|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home | News & Society | Commentary President Bush suggested in his recent televised address to the nation that his surge strategy could avoid a civil war that might involve the entire region. In other words, the president seems to be warning about a full scale Islamic Civil War. Such a development, the president opined, could ultimately threaten the United States. It could bring further terror to our own shores. The president faces immense opposition to his surge strategy. Some of this opposition is coming from within the ranks of the president's own party. While this surge strategy will continue to be the subject of much debate their does appear to be unanimity of agreement that an Islamic Civil War would have catastrophic results. I take issue with the premise that such a civil war will by necessity be bad for the Untied States. To the contrary such a development could even be advantageous to America. It could avert a larger "World War." It would allow us to reconstitute our military and refresh our troops. It would end the drain on our nation’s treasure. We could gain even more influence in the region. Finally, it is unlikely to have any adverse effect on our oil prices and, I argue, will lessen the chances of foreign terror coming to our shores. An Islamic Civil War will pit the most radical elements of Shia and Sunni Islam against each other. These radical and dangerous elements of Islam are all sworn enemies of the Untied States and its allies. Al Quida, the most radical sect of Sunni Islam has declared a holy war (i.e., Jihad) against us. They prosecuted that war in a significant way on 9/11. The even more dangerous Iranian sponsored Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists are devout Shia Muslims and they also hate the Untied States. The passion of their hatred toward us rivals that of Al Quida. They also wish to destroy the Untied States. How could it be bad for the United States if these enemies of America are decisively engaged in a civil war with each other? In a regional Islamic Civil War the whole of radical Islam would, by necessity, have to remain in theater. They would be obliged to pull all their recourses, both inside and outside of the region, in order to concentrate their combat power. That would prevent them from focusing their efforts abroad, to include the United States. That has to be good for America. An Islamic Civil War will require radical Islam to target each others leadership in a significant way. This is the same radical Sunni leadership that ordered the attacks on 9/11 and has been aggressively prosecuting a war of terror around the world. It is the same radical Shia leadership that forcibly took over our embassy in Tehran and held out diplomats’ prisoner. It is they who ordered the attacks on our Marine Barrack in Lebanon. It is the same leadership that wishes to destroy the United States. It is precisely this leadership that the United States has been trying to track down and destroy with limited success. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the United States if these radicals were targeting each others leaders? This could result in a leadership void among the most virulent anti-American Islamic radicals in the aftermath of the civil war. That undoubtedly would be good for the Untied States. An Islamic Civil War will not and cannot include Judaism or Christianity. It must remain Islamic pure. Since the militants on both sides will be decisively engaged in the prosecution of the civil war, Israel will have a period of peace. Hezbollah and Hamas will be to preoccupied to focus attacks on Israel. They will have to forget about one enemy (Israel) in order to fight the other enemy (Sunni Muslims) in a regional battle of epic proportions. That would be good for our ally Israel and for us. A regional Islamic Civil War will be very costly in lives and treasure. Both sides will need to be well financed. It will take billions of dollars to finance a protected regional Islamic Civil War of this magnitude. The only commodity that either side has to sell or trade is, you guessed it – oil. Both sides will be clamoring to sell there oil in order to prosecute the civil war. Hence, their will be no shortage of oil as some have suggested. To the contrary, both sides will be competing with instead of cooperating with each other. Both sides will desperately need these oil revenues. The Sunni’s, who control most of the oil, will try to price Iran and the Shia’s out of the market. This could create an oil glut. Oil prices could actually go down. That would be very good for the American consumer. In a worse case scenario wherein they target each others oil commodities, it would only have a temporary adverse effect on the Untied States. Even then the end result would benefit us. Consider that without their oil wealth every country in this region would revert to third world status. They would hardly have enough wealth to sustain themselves much less prosecute a larger Jihad against the western world. They certainly would not have the resources to continue a regional civil war. The war would, by necessity, have to end. Both sides would have to turn to the west, the Untied States in particular, for assistance. Only we would have the means to bring their energy industry back to life and pull them out of impoverishment. They can not ask for this help while they are engaged in a Jihad against us. Obviously, they would be more willing to turn over the remnants of Al Quida leadership, if any are left, that we have been trying to capture or kill for years. That would be a condition for gaining our assistance after the civil war. As a minimum, their Jihad against the United States and its allies will have to be put on long term hold. The Untied States could take wholesale advantage of them in this weakened position (similar to what they are doing to us now). We would be in a great position militarily to attack any remnant of our radical Islamic enemies. Both sides would be providing us with accurate human intelligence that we currently lack and so desperately need. It would be an easy military victory if our political leadership had the will and desire to pursue this course of action. We would also be in the unique position of influencing the fate of the region. This would include gaining meaningful cooperation to finally resolve the Palestinian issue. A defeated or greatly weekend Hamas and Hezbollah will force the Palestinians to take a more moderate view. They would be obliged to negotiate a fair and lasting settlement with Israel. In this sense an Islamic Civil War may be the best opportunity yet to resolve the Palestinian issue. The United States and Israel would be negotiating from a position of strength. American influence in the region could increase exponentially. Regadless of who wins the civil war the hatred and bitterness following the war will be sustained for decades? The victor will have to spend great time and effort, and all manner of resources, just to provide security and rebuild infrastructure. That will also put acts of terror against the west, and especially the United States, on hold. Any war is fraught with risk. Nobody advocates for such a war excepting those who are now perpetuating it - radical Islam. This notwithstanding, there is far less risk to the Untied States from a full scale Islamic Civil War then the status que. Right now we are decisively involved in the fight. We continue to lose soldiers and treasure in the billions of dollars. An Islamic Civil War, if we had the good sense to stay out of it, would change this situation. Yes, we should heavily arm the Kurds who have been our friends. We should maintain a small military presence in an autonomous Kurdistan. We should also have a naval presence in the gulf to protect the Kurds. Any objections from Turkey should be ignored. It was the Turks who refused allowing the US 4th Infantry from coming through Kurdish territory via Turkey. Had they not done this we would have taken out all meaningful resistance in the Sunni Triangle. It is the resistance in that area that perpetrated the deadly insurgency we now face. For this sin we owe the Turks nothing. Kurdistan will be our mark in the sand. As long as they don’t cross over in to Kurdistan we stay out of the fight. If either side attempts to draw us in to the fray (that will likely be whichever side is losing) we must refrain from doing so. We should help defend the Kurds only. Even then we must not fight out side Kurdish borders. The Shia's and the Sunni's will not have the forces or the resources to wage war in a well defended Kurdistan. All their efforts and resources will be confined to the civil war. Notwithstanding the obvious moral and humanitarian concerns, an Islamic Civil War should be good for the United States for reasons noted. After it is over the world can collectively decide how it wishes to deal with the moral and human dimension. Those who wave an accusing finger at the United States should be promptly reminded that civil war results from the will of the people themselves. They decide to hate, murder, and engage in all manner of violence against each other. They could choose not to do this. They absolutely could refuse to participate. They could unite and stand against the forces that want the civil war. That, of course, would take courage and sacrifice. If they were unwilling to demonstrate such courage and sacrifice to stop a war of hate against each other - their own civil war, then they alone must assume the consequences. It is not America’s responsibility. If the world community disagrees then they are more then welcome to enter the fray. As sovereign nations they can sacrifice their own sons and daughters, and their own treasure, if they find the cause worthy. Perhaps France and Russia, both of whom have huge Muslim populations and both of whom have benefited from close and friendly cooperation with the warring factions could take the lead in that regard. If they, as usual, start pointing a finger of blame at the Untied States we could remind them of the aforementioned and then invite them to “lead the charge.” That ought to silence them. ///END/// Article Source: http://www.articlewheel.com
Ed Coet is a retired US Army officer. He served as the former Chief, Intelligence and Security to the Us Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia. He also served as the US Army central Command’s Intelligence liaison officer to the Director of Intelligence, Royal Saudi Land Forces during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Ed is now a professional educator and a published freelance writer and poet. Ed Coet has had numerous articles published on a wide variety of topics. His hugely popular article Testimony of a Suicide Survivor can still be read on Amazine.com and Ezine Articles.com. His short story, David’s Angel, will be published in the popular ezine Bewildering Stories (issue 234, February 26, 2007 edition). Ed Coet’s poems have been published or have been accepted for publication in Purple Dream Ezine (December 2006 edition), Children, Churches & Daddies Magazine (February, March, and April 2007 editions), Steller Showcase Journal (Winter 2006 Edition), Both Sides Now Poetry Journal (February/March 2007 Edition), and Muscadine Lines, A Southern Journal (March/April 2007 edition).
|
  RSS Feeds by Category |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
