Arab dictators were never anti-Radical Islam.

Post Reply New Topic

I've notice there's a huge common misconception among the westerners I chat with about some aspects of the Middle-east politics, and one of the most common myths:

Arab regimes are anti-Isalmism (like In Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria) , they are the last obstacles against further spreading of Islamism and islamic terrorism , and replacing them by democratic systems would just empower Islamism and therefore terrorism associated with it.

Too many myths in that one, so let's break it down.

.

Correction: In fact, every Arab regime was anti-any-other-ideology-but-them, the Ba'ath Regime of Syria for instance, while it is a Marxist s**t itself, has suppressed all other Leftist parties in Syria and even massacred many of them like The Syrian communist party ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Com ... _1958-1970) and the Syrian Socialist party.
Same thing happened for the Iraqi Communist party under the Ba'ath rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Comm ... thist_rule and any other leftist and secularist party.

The anti-mubarak opposition in Egypt were formed of Leftists, liberals and Islamic parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _for_Egypt , not to mention the new rising secular The January 25 Movement and Youth for Justice and Freedom.

The Muslim brotherhood and other Islamic parties in Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries were suppressed, all along with the non-islamic parties, by the ruling regimes simply because they were among the 'others' and not because they were really anti-Radical Islam.




O rly? O_o lol , well....this is a tricky one and very long one:

For decades, Assad, Gaddafi, Mubarak and other Arab dictators used to tell Americans and Europeans that if they did not support them, the result would be Muslim extremists coming to power, and therefore more Islamic terrorism in the world.

This is why these dictators never took drastic measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups in their countries. Even though Egypt and some Arab countries occasionally cracked down on these groups, they always made sure that the Islamists would stay around.

For example, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had been outlawed for years. However, this did not stop them and its supporters from operating under different labels.

In Jordan, the authorities played a cat-and-mouse game with Islamist groups and their followers. One day the Muslim Brotherhood in the kingdom would be good guys, on another day they would be bad guys.

This pattern gave the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to grow and win over more supporters, as the local people became more and more disgusted both with their dictators and the Western governments who supported them.

Instead on focusing Islamism and fighting it, Arab dictators chose to persecute secular reformists, liberals, democrats, journalists and human rights activists; by suppressing the emergence of these people, the Arab dictatorships paved the way for the rise of radical extremists.

This is the reason the Islamist groups in the Arab countries are MUCH more organized than the pro-democracy Facebook youth who launched the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

Unlike the Islamists parties, anti-government democratic and secular parties in Egypt and Jordan still don't have leaderships,

In Tunisia, the youth who brought down the regime of President Zine al-Abidin Bin Ali also still do not have a leader.

Ironically, not all those dictators only focused on the democratic parties, but also supported many Islamist parties in neighboring countries and made them more powerful: The Assad's financial and political support for Hezbollah, the most militarily powerful Islamist party in the middle-east, and other Islamist parties in Lebanon and Jordan like Al-Ahbash and the Islamic Labor Front and other Islamist Palestinian faction like Hamas, Fath el Islam (a Qaeda branch) and Jund el Cham. ALL are funded and supported by the so-called "Anti-Islamism" Assad's Ba'ath party, in fact the Syrian Ba'ath always made sure to weaken the only moderate Sunnite movement (Future current) in my country while supporting and empowering all the other extremist islamist movements.

Gaddafi, himself, has an unapologetic history of funding terrorists, hijacking airplanes and bombing civilian targets. Gaddafi was also one of the main feeders of the Islamist factions in Lebanon and other countries. Let's also refresh our short-term memory of what his son said:


and with this: http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation ... a-1.349357






We can say that the dictators have made their own prophecy true, in the absence of organized secular leadership, it is that the well-organized Islamist groups would, sooner rather than later, would take a good portion of power, but I am certain that they won't able to rule alone and impose a full-scaled Sharia rule.

The Arab dictators have only themselves to blame for the rise of radical Islam. The dictators incited their constituents against Israel and the West in order to divert attention from problems at home.

The next time an Arab dictator tells you (the westerners) that radical Islam is the only alternative (a fat lie) to his corrupt secular regime, you should check to see what measures he has taken to contain the extremists.


and for that last points , I would like to point at several side-points and facts:



1-There's a big difference between Islamism and Islamic terrorism: Islamism is a spectrum, Wahabism, Al Qaeda and Taliban are on the extreme right of this spectrum (and those are hopeless cases), Muslim brotherhood in Egypt is a typical example centric-right, Muslim brother in Syria is more moderate than its Egyptian branch, Erdogan's party in Turkey (non-Arab country but well...) is a typical example of the far moderate Islamism. The west can reason with the centric and 'moderate' Islamism.


2- Islamism is a reality now : *sigh* while an atheist living here wouldn't wish that to be true, but Islamism is now a part of the Muslim communities. Suppressing them had proven to be not useful, as we can see, live proof of that is Egypt and Syria. So instead of suppressing them, seculars should find means to weakening them by democratic means, and fighting the far right Islamism by law, and not by oppressing all Islamist movements.


3- Countries don't become full democratic overnight: Remember how France fell under monarchy and dictatorship after its revolution,again and again, for long decades before becoming the France we know now. The revolutions' aftermaths were never easy and rosy, some Arab countries might fall under Islamic regime for some years, some would go through for a lot of reforms and semi-dictator regimes.... progress is a very slow process. Take Iran for example, Islamism in Iran nowadays is in decline, the Green movement made a great attempt to reform the regimes (but they should have gotten armed like the Libyan rebels), despite their failure, Islamism would be fading even more in Iran.

4- The source of Islamist terrorism is not the people of the Arabphone countries: If the US really wants to end the Islamic terrorism once and for all, then it should cut at the real sources of it: KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) 's Wahhabi system (Salafi Sunni) and Iran's Islamic revolutionary regime (Extremist Shi'te), both have the wealth and the power to export their ideologies to the world. Qaeda, Taliban and all other Sunni Islamic terrorists' ideologies are based on Wahabism. Hezbollah's ideology is based on the Iranian Revolutionary Shi'ite Islamism.


But this will never happen, KSA is a good friend_with_benefit and keeping Iran as it is is a useful scarecrow.

No disagreement here.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If the majority of the people in these states would really want Islamist to win elections. What are you supposed to do? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to flaunt the goodness of democracy yet be afraid that it may allow groups you consider 'dangerous' to win elections in other countries?

"Democracy is all right as long as only the guys I like get elected."

I like your analysis. Anyone who wants to see more democracy in the Middle East should support education for women as a starting point. Upon that fulcrum, the entire society can quickly increase in prosperity and sophistication in only a few generations.

I thought I would have a look at some of the things you are saying.

.

For the most part true. They suppressed all sources of dissent; secular and religious.



Not the last obstacles, but they are obstacles; even if they are half-hearted in their efforts.



Maybe. It is a real possibility. What will be certain is that the ability of these states to effectively repress the more violent aspects of their Islamist parties will be reduced and in many cases dramatically. Even if Islamic parties do not come to power, these states will have a reduced ability to engage in counter-terrorism



Tell that to Iran, that is exactly what happened there. It is not a certainty that this will occur, but it is a risk. Radical governments emerge from power vacuums; even if they are radically democratic



Nonsense, the Muslim brotherhood is a terrorist organization. The views of al-Banna and Qutb are the antecedent views of most of today's Islamic Terrorists. The present leader of Al Qaeda was groomed within the Muslim Brotherhood. The lines between MB and more agressive groups are not clear cut enough for us to consider it to be a moderate group. Many of its members are signed up to multiple organizations, with MB acting as a parent network.



That is a rather optimistic view. It may be right, but it also may not. I personally would not bet on it yet.



Actually one is the power balance of the other. The US policy has been to create an internal balance of power within the Middle East, it is a realist policy and it has been mostly effective.

One thing that is changing is the underlying power structure of the middle east. As states like Egypt change, so to the pressure to act more aggressively towards Israel will increase. The dictators could be dealt with, tied into relationships and treaties so as to preserve mid east peace, this has been fundamentally undermined in a widespread fashion across the region. It may not lead to war, but it does create a situation that must be managed.

Then it would be the people's choice.

Actually, I believe Bin Laden's successor had been part of another organization apart from the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether the Brotherhood prove to be good guys or bad guys remains to be seen.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer