The 9th Century Comes 'a Calling

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-9th-Century-Comes-a-C-by-Kurt-F-Stone-130623-741.html



The 9th Century Comes 'a Calling
OpEdNews Op Eds 6/23/2013 at 12:33:15
By Kurt F. Stone

An article published in yesterday's Los Angeles Times revealed that CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late last year -- months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming them. The information comes from both U.S. officials and rebel commanders. This covert training operation has raised hopes among the Syrian opposition that in addition to the arms and ammunition already promised by President Obama, the U.S. will ultimately provide heavier weapons as well. Only time will tell. To be certain, there are inherent risks in arming and training opposition forces in any Middle Eastern conflict. We don't really know who they are or what philosophical principles undergird their efforts. Additionally, if experience teaches anything, it is that that old saw about the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" cannot be the basis for a relationship, let alone a policy; it is an absolute chimera. The "friendly" rebels we arm and train today are likely to become our well-armed enemies tomorrow.

The second development is far more eerie and troubling, and has its roots not in events transpiring over the past year, but rather in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries. For the first time in modern history, Shiites are crossing borders to fight against the "evil ones," meaning Sunnis. In the past, it was the Sunnis -- not the Shiites -- who were on the march; they traveled to Afghanistan to fights the Soviets in the 1980s and to Iraq to fight the Americans. These days, the draw is Syria, but the cause is not a foreign invader; it is a rival Muslim sect. The Shiite invaders' purpose is not merely to topple a murderous, autocratic regime or to fight for the rights of an enslaved people; it's about fulfilling a thousand-year old prophecy. As Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah has openly admitted, his men are leading battles in Syria, and Iraqi fighters are streaming in to join them. Shiites back at home say all the signs in Syria point to the appearance of a messianic era -- an era predicted by the 9th-century Imam Mahdi. (In Muslim eschatology, Mahdi, "the guided one," is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rule for seven, nine or nineteen years before the Day of Judgment and will rid the world of evil.)

Syria's war didn't start as a sectarian one. It started as an uprising of the people against their government. But the majority of those people are Sunni. The Assad government is Alawite, which has roots in Shiite Islam. The arrival of sectarian fighters is a huge historic development; one that does not bode well for the future of Syria -- let alone the rest of the Middle East.

"How in the world," the westerner asks "can a 9th-century sectarian schism motivate people to fight and even die in the twenty-first century?" Although a perfectly fair and honest question, it nonetheless betrays a relative lack of knowledge about the very nature of Islam. More and more, I find that many of the so-called "experts" who talk up the nature and danger of Islam really don't know all that much about their subject; they are like park rangers who lead tours of a primeval forest without knowing that there's a difference between a Redwood and a Giant Sequoia.

[livetohike]

1. That's a great article

Thanks for posting it

[dipsydoodle]

2. Yes - a great article

An issue compounded by interference from the west.

[bluedeathray]

3. Pump up the intensity

With small arms, anti tank weapons, and modern anti-aircraft weapons.

Our Plutocracy is thrilled!

[starroute]

4. But it doesn't explain what it promises to explain

The opening, as quoted in the OP, says, "For the first time in modern history, Shiites are crossing borders to fight against the 'evil ones,' meaning Sunnis. In the past, it was the Sunnis -- not the Shiites -- who were on the march; they traveled to Afghanistan to fights the Soviets in the 1980s and to Iraq to fight the Americans. These days, the draw is Syria, but the cause is not a foreign invader; it is a rival Muslim sect. The Shiite invaders' purpose is not merely to topple a murderous, autocratic regime or to fight for the rights of an enslaved people; it's about fulfilling a thousand-year old prophecy."

But although the rest of the article goes into great detail about the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites and why they are still at each other's throats after more than a millennium, it doesn't explain why the Shi'ites are suddenly taking up arms.

Have they finally gotten alarmed at the increasingly aggressive actions of fundamentalist Sunnis? Is it something specific to Syria, with it's Sunni majority and Shi'ite rulers? Is Iran whipping things up? Or are they just infected by the same apocalyptic fever that's affecting so many people in the West?

I was really expecting the article to provide some answers, but it didn't. It just kind of ended without any pay-off, and I was disappointed.