Article Archive: Current 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Counter-Terrorism: The Arab Disease
   Next Article → INFANTRY: Goodbye To Bangalore
September 15, 2011: In the last decade, the world has learned what Israelis have known for a long time; Arabs and their governments tend to favor self-destructive policies. Western nations have generally ignored this madness, or excused each instance as a momentary lapse in good judgment. But this bad behavior has spawned Islamic terrorism, and sustains it. Many Arabs believe what al Qaeda preaches, that the world should be ruled by an Islamic religious dictatorship, and that this must be achieved by any means necessary (including force, against non-Moslems, and Moslems who don’t agree.) This sort of thinking has been popular with Islamic conservatives since Islam first appeared in the sixth century. Since then, it has periodically flared up into major outbreaks of religious inspired violence. But that’s not the only problem. Arabs, in particular, sustain these outbursts with their fondness for paranoid fantasies and an exaggerated sense of persecution and entitlement. For example, most Arabs believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks were not carried out by Arabs, but were a CIA scam, to provide an excuse for the West to make war on Islam.  That’s just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. troops in Iraq were amazed at the number of fantastical beliefs that were accepted as reality there. Then there is the corruption and intense hatreds. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world, and always has been.

For centuries, the West was shielded from this problem because the Ottoman Turks ruled most of the Arabs. Western diplomats often heard the Turks complain about their Arab subjects. A favorite quip among the Turks was, “One should not involve oneself with the affairs of the Arabs.” Then, when World War I, and the Ottoman Empire, ended in 1918, Western nations found themselves temporarily in charge of these former Turkish Arab provinces. Before World War II broke out in 1939, most of these Arab provinces were turned into separate states. These new countries were not stable. After World War II began, for example, Iraq (a monarchy at that point) attempted to ally itself with Nazi Germany. Arabs admired the Nazi attitudes towards Jews (not realizing that Nazi anti-Semitism applied to all Semites, of whom Arabs were the most numerous.) Britain could not afford to have a Nazi ally sitting on their major source of oil, and gathered together a few divisions and invaded. Three weeks later, Iraq was conquered, and a more agreeable group of Iraqis were found to run the place for the rest of the war.

After World War II, there were problems in several Arab states, most of them involving reformers (who turned out to be dictators, once they took over) and the ruling traditionalists (who were less efficient dictators, for the most part). Then there was Israel, where Arabs had been demonstrating the religious intolerance they have long been infamous for. Around the same time, Saudi Arabia was explaining to Western oil workers why the long list of lifestyle rules for foreigners (no non-Moslem houses of worship, restrictions on the dress and activities of women and so on) was necessary, and mandatory (on pain of death). But when the UN approves the establishment of Israel (and an adjacent Arab state), the Arab world announces that they will not tolerate this. Arab states tell Arabs living near Jews to flee, temporarily, while the combined armies of all Arab states in the region attack and wipe out the greatly outnumbered Jews. To the world’s amazement, the Arabs are defeated. Even though Arab military skill had been held in low esteem for centuries (and Jews were not considered much better), this defeat came as a shock.

The newly created state of Israel studied all this, and concluded that the Arabs were done in by corruption and self-delusion. These two problems continued to cripple Arab military effectiveness. There were a few exceptions. The Jordanians institutionalized the training they had received from the British, although that only made them a more difficult enemy for the Israelis to defeat in 1967. Since then, Jordan has maintained good relations with Israel. Egypt reformed its military in the early 1970s, but those reforms were gone by the late 1970s, replaced by the usual corruption and incompetence.

The Arabs have fought five major wars with Israel, losing all of them badly, even though Israel was always outnumbered and outgunned. Unlike Jordan, all the other Arab states continue to insist that Israel must be destroyed. Palestinians continue to believe the promises of these Arab states that this will soon be accomplished. In the meantime, the descendants of the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 are still living in refugee camps, because the Arab states those camps are in will not accept the Palestinians as refugees, and give them citizenship. In the West, the Palestinians were accepted as refugees and allowed to settle and become citizens. The Palestinians are unimpressed at how Europe handled a similar situation after World War II, when many borders and millions of people were moved. After the Arab attack on the newly declared Israeli state in 1948 failed, Arab nations refused to take in any of the 700,000 Palestinians who fled the fighting. Had those Palestinians stayed, they would have outnumbered the 600,000 Israelis and the history of Israel would have been quite different. It's interesting to note that nearly all of the 25 million refugees produced by the aftermath of World War II in the late 1940s were resettled. This included 600,000 thousand Jews who fled Arab nations after Israel was established. 

It gets much worse. As hundreds of billions in oil revenue poured into the Persian Gulf states, the Arab nations there did not invest in their economies, instead they created government jobs for most of the males, and imported foreigners to run the economy (pick up the garbage, build and maintain everything, run the stores, hospitals and so on). East Asian nations, without oil, invested what they had in education and their economy. Fifty years later, the Arabs still have their consumer society, run by foreigners, while the East Asian states (some of them Moslem) have achieved economic independence, with vibrant, self-sustaining economies. Some Arabs have noticed this, but the majority have not.

The madness continued, especially when it came to the lack of tolerance for other religious or political ideas. For example, in Iraq, a Sunni minority had long ruled a Shia Moslem majority, often using a lot of brutality to keep the Sunnis in power. A Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein, came to power in the late 1960s, and in 1980 ignored thousands of years of history (where the more powerful Iranians kick the Arabs around at will most of the time) and invades Iran. There is a revolution going on in Iran at that time, and Saddam believes he can seize some oil fields just across the border, and then negotiate a peace deal with the distracted Iranians. That’s not how the Iranians operate. They never have. A bloody war ensues. Total casualties are several million dead and wounded. In 1988 both sides agree to a ceasefire. The armies were basically sitting on their pre-war borders at that point. Iraq gained nothing, except a lot of debts (needed to buy weapons, and loyalty from Iraqi Shia). The insanity continued in 1990, when Saddam decided that he could invade Kuwait (to whom he owned over $10 billion) and add their oil to Iraq’s already enormous reserves. Saddam overlooks the fact that the West (and most Arabs) consider him an unreliable maniac, and will not tolerate the seizure of Kuwait. Within six months, a coalition of Western and Arab troops drive Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait and demand reparations for all the damage Iraq did to Kuwait. The UN puts Iraq under an embargo until the debts are paid, and weapons inspectors are satisfied that Iraq has no more chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Note that the Arab states joined this coalition only after the United States promised not to invade Iraq and remove the Sunni Arab minority from power. This was part of the long struggle between Iranians and Arabs. Iraq had a Shia Moslem majority (as did Iran) and the Sunni Arab oil states did not want a more pro-Iran Shia government running Iraq.

Saddam, terrified that Iran would now invade Iraq and kill him (Iranian leaders had publicly vowed to do that), now that Iraq was so weak, refused to admit that he has already destroyed his “weapons of mass destruction.” This fact was kept very secret because, as Saddam later admitted, he wanted Iran to think he still had these weapons (to discourage Iran from invading.) Saddam believed that the UN would eventually get tired of the embargo and inspections and go away. Iran, however, would always be there.

When the U.S. invaded in 2003, Saddam’s forces folded about as quickly as they had in 1991. But Saddam had a Plan B. He told his Sunni Arab followers to begin a terror campaign against the foreign troops (which did not work out too well) and against Shia Arabs (which killed over 50,000 civilians). Saddam reasoned that this would cause the Shia Arabs in Iraq to attack Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and that this would bring in neighboring Sunni Arab nations to aid the Iraqi Sunni Arabs in taking power again. Saddam even considered it possible that he would end up as the dictator of Iraq again. This was insane, but it made perfect sense to many Iraqi Sunni Arabs. None of the neighboring Arab states were going to aid the Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists (other than allowing their own terrorism minded citizens to go to Iraq and get killed as suicide bombers or inept gunmen). This Sunni Arab terror campaign went on for nearly five years, until most Iraqi Sunni Arabs (at least the ones who had not fled the country, as a fifth already had) gave up, and turned against the terrorists.

But most Arabs admit that their main reason for hating the West, is the existence of Israel. The Palestinians are united by their desire to destroy Israel and drive all Jews from the Middle East, but they are also divided by many things, including religion. Although most (except for three percent who are Christians) are Moslem, they are at odds over what kind of Islam should be practiced. Many, but not most, Palestinians in Gaza (where 1.5 million live) favor Islamic conservatism, and making religion the center of people's lives and forcing all Palestinians to comply with Islamic law (Sharia). But in the West Bank (where 2.5 million live), the trend is definitely in favor of education (always popular among Palestinians) and moving away from destructive practices (religious conservatism and Islamic terrorism). This is actually still a contentious issue in the West Bank, where the ruling (as the PLO) Fatah party has long been known for corruption more than any kind of reform. But the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority (a Fatah man) has been talking up more education, and critical thinking (something that could get you killed in Iran).

Some Arab leaders go even further. Four years ago, at a meeting of the Arab League, the king of Saudi Arabia told the assembled rulers that the biggest problem in the Arab world was poor leadership. This was a bold statement, but not unusual for the senior people in the Saudi government. These princes have also been supporting the Arab Reform Movement, which is based on the idea that most of the Arab world's problems are internal, not the result of outside interference. Actually, most educated Arabs will readily admit that their leaders have been less than stellar, and largely responsible for the corruption and bad decisions that have put the Arab world so far behind the West, and every other region, except Africa, when it comes to economic growth.

But knowing and admitting to the problem does not solve it. The United States found that out after Saddam Hussein's Baath Party dictatorship was overthrown. Iraqis eagerly embraced democracy, only to find that the people they elected were not a big improvement over Saddam. Some of Iraq's new leaders backed terrorists. This was especially true of Iran backed Shia factions, which unleashed death squads, that killed thousands of Sunni Arabs. Some of the Sunni Arab leaders supported terrorists who targeted Shias. And then there was the corruption, with billions of dollars of government money missing.

This incompetence is also, as the Saudi king likes to point out, the cause of the Islamic terrorism that has found a home in the Islamic world. Indeed, these terrorists only began attacking kafirs (non-Moslems) in the 1990s when they realized Islamic terrorists were getting shut down in Arab countries. In Egypt, Syria and Algeria, Islamic radical attempts to toss out corrupt governments all failed. While Arab leadership may suck, these guys have certainly mastered the art of running a police state.

But attacking non-Moslems, outside of the Moslem world, brought into play the Western media. This was important, because the Western media now had 24 hour, world-wide (via satellite) outlets. All the people that mattered could now see what the Islamic terrorists did. Before, terror attacks inside Arab countries were largely ignored by the rest of the world. But now, the instant publicity was critical, because there were millions of Arabs living in the West. These people were making more money than they were back home. Fed up with the corrupt and incompetent leadership back home, they moved. This Arab Diaspora provided a refuge for Islamic militants. Another benefit was the appearance of Arab language satellite news services in the 1990s. Terrorist movements thrived on publicity, and the more news channels there were out there, the more attention terrorist attacks would get.

All that terrorism was a sign that some Arabs are very unhappy. For decades, the powers-that-be refused to acknowledge why the kids were pissed off. Thanks to all those suicide bombs and breathless news reports, the family secret was out there for the entire world to see. No, not the al Qaeda "the West is making war on Islam," canard, but an earlier al Qaeda call to overthrow the corrupt leaders of the Arab countries. Al Qaeda has to come up with the "war on Islam" angle to justify September 11, 2001, and earlier attacks. But the root cause is bad leadership at home.

The Palestinians have used terrorism against each other, as well as the Israelis, and it has not worked. The Arab states that donate so much money to the Palestinians have noted that, as well as the fact that Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the threat to keep going (had not the American led coalition promptly shown up.) Palestinians continue to support al Qaeda, which is still at war with the Arab nations Palestinians depend on for payroll money.

So when the king of Saudi Arabia tells the assembled Arab leadership that they are the problem, you can take that as a sign of progress. But real progress it ain't. Arab leaders are victims of their own success. Their rule is based on corruption and police state tactics. Think East Europe before 1989. Big difference is that, although the populations of East Europe then, and the Arab world now, were both fed up with their leaders and governments, the Arabs were not willing to make as painless a switch as the East Europeans did in the 1990s. That's because the East Europeans had two choices; communism or democracy. The Arabs have three; despotism, democracy or Islamic dictatorship.

In Iraq and Gaza we see how the Islamic radicals react to democracy. They call it un-Islamic and kill those who disagree with them. The Arabs have to deal with this, and in Iraq they are. In Gaza they aren't. But the violence in Iraq has revealed another Arab problem. Even if you remove religion from the equation, not all Arabs are keen on democracy. In Iraq, the Sunni Arab minority believe it is their right (or responsibility) to run the country. This is a common pattern in Arab countries. One minority believes they are rulers by right, and that democracy is an abomination and un-Islamic (or at least inconvenient for the ruling minority). This is the pattern in nearly every Arab country.

But there is hope. One of the least known members of the Arab League, Mauritania, held elections five years ago and now have the only other, besides Iraq, freely elected Arab government. The divisions in Mauritania, with a population of less than four million, are between the Arab (about a third) and "former slaves" (black Africans from the south). Mauritania exists on the border between Arabs and Bantu (the ethnic group that predominates in Africa south of the Sahara). Blacks were the slaves, and slavery was formerly abolished only in 1981. But slavery still exists in Mauritania, but so does democracy. Like South Africa, and a lot of other places where "democracy won't work," it does. Not democracy like in the United States, or Europe, or anywhere else. Every democracy is different, just like every culture is different. Democracy is a messy, inefficient form of government, but compared to all the others, it tends to be preferred by most people.

Arabs, even Arab leaders, know they need democracy. They have tried everything else, and nothing else works. But democracy is strong medicine for Arabs, and many would rather just talk about it, and go no further. And that is the problem in the Arab world, especially among the Palestinians. Islamic terrorism is the result. The Palestinians have, to many of their Arab patrons, not gotten the message. Apparently some Palestinians realize this, but they won't admit it. The Palestinians are still obsessed with having it their way, especially if Western and Arab donors continue to subsidize the dream of destroying Israel. Meanwhile, Israel refuses to be destroyed, and that sets the stage for some awesome violence if the fantasies continue to flourish.

 

Next Article → INFANTRY: Goodbye To Bangalore
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Bob Cortez       9/15/2011 8:16:52 AM
Actually, the statehood business is a real opportunity.  Israel, with no Camp David, will be able to do some very necessary things about it borders.  No one mentions ever that jihadi show up everywhere Islam seems threatened, except where the Palies are concerned.  Most of the locals realize that the Palies made the mess so should clean it up.  That is why no one wants them, plus the Kuwaiti experience of course.  The Arabs picked the wrong side in WWII, and really have no complaint that their borders not rearranged.
 
The West also ignore the extreme demographic pressure in the region.  Egypt has about twice as many people as it did during the Yom Kippur War.  Eventually there will be more mouths than money, anywhere, even Saudi.   Given a young population and a very hard culture, you can have some real problems.
 
Traditionally cultures there act like the hopper: when population pressure reaches a certain level they swarm, becoming locust: we owe Thesiger for that insight.  They are doing so now, going to Europe, when in the past, they rode out of the desert for spoil.
 
Hitler admired Islam and created Bosnia (Muslim) SS units with spiffy uniforms.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hotspur666    The rodent's Umma...   9/15/2011 12:57:46 PM
As a pre-teen, I raised lab rats as a hobby in a large cage. When population density reached a certain level, mothers ate their babies and they all killed each others. Muslims have been doing that for a millenia and a half...we sure are heading for "interesting" times, as the Chinese say...Their armies are not entirely all Potemkin villages...they are real enough to cause massive carnage...and it is our job to see that they exterminated each others again as they did in the Iran-Iraq war...
 
Quote    Reply

TheOnlyMarxistCowboy    Yaaay Biggoted Rants!   9/15/2011 4:50:23 PM
Title says it all.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/15/2011 5:00:21 PM
 
In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first
or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients
and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while
a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously" married. The most
prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is that of Saddam Hussein
and his first wife Sajida.
 
==================================
 
'nuf said.
 
As inbreeding generates mental retardation and disorder, often combined.
 
That explains a lot about the paranoid schizophrenia in Arab world.
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       9/15/2011 8:15:48 PM
The primary reason that this has not happened, IMO, is Israel, as it serves as the safety valve that keeps the Arab Middle East from engaging in destructive wars with each other. If the population suffers from poverty and want, it's the fault of the Jews.  If there is injustice, at least they can say that their oppressors are fellow Arabs, not the awful Jews.  Money from anti semites and the duped around the world, pour into the coffers (And back pockets) of Palestinian leaders, and those nations who shelter, but refuse to absorb them, making Palestinians, in essence, livestock.  After all, why would those who have profited so mightily be stupid enough to actually give the people they supposedly represent, what they want?  There is also a psychological angle to consider.  I have long believed that random acts of terror, perpetrated on Israeli civilians act as a 'pick-me-up' to the beaten-down Arab in the street.  ("Life sucks, but I heard that an awful Jew was murdered in his/her bed last night...AHHH, I can feel the Endorphins flowing through my body...now, what was I mad about?")  The Arab hears the news and feels better, not realizing that Terrorism isn't designed to liberate him, but to keep him down and ignorant.  It's a shell game.  The despots whirl the shells around as the oppressed Arabs watch and hope for a payoff, too stupid to realize that all the shells on the table are empty. 
 
If Israel were to vanish tomorrow, it would be the worst thing that could possibly happen to the "Palestinians", because a day after they got tired of dancing in the streets, Hamas and Fatah would declare war, with each side determined to wipe the other side out of existence.  Palestinians would stream back (Or more likely, be forced to move.) into "New Palestine" by the Millions, but the kleptocracy they supported during their insurgency will have already bled the treasury dry, and/or fled to Rio, so more outside money will be needed to prop them up.  This time, however, their Arab brethren will not be so quick or generous with their wallets because the Palestinians wouldn't be homeless refugees, but competitors. Another rude surprise will occur when Palestine realizes that their neighbors will want all their land back too.  Palestine was for the most part, Trans-Jordan, Syria will want the Golan back, and Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967, leaving little or nothing for the millions of Palestinians to live on.
 
 So will an end to Israel mean peace in the Middle East?  Don't make me laugh.  Without Jews to cool the flames of Muslim Arab anger, governments will be obliged to increase oppression, or suffer the fate of Egypt, Libya and Syria, with a likelihood that governments will rise and fall much more frequently as the term 'Arab Spring' becomes not so much a buzz-word, but a yearly event.  Arab Nations will also be forced to arm-up and deploy troops to protect their borders, or cast covetous eyes on what lands (And resources) they themselves can steal from their weaker neighbors.  Border clashes will be more frequent, and all out wars much more brutal because the U.N. will be less interested in holding one side or the other to the unrealistic humanitarian standards they expect and get from the Israeli military.  Sunni's and Shias will likely square off, of course, so they can settle, once and for all, who has the corner on Islam.  Foreigners will become the new focus of anger and frustration, further eroding the ability of the oil producing Arab states to support the societies they built on bribery, theft, subsidy and conspicuous consumption, as fights break out over Pride, Politics, Religion, Nationalism or simply for loot, as the Middle East is slowly returned back to the Desert from which it emerged.  So, IMHO, so-called Leaders in the Middle East may publicly express their desire to see the Jewish state out of "occupied Palestine," but when they are alone, I'll bet that they all secretly thank Allah for Israel.
 
Quote    Reply

rhhardin       9/16/2011 8:39:29 AM
 Coleridge wrote in an op-ed in 1800
 
``A new religion had fanaticised whole nations. Men bred up in the habits of a wild and roaming freedom, had been brought together by its influence, and taught to unite the energies of a savage life with all the harmony and calculable coincidencies of a machine. But this religion was deadly to morals, to science, to civil freedom : no society could be progressive under its influence. It was favourable to superstition, cunning, and sensual indulgence; but it bore no fruit, it yielded no marriageable arms to the vine, it sheltered no healing plant. The soil was grassless where it grew ; the fox made its nest at the root, and the owl screamed in its branches - Such was the religion of Mahomet.''

S.T.Coleridge ``The War Not a Crusade'' _The Morning Post_ April 16, 1800.
 
Quote    Reply