I have been expecting an uproar about the four French who were killed by Sunni extremists in Suadi Arabia for the last week. And yet, other than screams of "atrocity!," "barbaric," and such, nothing has happened. Once again, we are faced with an ignorance of the Arabic tribal and religious culture that has cost us over 3100 U.S. lives and by the time it is all over, probably $3 trillion dollars or more. Why can't we just stop for a moment and ask ourselves, "What would Mohammed do??"
This is only my second diary post. Please be gentle. I have a military background and simply hate to see the destruction (read "slow bleed") of the U.S. Military and the position of the United States as a moral leader in the world.
Last week, a small group of French sightseers in Saudi Arabia was ambushed and the adult male members of the group were killed. The women and children were spared. The French were near the outskirts of Medina, the most holy city on the Arabian peninsula. The world was outraged at the deaths. But why did the murders take place at all? Are the Arabs just mean?
What would Mohammed do? If you have read the Quoran or studied any Islamic history, you would know that Mohammed would do exactly what the Sunnis did--kill the infidels. A few decades after Mohammed started preaching his new religion, he became stymied by the pagans, Jews, and Christians in Mecca and Medina and their refusal to convert to Islam. To solve the problem, he Killed a bunch of them, deported a bunch, and the converted the rest "by the sword." From a website called "Family Security Matters, The National Security Resource for American Families," it says:
"Medina became the holy city of Islam after Muhammad banished, murdered or enslaved the Jews, and effectively evicted them from their centuries-old homes. Likewise, Mecca became the Muslim holy city after Muhammad slaughtered many Meccan pagans and forced others to convert to Islam by the sword. [Q 9:5]. Not only Mecca and Medina, but all of Arabia became holy for the Muslims and no-go zones for the infidels when the prophet, from his deathbed, commanded his followers to destroy the Jews and Christians so "that two religions should not be allowed to remain in the Arab Peninsula." [Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, (trs. A Guillaume), Karachi, p523]"
In short, the "infidel" French were trespassing on holy ground. The response from the devout "owners of the holy ground" was to kill them for desecration.
What is the big deal beyond the deaths of four Frenchmen? This action should have reminded us of Osama bin Laden. One irony of the cultural difference between westerners and Arabs is that in general, in the west the more educated you are, the less or a religious zealot you tend to be. Isn't this one of the conservative curses--"you're a pointy head Ivy League intellectual?" In the Arab world, the opposite is true. The poor and undereducated are willing to get along and go along as long as it it profitable. It is the very well educated who are more often than not the true religious extremists.
So what about Osama bin Laden? Is it just that he is an "Is-lay-mo- fascist," a "hater of free-dum?" Regarding the way he makes his living, what does he have to say is the reasons for his extremism? According to Wikipedia,
"In 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, (a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad), co-signed a fatwa (religious edict) in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring:
" [t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.[49][50]." And,
"In an interview with journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai published in TIME Magazine, January 11, 1999, Osama Bin Laden is quoted as saying:
" "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal."[53]
In 1990 and 1991, the U.S. Government moved massive numbers of troops into Saudi Arabia in response to the Sunni Saddam Hussein's invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The goal was to repel the Iraqi invasion. Osama bin Laden at the time offered to provide 12,000 trained and armed soldiers to the Saudi government to help repel the invasion. The Saudi Government turned him down. Picture yourself as a devout follower of Islam. What would Mohammed do? While you may not be happy that Iraq has invaded Kuwait, you must be furious with the invited presence of "infidels" on holy ground. In the 7th century, Mohammed himself took up sword to drive out the infidels. We know for certain what Mohammed would do. Attack, punish, and destroy the infidels!
I would love to offer the Bush Administration and one of my West Point classmates, GEN David Petraeus, a solution for their problem. Unfortunately, there is only one solution that will achieve our national interest that will also mesh with the culture and religion of the Arab. That solution is an immediate, complete withdrawal of all American forces from any and all Arab lands. Call me a "defeatocrat" if you want, but if we were to do this, we could still achieve our true objectives over time.
First, what is our national interest in the near east? First and foremost, it is the free flow of oil. If we immediately withdrew from Iraq, widespread violence with result--for a while. Look back at Iraqi history. This has happened before. Very quickly, everyone will move back to their neighborhoods (or tribal boundaries) and someone--probably a clone of Saddam Hussein--will move to the top. He will stay at the top if he recognizes that Iraq is not a nation and never will be a nation. Just like the Ottoman Empire, he will let the tribal areas be and bribe a few "pan-arabs" into becoming his palace guard who will enforce the no-fighting rule between the tribal areas. They are addicted to American money so the oil will flow and the Iraqis will get down to building up their demolished local economies, educating their children, and hating their neighbor.
With the withdrawal of American forces, we will have to accept that we have "awakened a sleeping giant" in Iran. There is nothing the Saudis can do about their slowly dwindling oil fields. However, the difference will be made up (at least for a while) by increased output from Iran and Iraq. The Saudis will have to act on their own as a Sunni dam to the Iranian Shia floodwater, but the problem will remain regional if we do not meddle. There is one potential new nation in the making. That nation is Khurdistan. However, keep in mind that even though the Kurds are Islamic, they are not Arabic. The Kurds have the potential--and the desire to become a nation. The fact that the Kurds are sitting on top of some of the world's most valuable oilfields certainly is also a motivating factor.
What about Israel? Israel might be a tiny country, but if they can manage to get some reasonable leadership, they will still be the strongest and biggest guy in the sandlot. Tribal countries are not and can never be nations. An Arab is loyal to death to his family, his tribe, sometimes to his religion, and sometimes to his region, but never to his country. The Israeli Army will always be able to whump up on any force the Arabic community will deploy against it. However, the Israeli people, who overwhelmingly want a solution to the Palestinian problem, will have to vote out the neocons and elect some good progressives. Read Jimmy Carter's new book. He's right. 100% right. There will never, ever be lasting peace in the mideast without a Palistinian solution.
Finally, what about Afganistan? I remember one time when Colin Powell was still a General, he made the statement, "We (the U.S. military) don't do mountains." How true. The most difficult terrain to wage conventional warfare is in the mountains. You are forced into small unit tactics without the help of heavy armor, air support, and artillery. For the best primer on small unit tactics in a mountainous terrain, see Edwin Rommel's "Infantry Attacks," a narrative of his experiences during World War I.
But what are our national interests in Afganistan? Actually, none at all. The Brits and European Union have a national interest, however. That interest is to make sure that the opium crop doesn't enter Europe. How do they best do that? Easily. Pick up and leave. The Taliban will quickly take over and when they were in charge before, as you might expect since they are good Muslims, they eridicated the opium poppy crop. However, as good Muslims, they also took care of the subsistence farmers and didn't allow them and their families to starve in the meantime.
But what about Osama, sitting there in Tora Bora or Warizistan or wherever? Shouldn't we round him up for killing all those American citizens on 9/11? Once again from Wikipedia, the FBI's 10 Most Wanted:
"Osama bin Laden is the leader of al-Qaeda, and is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. bin Laden and al-Qaeda are also responsible for the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, which killed 17. Although bin Laden also later appeared on the first publicly released FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list on October 10, 2001, he was listed there for the 1998 embassy attack, and not for his alleged role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000, because the most wanted lists name fugitives charged with a crime by a prosecutor or under indictment by a grand jury. Bin Laden was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in, for instance, the federal indictment against convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, but has not been formally indicted for his role in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Bin Laden is the subject of a $25 million reward through the State Department's Rewards for Justice program targeting international fugitives, especially terrorists, plus $2 million through a program developed and funded by the Air Line Pilots Association and the Air Transport."
What did you notice from the above? Where is the indictment for the 9/11 attack? Has the Bush Administration just "forgotten" to seek a federal indictment for Osama bin Laden and his role in the destruction of the Twin Towers, this heinous "Is-lay-mo-fascist," this "hater of free-dum?" Or is someone else guilty of asking himself, "What would Mohammed do?" and acting on that revelation? One way ot the other, as long as the "infidels" remain on holy ground, the followers of Mohammed will continue to attack. Who are we to condemn the beliefs of religious conservatives? But if Osama is not a scapegoat, why has he not been indicted?