Trump challenges Arab leaders on Muslim terrorism

On his visit to the Middle East Donald Trump has called for Arab leaders – he was speaking to the leaders of 55 Muslim majority countries in his visit to Saudi Arabia –  to deal with their “Islamist extremism” terrorism problem.

But Saudi (Sunni) King Salman introduced Trump’s speech by condemning Shi’ite Iran.

Reuters: Trump tells Middle East to ‘drive out’ Islamist extremists

U.S. President Donald Trump called on Arab leaders to do their fair share to “drive out” terrorism from their countries on Sunday in a speech that put the burden on the region to combat militant groups.

“America is prepared to stand with you in pursuit of shared interests and common security. But nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them”.

“The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries and frankly for their families and for their children.”

“It’s a choice between two futures and its a choice America cannot make for you. A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists.

“Drive them out! Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this earth”.

“Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land”.

Trump should get a lot of support in the Western world, and deserves praise for openly confronting extremist terrorism. But he may have dismayed some of the more radical anti-Muslim activists who campaign against the whole Islamic religion and all it’s followers.

Trump’s signature phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” was not included in the speech, according to excerpts released in advance by the White House.

Instead, he used the term “Islamist extremism”, which refers to Islamism as political movement rather than Islam as a religion, a distinction that he had frequently criticized the administration of his predecessor Barack Obama for making.

Trump was speaking to a very different audience to when he was campaigning in the United States. Whether his Muslim audience takes on board and accepts his change of rhetoric is yet to be seen.

Introducing Trump, Saudi King Salman described their mutual foe Iran as the source of terrorism they must confront together.

“Our responsibility before God and our people and the whole world is to stand united to fight the forces of evil and extremism wherever they are … The Iranian regime represents the tip of the spear of global terrorism.”

Iran is a Shi’ite Muslim country. The groups that the United States has been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere since the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York are mostly Sunni Muslims, and enemies of Iran.

That may not be such a good sign. Iran is not the only source or supporter or financier of terrorism. It’s highly ironic that the 911 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia.

In general terms I think Trump has spoken some good words, but in the context of promoting peace and anti-extremism and anti-terrorism in Saudi Arabia associated with an attack on Iran and Shi’ite Muslims may divide and ignite rather than draw Muslim leaders together in a push for peace.


Gezza: “Donald Trump’s 30 minute speech to the Sunni Muslim World at the Gulf Cooperation Council. Imo, he has actually pulled off his first big act as a statesman.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9DgFRuiFuI

Perhaps, but “to the Sunni Muslim World” may point to a potential problem.

Correcting Obama on Middle East conflicts

In his State of the Union address President Barack Obama stated that conflicts in the Middle East “date back millennia.”

This has been disputed by Arab researcher and Arab Spring activist Iyad El-Baghdadi who also pointsb out that it isn’t rooted in Shiite versus Sunni conflict.

From Obama’s speech:

The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia.

Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country. Their actions undermine and destabilize our allies. We have to take them out.

But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands.

But they do not threaten our national existence. That is the story ISIL wants to tell. That’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, and we sure don’t need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world’s largest religions.

There’s a lot of deliberate propaganda and ignorant inaccuracies in discussions on Middle East and related Muslim issues.

El-Baghdadi (Iyad El-Baghdadi @iyad_elbaghdadi) has tweeted as number of clarifications.

On claims that Sunni versus Shiite conflict has been entrenched for a long time.

In the late 19th century, Shiite scholar Al Afghani was a prominent member of the anti-colonialist, pan-Islamic revival movement.

Al Afghani’s disciple was none other than prominent Sunni scholar Mohammad Abduh, who would later become Egypt’s Grand Mufti.

One of the Sunni Abduh’s lasting works was his commentary on Nahj al Balagha, one of most important Shia references.

In 1931, Iraqi Shia cleric Kashif al Ghita led Sunni clerics in prayers in Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, at an anti-imperialist conference.

In the 1940s, Pakistan, a majority Sunni state, was founded by Jinnah, a Shiite Muslim.

In the early 1950s people answering the Iraq census didn’t know whether to pick “Sunni” or “Shia” coz many were mixed.

In 1958, Egypt’s Grand Mufti declared that Shiism will be taught in Al Azhar as the fifth school alongside Sunni schools of jurisprudence.

In the 1960s Sunni Saudi Arabia supported the Zaydi Shias in Yemen in a civil war against Egypt-supported Republicans.

In the 1980s, the majority of the Iraqi army fighting Iran in the Iraq-Iran war was made up of Arab Shias.

In the 1990s & 2000s, Shiite Iran supported Sunni Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The Sunni versus Shiite claims often ignore the significant Kurd component of the Middle East mix.

As a whole, the Kurdish people are adherents to a large number of different religions and creeds, perhaps constituting the most religiously diverse people of West Asia. Traditionally, Kurds have been known to take great liberties with their practices. This sentiment is reflected in the saying “Compared to the unbeliever, the Kurd is a Muslim”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

Catholics versus Protestants was seen as a major factor in the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland but it was only a part of the problems that were more union versus independence, and didn’t mean all Catholics and Protestants had been in conflict forever.

It’s common for religious and ethnic groups to become allied in conflicts and power struggles (which is what most conflicts are) but the religion or the ethnicity is not necessarily the problem.

El-Baghdadi pointed out problems when weapons and power create conflict, often using   “divide and conquer” as a tactic.

The current dynamic isn’t a conflict of sectarianism but a willful and cynical sectarianization of a regional power struggle.

Tyrants are rarely ideologically committed to Sunnism or Shiism; but are happy to exploit either when it’s expedient.

Sectarianization became the pragmatic thing to do. Hatemongering ideologues became useful and hence became stars on TV and media.

Hatemongering ideologues also play a part in social media blogs, often being useful for and used by the enemy.

Fact is, I acknowledge the old theological rift and the communal differences but I emphasize their modern political weaponization.

Has the region been sectarianized? Yes. Are the differences real? Yes. Is the current war posturing an ancient theological dispute? No.

It is exploiting religious differences in a power struggle.

Many theological and communal differences are innocuous, mundane, and not particularly deadly, until they are weaponized for power.

In civil wars and in inter-state wars factions of convenience are often exploited by those seeking power and control of territory.

The country borders of the Middle East hadn’t naturally evolved, they were imposed by colonial powers in the relatively recent past – mostly in the split up of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1. France was mostly responsible for splitting up the ‘Levant’ area (Palestine-Syria) after WW1.

ISIS doesn’t care about the imposed borders  and is operating where it thinks it can establish a power base across Syria and Iraq (ISIL=Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

They have tried to exploit ongoing problems in Iraq (in part created by the US invasion) plus the civil war in Syria.

President Obama appears to be trying to present the US as a solver of Middle East problems “that date back millennia”.

Our foreign policy hast to be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, even without al Qaeda, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world — in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, in parts of Central America, in Africa, and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks. Others will just fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees.

The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet-bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.

“The world” does not look to the US to solve these problems. Quite a bit of the world see the US as a meddler that makes things worse.

Some claim that ISIS arose due to the US invasion of Iraq earlier this century. It has certainly had some negative effects and the problems look a long way from being solved despite the tough talk of Obama and the  bombs dropped by the US and other countries with colonial history in the Middle East.

The current Syrian situation is far from as simple as Sunni versus Shiite.

Syrian civil war.png

And that’s just part of the problem that doesn’t show the Iraqi divisions. Here’s a wider view:

Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png

Military situation as of January 11, 2016, in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebaneseconflicts.

ISISMaplegend

Note: Iraq and Syria contain large desert areas with limited populations. These areas are mapped as under the control of forces holding roads and towns within them.

Detailed map of the Syrian Civil War
Detailed map of the Iraqi insurgency
Detailed map of the Lebanese insurgency
Detailed map of the Libyan Civil War
Detailed map of the Nigerian insurgency
Detailed map of the Sinai insurgency
Detailed map of the Yemeni Civil War
Detailed map of the Taliban insurgency

That’s going to take a bit more than some speech writer sound bites from the President of the USA to solve Mr Obama.

Iyad El-Baghdaditweet source: The Conflict in the Middle East Is Not Between Sunnis and Shias and Doesn’t ‘Date Back Millennia’