Sunday, April 28, 2013

Revisting Radical Islam

        The United States needs to recognize that our support for Radical Islam is not possible, and we certainly ought not seek to ally ourselves with Radical Islamists in order to continue the 1950s Cold War confrontation with Russia.  Our most recent misadventure with the Boston Marathon bombers is proof positive of this.

    I use the term Radical Islam to distinguish terrorists from the whole of Islam.  Of course, not everyone who is a Muslim supports terror bombing.  The vast majority of Muslims, especially in the US, are not this way at all. Then too, it might not be as simple as connecting the Chechen bombers to Chechen groups in Russia.  But whether inspired by Chechen elements or some other, the point remains that Radical Islam confronts the United States as well as Russia. Why then, does the US often seek to ally itself with Radical Islam?

    To be sure, the US policy is not one-sided, and the situation is highly complex.  But there are an ample number of instances in which the US has attempted to ally itself with Radicals, going back at least to the Afghanistan Wars with the USSR, in which the US funneled money and arms to the mujahedin. Over 40 million Muslims inhabited regions of the USSR, many of whom became part of separate countries upon dissolution of the USSR. The US has offered various levels of support choosing to ally itself with factions in the new countries as well as within Russia .  The US has made it its business to champion human rights and to develop democracies in Muslim nations, which often causes it to oppose Russia at least indirectly.  Some of these conflicts have included:   

Russia/Afghanistan war
Iraq I and Iraq II
US/Afghanistan conflict
Former Yugoslavia conflicts
Uprisings in Muslim regions of the former USSR (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Tajikistan, Turkenistan, Gruzhiya, Afkhazia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan).
Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski aided the Mujahedin against the USSR starting in 1980.
Dropping bombs on the Serbians (ethnic Slavs, like the Russians), seemed like a good idea at the time.
Every time America has a President named Bush, we get a nasty recession and a war with Iraq.  That must be what we wanted, because we kept doing it.  

    In the Middle East, countries such as Aghanistan, Libya, Syria and to a lesser extent Egypt have been allied with Russia, and partly for that reason, the US has allied itself with rebels.  This includes groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Mujahideen, Islamists, Jihadists and possibly even Al Qaida.  

   The Village Elliot thinks that both Democrats and Republicans have gone mad once they are in office.  No earthly good occurs by allying our country with Radical Islam, and in particular whatever quarrel your grandparents may have had with the USSR does not justify supporting Radical Islam.  Nevertheless, the consensus between Republicans and Democrats alike is that it is in the US national interest to ally itself with Radical Islam as a matter of convenience to achieve larger policy objectives.    

    Once politicians are voted into office, I suggest that we send them to the chalkboard, and have them write 100 times, "I will not support Radical Islam."  All too often however, as soon as they get into office they persuade themselves that it is a great idea to involve America in the conflicts between Muslim factions. 

  Senator McCain wants the US to intervene in Syria now.  Yes, Assad is a nincompoop, but who exactly are we supporting there, Senator?

    The recent case of the Boston Marathon bombings underscores this great problem.  The bombers (whose names I don't care to even mention) may well have connections to Radical Islamic groups in Russia.  My question is very simple:  are we going to continue to seek to ally America with such groups in order to oppose Russian interests?  Or perhaps we ought to work with Russia a little more closely and perhaps listen to them when they say that there may be a threat there.  

No comments:

Post a Comment