Ba'ath army officers in their ranks.

The Wahhabists, who control religious law and behavior in Saudi Arabia, might be convinced to ditch their alliance to the House of Saud and join ISIL in the ultimate Jihad. Sounds crazy – right? Such a shift in allegiance makes much more sense than the continuing Wahhabist loyalties to what they consider to be a very corrupt western influenced Saudi regime. Overrunning Kuwait and expelling the Arab Shiite minority from northeastern Saudi Arabia while capturing the main oil facilities in these regions would place the new Islamic State firmly on the map. Is this an overly pessimistic analysis? Maybe, but how many expected an ISIL alliance and such a successful offensive?

The Middle East looks to be on the verge of a total Shiite-Sunni clash and ensuing slaughter crossing European imposed state borders some one hundred years ago. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) might be considered the beginning but it was contained to two countries and had Persian-Arab nationalist overtones. The Shiites led by Iran are stretched thin in Syria and Lebanon but have no choice but to fight in Iraq where one can expect the ISIL advance on Baghdad will be halted.

Tehran's over investment militarily and financially may well lead to internal instability. The Iranians cannot win an overall war against the Sunnis but they can hold them off. We may be witness to demands for more reforms and social unrest. If nothing else Iran will suffer further economic weakening.

So what's the bottom line? We can all expect an intensified Jihadi extremism to sweep the Arab/Muslim Middle East and Islamic World (Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Such extremism will continue spilling over state boundaries or arise from fanatical movements within those countries. Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen may all be on the brink due to outside pressures and those from within. Only the non-Arab Kurds, who control no recognized state, exhibit political unity and command and control of their army in the field. The West faces the dilemma of defending its own interests while not being sucked into an unwinnable war where one is never sure which side to support. In other words there do not seem to be any "good guys," only unsavory characters who may turn on you at any moment.

A policy of "minimalism" may be the order of the day whereby the West only gets involved in a pinpoint fashion to protect strategic interests and/or when the opportunity arises to bring stability. Otherwise there is little incentive for intervention.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk