After my last posting on San Bernardino, Donald Trump went
ballistic, declaring that all Muslims should be denied entry into this country. They say timing is everything and I missed
that one by about an hour! This led me
to research some facts about Muslims in this country and around the globe. It also pushed me to think again about parallels
with Nazi Germany, as Trump’s speech in South Carolina was eerily similar in
too many respects to a Nazi rally of the 1930s.
Like the Nazis of old, Trump seems to have a penchant for
coming up with scapegoats to blame, to harass, and eventually to eliminate (what
other interpretation can we put on his claim that he will eliminate jihadists
in this country by deporting all the Syrians and blocking immigration of all
Muslims?). Further scapegoating and harassment
are seen in his prior remarks that Mexicans coming across the border illegally
are nothing but rapists and criminals; and, that all Muslims should be on a
database, and tracked by electronic means.
This is one example of a fascist tactic for dividing and
conquering: coerce the people into finding
one group despicable, then use that hatred to bring forth the basest motives
and attitudes of the general population toward that group and toward others,
making sure that “outside” groups are seen as a threat because induced “fear”
is also a major fascist tactic. Division,
hatred, and vengeful acts against one group lead to a chaotic situation in
which a “strong man” is needed to restore sanity and order (or, the “final
solution”). Hitler, Trump, Cruz, or
Fiorina, even Huckabee fit the bill to some degree. There have even been
declarations that the final solution could be the use of atomic weapons in
Northern Syria. Is there no end to
Republican solutions that have such dire and deadly consequences?
Let’s begin today by taking a look at some historical and
demographic context. What is the real
situation? What are we talking about –
this War with ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, the Taliban?
As usual,
Wikipedia sums it up quite nicely:
“ISIS or ISIL: The group refers to
itself as the Islamic State since it proclaimed a worldwide caliphate in June
2014, with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being named its caliph. As a caliphate, it claims religious, political
and military authority over all Muslims worldwide" (similar to the supposed
extent of the Third Reich for Germans).
The group's adoption of the name
"Islamic State" and the concept of a caliphate have however been
widely criticized, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream
Muslim groups rejecting both. It also is not a state, because it lacks any
international recognition. Still, as of
December 2015, the group has control over vast territories in Iraq and Syria
with population estimates ranging between 2.8 million and 8 million people,
where it enforced Sharia law. ISIL
affiliates also control small areas of Libya, Nigeria and Afghanistan and
operate in other parts of the world, including North Africa and South Asia.
ISIL gained prominence, when in early 2014 it drove Iraqi
government forces out of key cities in its Western Iraq offensive, followed by
the capture of Mosul (and the Sinjar massacre), prompting a renewal of US
military action in Iraq. The number of fighters the group commands in
Iraq and Syria, was estimated by the CIA at 31,000, with foreign fighters accounting
for around two-thirds. Amnesty International has charged the group with ethnic
cleansing on a "historic scale" in northern Iraq.
Around the world, Islamic religious leaders have overwhelmingly
condemned ISIL's ideology and actions, arguing that the group has strayed from
the path of true Islam and that its actions do not reflect the religion's real
teachings or virtues. The group has been
designated a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union
and its member states, the United States, India, Indonesia, Israel, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and other countries. Around 60 countries are directly
or indirectly waging war against ISIL.
The group originated as a Jihad in 1999, which pledged
allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. Joining other Sunni insurgent
groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, it proclaimed the formation of the
Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006. In August 2011, following the
outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, ISI, under the leadership of al-Baghdadi,
delegated a mission into Syria, which under the name al-Nusra Front established
a large presence in Sunni-majority areas including Aleppo provinces. The merger
of ISI with al-Nusra Front to form the "Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant" (ISIL), as announced in April 2013 by al-Baghdadi, was however
rejected by al-Nusra and al-Qaeda, who subsequently cut all ties with ISIL by
February 2014.” ((From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Apparently, the problem Trump intends to address is the risk
of Islamic extremist (ISIS) terrorist attack upon the United States. It is not quite clear whether he believes
this to be akin to the well-planned and coordinated 9/11 attacks, or the
scattered attacks on Paris or the homegrown individualized attack on the
complex in San Bernardino. The point he
makes, I venture, is that we do not know how this attack will occur, but that
one possibility is that some radical jihadists could be holding false or
special (fiancé) visas, and easily sneak in and attack us. Since Syria is where ISIS is based, he
apparently believes we need to prevent this kind of attack by calling a moratorium
on Syrian refugees until we can “figure out what’s happening.”
For a businessman and self-proclaimed negotiator extraordinaire,
Mr. Trump falls short on several important fronts.
1) The
definition of the problem is off-target. Is an attack on America really the essence of
the problem? It’s certainly one aspect
of the problem, but I submit that the primary problem is more an ideological
one, similar to the clash of democracy/capitalism and communism, or the clash
of Catholic and Protestant interpretations of Christianity. It is an attack by a splinter group on the very
essence and existence of the religion of Islam (and certainly against both
Judaism and Christianity). Not unlike
other splinter groups, this one believes it is the true way; that the original base
of Islam has gotten away from being the true Islam. The sticking point for practically all of us
is that this cult advocates atrocities of rape and murder of innocent people as
a tactic for coercing others to support their tenets.
2) Trump’s
strategy of preventing all Muslims from
coming into this country does not begin to solve the major problem of an ideology
clash nor that of violence as a tactic. Instead,
we should be doing what President Obama called us to do: enlist Islamists
wherever possible to speak and act against this splinter group and their
beliefs. And, we need to put our support
behind their efforts. Maybe a “Voice of
Islam” (similar to the Voice of America during the Cold War) is called for
rather than a prevention of Muslim immigrants.
One aspect of an attack on the ISIL
terrorists that is lacking any real clout is that of reverse propaganda – an
unrelenting campaign of ideas and truth against a world view of force,
brutality and unlimited power. The
disconnected and chaotic tactics of Trump and other candidates do not constitute
a long-range plan and do not speak decisively against a protracted war.
3) Trump’s tactics are all wrong because
wanting to bar all Muslims from this country and promoting fear of attacks is
equivalent to supporting ISIL in its mission.
It does ISIL’s work for it – preparing fertile ground for recruitment by
affirming by actions and words what ISIL is already teaching and
propagandizing.
4) Trump’s strategy and tactics lead to
consequences, some unintended, for this country and for American Muslim
citizens. Those consequences are already
becoming all too evident: attacks on mosques, attacks on individual Muslims,
abandonment of Syrian refugees, and the emergence of hate speech directed
toward Muslims. The actions of some
Americans, based on fear and discriminatory attitudes, are hurting America
already as other nations decry our obvious bigotry.
But that’s not all, for these
harmful attitudes and actions put our armed forces in greater danger,
especially in Muslim countries. We are
inviting retaliation and revenge taken out on our own people who serve abroad
as diplomats or as members of our armed forces.
Moreover, nations within the Coalition
against ISIL are becoming somewhat nervous about the rhetoric coming out of the
United States. Some British members of Parliament have expressed such dismay
openly; and Canada has openly sided with Syrian refugees by publicly welcoming
them to Canada.
5) Finally,
Mr. Trump is doing what all demagogues
do – he is juicing-up the numbers so that the threats will seem larger and
the stakes much higher than they are. The numbers are difficult to verify. The total of Islamic jihadists in both Iraq
and Syria ranges from 30,000 to 50,000! But
the demagogues who use fear to control people, are most apt to use the higher
numbers and to then add numbers of jihadists in other countries.
Nonetheless, here are a few more statistics related to ISIS that
might be interesting to you as well as instructive:
- The number of militants
fighting with the Islamic State, according to a 2014 estimate by Dr.
Hisham al-Hashimi, an expert on the group, is 30-50 thousand. (Huffington Post). ISIS is now thought by some to have
over 50,000 ideologically-fueled fighters at its disposal in Syria.
(Wikipedia)
- The approximate value of
the Islamic State's cash and assets, according to estimates from terrorism
experts is somewhere around $2 billion, including looting hundreds of millions
of dollars from banks in Mosul, acquiring hundreds more in military assets
from the Iraqi Army, and their relatively new dealings in stolen
artifacts.
- The estimated daily
revenue of the Islamic State is perhaps $3 million from its control of oil
and gas fields across northern Iraq and Syria. It “now controls a volume of resources
and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations,”
according to Janine Davidson of the Council of Foreign Relations.
- In a broader context, according
to another study in 2015 Islam has 1.7 billion adherents meaning Muslims
constitute the world's second largest religious group. Islam is the
dominant religion in the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa,
the Sahel, and some parts of Asia. Large communities of Muslims are also
found in China, the Balkans, India, and Russia. In Western Europe, Islam
is the second largest religion after Christianity, where it represents 6%
of the total population (Wikipedia)
The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on religious
identification. Various institutions and organizations have given widely
varying estimates about how many Muslims live in the U.S. A Pew Research Center report for 2014 on
American religion found that Muslims accounted for:
§
0.9% of American adults, up from 0.4% in 2007,
due largely to immigration.
§
There were 2,106 mosques in the United States as
of 2010, and the nation's largest mosque, the Islamic Center of America, is in
Dearborn, Michigan.
§
According to the 2000 United States Census, the
state with the largest percentage of Muslims was Michigan, with 1.2% of its
population being Muslim. New Jersey had the second largest percentage with
0.9%, followed by Massachusetts with 0.8%.
§
By city: New York City had the largest number of
Muslims with 69,985. In 2000, Dearborn, Michigan ranked second with
29,181, Los Angeles ranked third with 25,673;
§
Sunnis and Shias are two subgroups of Islam,
just as Catholics and Protestants are two subgroups within Christianity.
The Sunni-Shia divide is nearly 1,400
years old, dating back to a dispute over the succession of leadership in the
Muslim community following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632.
§
In the
U.S., 65% identify as Sunnis and 11% as Shias (with the rest identifying with
neither group).
§
Recent surveys show that most people
in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable
view of ISIS. People in countries with
large Muslim populations are as concerned
as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and
have become increasingly concerned in recent years.
§
Generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide
bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam
are rarely or never justified.
§
In the United States, a 2011 survey found
that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are
rarely or never justified.
§
The Pew 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that
roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not
done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.
Is Mr. Trump – and too many of the other alarmists running
for the Republican Nomination -- swatting at flies with what amounts to multi-billion-dollar
fly swatters. Deploying troops,
conducting stepped-up bombing (including atomic), deporting Muslims, checking
for Muslims, registering Muslims, and continuing to carry special ops
operations against this faction will cost our nation a heavy burden of tax
money. It certainly indicates the incompetence
with which these ill-prepared candidates would conduct foreign policy. It adds up to another nefarious Republican scheme
that would be paid for by America’s middle class thinking they are getting
something (leadership?) for nothing which is far from the truth.
Instead, perhaps we could take some intelligent steps (that
would constitute a PLAN) to keep these cultist terrorists from our shores, and
to ultimately discredit their ideology. The Obama administration has already formulated
a basic 4-item long-term Plan which is criticized by most Republicans (who
themselves have offered most of the same or similar thoughts), mostly because
the Plan avoids sending in our own ground troops. The way Obama sees it, however, what the U.S.
needs isn’t a change in policy, but a strengthening of resolve in the face of a
long struggle—something that isn’t easy to sell, regardless of the backdrop. Here’s the Plan in brief:
1. U.S. airstrikes:
Obama said such attacks have already been successful against al-Qaeda in Iraq,
Yemen and Somalia.
2. Support to
foreign ground forces: He vowed to send 475 more U.S. troops to Iraq to
support local security forces as well as provide military equipment and
training to Syrian rebels.
3. Counterterrorism:
The U.S. will work with allies on intelligence and programs to prevent foreign
fighters from joining ISIS.
4. Humanitarian
assistance: Aid will go to Muslim, Christian and religious minorities
in danger of being driven out of their homes by ISIS.
Ever since the deadly assault in Paris last month and the
San Bernardino attack, polls have shown a deepening fear in the U.S. about more
attacks at home. Such fears are driving support for Donald Trump, who says he
would prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. The polls also show less than a
quarter of Americans believe Obama has a clear plan to deal with ISIS
militants.
The public’s skepticism is likely due in large part to the
slow progress Obama’s military campaign has achieved and the constant drumbeat
of Republican criticism of his strategy, which his critics have called “too
little, too late” to score a decisive victory over the militants. Yet when it comes to alternative proposals
for an anti-ISIS strategy, most Republican presidential candidates have
approaches that are similar to what Obama is already doing. Like the president,
most GOP hopefuls rule out a large U.S. ground force and support the use of
airstrikes and special operations forces. Aside from rhetoric, the only
discernable differences between most of the GOP candidates and the president:
the pace of operations, which some Republicans say should be faster.
Since the military campaign began in August 2014 the
President said on Dec. 14th: “U.S. warplanes have carried out more
than 9,000 airstrikes, while local ground forces have recaptured 40 percent of
the populated areas that ISIS has seized in Syria and Iraq. But he also
acknowledged that wasn’t sufficient to defeat the militants anytime soon. “We
recognize that progress needs to happen faster,” he said.
In recent weeks, Obama ordered some 200 U.S. special
operations forces to Iraq, where they’re assisting Iraqi and Kurdish ground
forces in targeting for U.S. airstrikes, training and conducting raids against
ISIS. There are 3,500 U.S. military trainers in Iraq, as well as another 50
members of U.S. special operations forces in Syria, where they are assisting a
combined force of Sunni Arab and Kurdish fighters who are closing in on ISIS’s
self-declared capital of Raqqa, in eastern Syria. (NEWSWEEK)
So let us try to formulate a few common-sense conclusions
about this situation, notwithstanding the outrageous rhetoric of the
non-productive and non-definitive Republican candidates.
1) Actions
speak louder than words. The
President is following a plan that none of the Republicans seem able to improve
upon. And, in essence, their words are
all they have got because they do not hold office, and if they did, would not
be able to initiate any more because they would have to move a whole
bureaucracy which does not happen in the kind of lockstep that they are
promulgating.
2) This
is a long-term war effort, not a short term battle. Our leaders from both parties should be
calling upon the American people to show greater patience and resolve, as we
bring about the defeat of the Islamic caliphate and its fascist-like ideology.
3) One
of the things we do not need is another protracted Middle East War,
especially over ideological disagreements and divisions that have been around
for thousands of years in these Sunni or Shia dominated countries.
4) “U.S.
airstrikes, a short-term answer compounding a long-term problem, may
temper the momentum of ISIS, but bombs, no matter how accurate or plenty, will
not eradicate the threat of the radical Islamic insurgency. And that is particularly true of “carpet
bombing” which has turned out in several places (such as Vietnam) to be a
failed strategy.” (Michael Kay, BBC
News). Hillary Clinton added a similar
sentiment in a recent speech: “Promising to carpet bomb until the desert glows
doesn’t make you sound strong – it makes you sound like you’re in over your
head,” Clinton said, referencing a comment made by Republican senator Ted Cruz
of Texas. “Bluster and bigotry are not credentials for becoming commander in
chief.”
5) “Defeating
ISIS will only be a viable option if the West has the access and
acquiescence of regional partners to strike at the heart of Baghdad’s
organization.” (MICHAEL KAY, BBC News)
6) The
Democratic candidates had little to add in their debate, but a few points did
make some sense:
a. Arming
everyone vs. gun control - guns won’t save us from lone wolf terrorists or any
other kind
b. lone
wolf attacks not all preventable
c. must
work with Muslims in America to form coalitions with them
d. cannot
react in fear because then we give ISIL terrorists just what they want – a
weakened defensive nation
e. encryption
– bring tech leaders together to work on ways to break terrorist database and
message encryption
Michal Kay has essentially the right conclusion for this
posting:
“Countering the external threat to Western cities and
populations is complex, and tracking the organic threat from within is
resource-intensive.
Bombs and bullets alone cannot target the ISIS ideology, but
a collaborative, coherent and holistic strategy led by the U.S. across the gulf
states, along with improved intelligence targeting, collection and processing
at home, may be able to treat the ISIS cancer before it spreads.”
My own conclusion is: This battle can’t happen overnight, and the ‘Trumpettes,’ as well as the general public need to take their heads out of the sand and stand up together for a long-term fight against this mode of terrorism (which happens to keep morphing into other shapes and forms).
