Apparently some of the US citizens taken hostage in Iran during the revolution think that Ahmadinejad, the new suspiciously-elected president of Iran, was one of their captors. However, not all of them think so, and some of the leaders of the students that were the spearhead in the revolution and hostage taking say he was not involved. It doesn't really matter though, whether he was involved or not he certainly embodies the spirit of the revolution and hostage taking. He is not the kind of man that good people want to see in power anywhere in the world, and the only good thing about his winning is that it might cause a new revolution (led again by students, perhaps ironically).
I think that the similarities between the current Islamic Jihad and the Crusades are remarkable. The most striking thing they have in common is the coercion of militants by religious leaders that do not themselves take part in the fight, and generally benefit politically and/or economically from the 'holy war.' The incentive offered to the fighters by their religious leaders is the same: free passage into heaven. This article has a pretty good summary of what the crusades are all about and you can use it to check the facts I quote -- it's really hard to find succinct and lucid internet sources about the crusades. Anyway, at the time of the crusades (mostly 1000-1250 AD) the system in the Catholic church was much like that in Islam: when you die your good deeds are weighed against your bad and how you measure up determines what happens to you from there. And in both faiths this idea has been exploited to incite warriors to fight. Before the first crusade Pope Urban II declared that all who fought in the crusade would be given a 'crusade indulgence' that forgave all their sins, assuring them direct entry to heaven when they died. Currently in the Muslim world some Ayatollahs and shieks have decided that Jihad, pretty much the same thing as a crusade, is another pillar of Islam. And if you die for a jihad then you not only get to go straight to heaven, but you get the best deal in heaven (42 virgins and some other 'nice' things, I think). So, given that option who wouldn't fight and die? If you believed that fighting, and in the Mulims' case dying (which includes killing yourself), for a holy war would compensate for all your sins, something that you would probably fail at otherwise, would you not join in? I would.
Again like the crusades is the non-religious aspect of both wars. At the time of the first 3 or 4 crusades the Christian Eastern empire was nearly or completely overrun by the Muslim empire (later solidifying under the Ottoman Turks into the Ottoman empire which lasted until World War I). The rulers of the Eastern lands sent desperate pleas for help from the West. Not only did the West want to protect (and possibly regain control of) their Eastern brethren, they knew (as is the idea behind much US involvement in Iraq today) if they did not go to fight the invaders in the East they would keep coming and eventually they would be fighting the invaders from their homes. So, at first it was probably necessary to send an army to fight back the Muslims (which they didn't do a good job of, but they did halt the advance). But in the later crusades especially, there was a very large amount of wealth sent back to the West plundered from the rich Muslim (or Christian, in the case of the 8/9th crusade) cities that were sacked. Today the Muslim leaders similarly have much to gain politically and economically by creating this war. It was the goal of Bin Laden and others to gain control of the entire Middle East (you think gas prices are high now) and probably the entire world, eventually. It is the express desire of Islamic dissidents in Morocco and Spain to retake the Andalusia, seen as the height of Muslim culture, for the Muslim world. And, like the crusades, the clergy who are inciting the war rarely engage in it.
The final similarity I'd like to highlight between the crusades and the current jihad is the severity of the tactics. In the crusades there were horrible atrocities committed by both sides. When you believe you are fighting infidel scum that do not deserve to live, its easy not to show mercy. Especially in the later crusades the crusaders were known for killing innocent civilians, even women and children, when they captured cities. Additionally, they were known for their brutal treatment of the people they fought -- and they rarely took prisoners. Beheading men captured in battle, and sometimes civilians as well, was fairly common. This parallels directly to the jihadists' targeting of civilian targets today, and their use of brutal 'terror tactics.'
It is my assertion that the jihadists today see their war in much the same way that eleventh century Europeans saw the crusades. And that is what so many people in America today do not understand. Many believe that if we leave the Middle East that the jihadists will leave us alone. They do not believe that it is a war on both sides. That is, they think we are fighting a war because we want to, because we started it. Not because our enemies declared war on us first. To them it is a war, and they won't stop until either someone stops them or they achieve their objective, which is to destroy the heathen westerners (especially America and Christians) and their control of world affairs. Also, our Western view of nationality does not translate to them. We see Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, etc as separate, sovereign nations. They do not. To the jihadist the war is partially about restoring the Muslim empire. And in their eyes all 'Islamic countries' are bound together against the West. So you can't really look at one country and say that they are for or against us, because the stance of their government does not determine their standing in the eyes of the jihadists. And that is why this war is unlike any other we've been involved in: we are not fighting against another political country, we are fighting against people scattered throughout many countries who believe they are all part of one empire that currently does not exist as a political entity. And that is why it is so hard, from a Western perspective, to understand where and how to fight this war. Right now its being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. And personally, I'd rather keep fighting it over there than let it come to us again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
standingout, your analysis of the Crusades was dead-on and insightful, and the parallels between the crusaders and jihadists were good as well. HOWEVER, I question your jump from that historical analysis to this:
"Right now [the war] is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Yes, some jihadists see Islam as one nation, but I think you drastically overstate the unity of some of the Islamic states, and drastically understate America's role in supplying weapons and technology to some of these people.
In fact, it's probably not even worth continuing this comment unless we agree that the United States has had a significant if not fundamental role in arming its own enemies. We gave Afghanistan weapons to fight the USSR which they later turned on us. We gave Iraq weapons which they used on Iran and the Kurds and then later turned on us. One step to fighting this so-called war would be to pressure US companies to stop selling WMDs to anyone with a credit card...
Right?
Indeed, the US is not without responsibility. We definetly contributed to the current state of affairs in the Middle East, and we did give them a lot of weapons when it benefitted us. And that was bad. However, I think that underscores the correctness of our efforts to bring democracy to the area (as I believe is one of our main goals) -- we screwed the place up, now we're trying to fix it. I'm not saying that the Islamic states are necessarily unified in their own eyes, but in the eyes of the jihadists.Thats why some military personnel are claiming that as many as 80% of the insurgents we've killed or captured in Iraq lately are foreign. Its also why so many foreign fighters are coming to Afghanistan, presumably through Pakistan, although the government of Pakistan does not support them. Many of the Jihadists see leaders of countries any less hard-line than Iran as illegitimate and do not recognize any political entity as being valid except that which supports the creation of a large Muslim super-state. So, thats what I meant to convey, not that the nations were allied against us secretly, but that militants from all countries are fighting this war because in their mind it is one empire, and therefore we are not fighting just one country, or any one country fully.
In terms of religious motivation for Jihadists, I fear you underestimate. Islam is a religion based on insecurity, as there is no way to tell if you are bound for heaven or hell. According to the Koran, not even Muhammed knew if Allah had reserved a place for him in heaven, and wherever Allah sends you is just, since Allah is just. In fact, according to the Koran, the only way to guarantee a spot in heaven is to die fighting infidels during a jihad, in which you go directly to the top level of heaven, the one with the virgins etc...
Many Islamics think that showing any kind of tolerance towards other religions will tip the scales away from heavenly paradise with the virgins. Koranically (is the the Muslim Biblically?), muslims have three options when dealing with non-muslims: conversion, subjugation, or death- there is no happy, liberal, celebrate diversity medium. While I don't think this holds as true with Islamic women (as many are bound for hell anyways according to the Koran), the extremist beliefs of many Muslim men are well-substantiated in the Koran, much more so than the weird Christian extremists who form nudist colonies, play with snakes, etc...
standingout, I appreciate your response--thanks for the comments. Please know that though I think that the Bush administration misled the US into the Iraq war, we are indeed fighting terrorists, and it is crucial that we succeed to bring stability to the region. I'm with you there.
jackscolon, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The 19 hijackers were not, as far as I can tell, poor, starved Muslim fundamentalists--they were reasonably well-educated, middle-class men who saw themselves as soldiers in a war against us. There's no way to go into another person's psyche and separate "religious motivation" from "non-religious motivation"--the Koran doesn't make anyone do anything. The people creating the suicide bombers and wielding them as weapons are comfortable, rich clerics whose only concern is power. As I've said 1,000 times, Bin Laden's number one grievance against the US is/was our military presence in Saudi Arabia.
I wasn't trying to provide rationale for every terrorist act through the Koran, I was just reemphasizing the fact the Jihadists don't suffer for lack of religious motivation. While I don't believe they flew into the WTC strictly to get to heaven, religion wasn't a moderating force for them.
I think they did fly the planes into the WTC just to get to heaven, or mainly for that reason. I'm well-educated, I'd like to think, and if I were a muslim and I believed that dying for Jihad would erase my sins... I'm pretty sure I'd do it. I don't think thats why Osama or other leaders are doing what they are, but they aren't the one's killing themselves. Our soldiers would indeed die if they knew it was the only way. But its not a standard tactic, and without the religious side it would not be for our enemies either. It was the same way with the kamakazi (sp?) pilots in Japan in WWII, it was the religious belief that motivated them to take such extreme measures. Islamic leaders like Bin Laden are exploiting religious devotion for their own gain. I don't think that Bin Laden's biggest problem with the US is really our military presence in SA. That might be what he says, but I do not believe that if we left the region altogther that he would leave us alone (assuming he's still alive).
"Islamic leaders like Bin Laden are exploiting religious devotion for their own gain."
That's absolutely true, and the crux of the whole issue.
Read this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/alzawahiri.tape/index.html
This is instructive:
"You can elect Bush, Kerry or Satan himself, it doesn't matter to us," he said. "What's important to us is the U.S. policies toward Muslims."
From a related article:
Osama Bin Laden has a flair for dramatic timing. In October 2001, he materialized on TV screens hours after bombs began falling on Afghanistan. Three years later, he surfaced on videotape four days before the U.S. presidential election.
It was not quite the Osama October Surprise that some Democrats had imagined -- bin Laden doing a perp walk in an orange jumpsuit -- but it rattled the United States and roiled the campaign just the same.
Bin Laden's core message was much the same as before: If the United States did not change its behavior toward the Muslim world, it would get hit again. "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda," he warned. "Your security is in your own hands." He tried to rationalize al-Qaeda's terrorism -- and court Muslim support -- by airing historical grievances against the West and Israel.
But the messenger was at least superficially different. Whereas he had earlier looked gaunt and tired, he seemed healthy and well groomed, if a bit thinner. He used both hands despite earlier reports that one of his arms had been injured in Afghanistan.
Gone were the fatigues and the AK47. Bin Laden wore a golden robe, sat behind a desk and read from notes. The media-conscious terrorist leader seemed to be trying for the image not of a soldier but of a statesman -- or at least of a TV host.
If the latter, the show could have been Hardball. At times bin Laden attacked Bush in language straight from the presidential campaign. "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," he said, denying the president's repeated charge that Islamic extremists "hate freedom." Bin Laden riposted, "Let him tell us then why did we not attack Sweden."
He likened Bush and his father to Middle Eastern despots who hand down power to their children.
I still am not convinced that any US policy is directly linked to OBL or other terrorist activities. He is a great politician, and as such he is playing the media to his advantage. He knows that if he comes out and says that he hates the US and wants to destroy it he will get some support. But if he says that the US is abusing Muslims (offering little or no proof) then he will get huge support. Hence this statement: Both U.S. candidates, he said, were fighting over "the acceptance of Israel. This proves there is no reasoning with America, but to force them to accept our position by force." Many Muslim arabs hate Israel, so this statement, although totally untrue, helps ally them against us.
Addtionally, I think this furthers my point about Jihadists believing in the Muslim Empire. You hear Osama and Al-Zawahiri talk about the US treatment of Muslims, as though they are a targeted people-group. They act as though it is our intention to attack Muslims, not to attack countries that happen to have muslim territories. They criticize SA "for providing staging areas for foreign planes to launch attacks against Muslims." Its all about the world versus Muslims when you hear these leaders talk because they know that that kind of thinking helps further their support. Can you imagine Bush calling for more soldiers to fight in Iraq because al-Qadea hates Christians? Or Jews? We don't talk about people of religion being killed when people give speeches or write for the news, we hear about Americans. We are incited to war when Americans are killed. For the ME it is different. They see their religion as more unifying than their nationality. And that is why we face the type of fight we do.
"...to attack countries that happen to have muslim territories" I meant "that happen to have Muslim populations"
Everything you said is true--but I never said we singled out Muslims. =) Our distribution of weapons is blind.
Their leaders see this as a struggle between Muslims and infidels, and we see it as one between democracy and fascism. So? I never said that wasn't the case. That just doesn't tell us anything about specific US or al Qaeda actions.
I think we've sort of lost the original argument. My bottom line would be this: justified or not, Bin Laden is not insane and doesn't just hate freedom. He has specific grievances, be they wrong or right.
Osama is not insane, but I don't think that he has specific grievences. I think that he has aspirations, and that by creating an image of the US as an infidel oppressor he can incite enough anger in his region to get people to fight for him to further his aspirations. I don't think that he hates freedom, as a rule, I think that he wants power. He, in my mind, is like any political or military leader trying to gain power. He's using propoganda to get support from the people and waging war to get more land/money/power. Its not about what we've done or haven't done. And yes, we did give him many of the weapons he is using against us today, so we should learn from that.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You and I both agree that he's power-driven. But you seem to think his choice of the US was completely arbitrary. You wrote:
"I don't think that he has specific grievences." I don't get it--how can I prove to you that he does, beyond citing the places where he singles out our presence in Saudi Arabia? It doesn't weaken any of the cases you've made to admit this.
I just think his grievances are specific--you must think that by admitting that you take away from the conduct of the US somehow, right?
No, I simply don't believe that he really is upset about US policy. I agree that he asserts that he has certain grievences, I simply don't believe that those are his real motivation. I don't believe that if we left SA and completely changed our ME policy that he would be happy and say "good job US, turns out you're not so bad after all." He'd keep at it until he had all the power he wants. I don't know exactly what his real goals are, but I don't think they involve better treatment for Muslims by the US. I think they involve more power for him. Perhaps you could say that the US presence in the ME is a real grievence of his because it is something that keeps him from power. But I don't think that he is really concerned for the well-being of the people there or Muslims the world over.
I don't want to touch the modern political implications and how the US is involved, but I think your analogy is perfect. I'd never thought of the jihad in light of the crusades, but I think you're absolutely right, in that they're more or less the same. [english accent] Excellent work, 007.[/english accent]
(I'd use HTML tags, but blogger doesn't like it.)
Post a Comment