Muslim SS volunteers studying for the big exam.
Posted on 09/30/2001 1:52:58 PM PDT by rumrunner
Kevin Tibble of MSNBC just reported inside of Eygpt that Iran is assembling an Arab coalition to oppose any United States actions against Afghanistan and the Taliban. Reportedly Mubarak has met with Iran and is signing off on such a position. The Arab coalition will contend that unless such action is under the auspices of the United Nations then it is illegitimate.
And it isn't just a modern difference. These language differences go way back, and also reflect different political histories within Islamic civilization. Islam started in Arabia, and was spread by conquest by Arab-speaking soldiers. Over the reign of the first few rulers, the new state, called the Caliphate (because its ruler's title was Caliph) was headquartered in Mecca, in Arabia near the Red Sea. After that the capital was moved to Damascus, it what is now Syria, where it remained for a long time. An Arabic nobility, based on the descedents of the first soldiers that backed Muhammad, led this Syrian headquartered, Arab state.
But the conquests extended far beyond the bounds of Arabic speach in those days. Clear across North Africa and into Spain toward the west. And into Persia and parts of central Asia to the east. The Sassanid Empire in Persia was one of the states overrun. Its populace converted. And soldiers recruited there - especially from a province in eastern Iran called Khorasan - entered the now multi-national army of the Caliphate. They were excellent cavalrymen and horse archers, in close contact with the traditions of the Asian steppe nomads, but civilized enough to have more discipline and loyalty.
Tensions quickly developed between the interests of the Arab nobility of Damascus and the Khorasani interest in the army. The Arab nobility was doing less and less of the fighting, while taking more and more of the revenue of the state. They were growing soft. The Khorasanis were doing more of the hard work and getting relatively little reward for it. Caliphs found they had to play balancer between these two factions to retain control of the army and prevent civil war.
This tension and a particular succession crisis led to one such war anyway, and the seat of the capital in the new dynasty moved to Iraq, half way between Damascus and Khorasan (Baghdad). At first the leading generals were Khorasani Persians while the Caliphs were Arabs. In an effort to preserve the balance, the Arab Caliphs recruited Turkish mercenaries, and later kept Turkish slave soldiers meant to be loyal to the Caliph alone, from central Asia, beyond Persia. So now the army had an Arab, a Persian, and a Turkish component. The Turks, however, were not nearly as disciplined as the Persians had been. They were also even better fighters.
The result after a while was that the Turkish slave armies became a sort of Praetorian guard for the Caliphate, and like the one in Rome before them, soon went into the ruler business. That is, they chose the ruler for subservience to themselves, instead of the other way around. Pretty soon the Turks were setting up and deposing Caliphs at will, and effective political control rested with the leading Turkish general (or Sultan - a title rather like Shogun in Japan, meaning the effective ruler based on control of the army, ruling de facto under a figurehead emperor). The Caliph had become a figurehead; still needed for Islamic legitimacy, but without effective political power.
Because the Caliphs being set up or deposed by the Turks were regarded as unreal in distant places, and out of Arab nationalism, various parts of the previously unified Islamic world broke away and became independent states. A dynasty called the Fatamids took over Egypt, and claimed the rulers they set up were the legitimate Caliphs. Berbers and Moors farther west set up their own states. Yemen, protected by the Arabian desert, went independent over a particular interpretion of Islam.
The role of the Arabs increased again, and an uptick in the unity of the Islamic world occurred, in reaction to the Crusades. Saladin, from a base in Syria, conquered Egypt from its rival Islamic rulers. And used the unified area thus created as his base of power to eventually throw back the Crusades. But he never controlled anything like the whole Islamic world. After the defeat of the Crusades, however, the Mongols came out of central Asia and conquered most of the eastern Islamic world.
This happened while the Mongols were still animist pagans. After the death of Ghengis, however, the Mongol empire broke apart into regional blocs, and many of the tribes that composed it, especially Turkic ones in central Asia, converted to Islam. The successors fought over the eastern Mongol empire, until Tamerlane succeeded in reuniting most of it under one state, centered in Turkic-speaking central Asia (north of Afghanistan), and extending through Iran, Iraq, and eastern Turkey. The wars involved in all this had devastated and partially depopulated that whole region, however. After Tamerlane, his empire went the way of Ghenis' before him, and everything was broken up into small competing warlords here and there. The Turks were firmly in political control of the area by then, but not unified themselves.
The Ottoman dynasty of Sultans changed that by unifying the Turks of Asia Minor and leading them to successful conquest, fighting Byzantium (the greek remnant of the eastern Roman empire). They took over all of the middle east, from the border of Persia, through Syria and Arabia, and including Egypt. Their own army was based in what is now Turkey, because newly won lands taken from Byzantium were used to settle the successful soldiers. Eventually they took Constantinople and made it their capital, renamed Istanbul. They then extended their empire into the Balkans, in a long rivalry with Austria, with the border swaying back and forth between Istanbul and Vienna.
Thus, the Turks in the Ottoman Empire came to rule essentially all of what we now call the Middle East. But they did not control Persia. The Persian speakers maintained an independence, going back to the warlord period, from the distance Turkish capital on the border of Europe. While all the Arab speaking area of the Middle East was under Turkish rule.
It was not until WW I that the Arabs became independent again. That was due to the British, who purposefully encouraged Arab nationalism as a way of unifying the various tribes under Turkish rule, to rise and fight against the Turks. Britain had long supported the Ottoman Empire as a way of containing Russia, but WW I changed that when Turkey sided with the central powers (which it did, because they were fighting Russia, and Russia was more of a threat than Austria then).
After the war, the British installed Arab kings on the thrones of most of the newly created countries of the Middle East, which had previously been administrative provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They kept Egypt for themselves because the Suez canal was important to their Indian empire. They let Jews settle in Palestine. Lebanon and Syria were given to Arab rulers but left to the tender overlordship of the French, who desposed the king initially given Syria (he got Iraq from the British instead).
I go through all of that to make clear the later differences in political history for Iran compared to the rest of the Middle East. Iran did not owe its existence to British arms, and had not engaged in a nationalist uprising against the Turks. Iran cooperated with Britain - and later with the US - through the 19th and 20th centuries, as a way of keeping out the Russians. A pro-western traditional monarchy ran the place as an important pro-US satellite in the cold war - a linchpin of the containment strategy directed at Russia - until 1979, when a violently anti-western Islamic revolution toppled the Shah.
Iran was then invaded by Arab Iraq, under Saddam. He thought they would be unable to resist effectively because of internal chaos from the revolution, but was totally wrong. Iran is a much bigger country in population terms, and even with poor tactics and less in the way of modern armament, Iran quickly got the upper hand. Throughout the 1980s, the two fought a bloody conventional war, as tough as WW I, with heavy use of poison gas by both sides, missle attacks against cities, etc. The Arab states of the gulf supported Iraq with oil money, because they feared Iran's Islamic fundamentalism for domestic reasons, and out of Arab nationalism against Persians.
The Iranians tried to cut off that supply of funding by naval skirmishing in the Persian gulf, and the US Navy went in to stop them. The US also provided intelligence to Saddam to enable him to hold off the Iranians. We would predict where breakthroughs would be attempted, and Saddam moved his armor to that area to met the attacks. With no way to stop Iraqi funding and after losing several conventional offensives, the Iranians eventually made peace with Saddam. He almost immediately turned around and attacked the Kuwaitis, who had been funding him throughout the war, but stopped once it was over. He wanted more. We stopped that, of course.
So when Iran looks back through history it sees a very different past than most of the Middle East does. They fought the Iraqis a dozen years ago. We were helping the Iraqis. Before that they threw us out and overthrew their pro-western traditional monarch. Before that they were non-occupied, well supported allies of the US, and before it of the UK, which backed their independence to keep the Russians out. Before the arrival of the UK, they were their own masters in a traditional monarchy. Iran is also Shiite Muslim, while most of the Arab world is Sunni Muslim.
This is very different from the experience of many of the Arabs, who were under Turkish rule, freed by the UK, desposed most of their pro-western kings in socialist revolutions not Islamic ones, often supported the USSR during the cold war, fought repeatedly against Israel, etc. And the Arab-Persian tension within Islam goes all the way back to some of the first political conundrums of the Islamic Caliphate, within a few centuries of its founding.
I realize this is probably far more than you expected with your simple "another sentence, please" question. But I figured some might find it useful.
Then you are wrong.
Muslim SS volunteers studying for the big exam.
I've copied it, and will keep it for further review. But even with my limited knowledge, I know your right on!!
I had one recurring thought while reading it. I would pose a question to the Palestinians, Iranians, to the Iraqis, Turks and Egyptians and "all" living in that part of the World.. "Are you better off today after all this turmoil?"
I don't think they are better off after losing the Shah (I'm very open minded to understanding it better though!). I don't think Afganistan is better off either. Nor for that matter the Balkans, or Indonesia. So many places that for all their turmoil, seem poorer. Destroyed.
I can't help but wonder if many don't wish it was the "way it used to be".
I know there were leaders who hogged the wealth, and the people felt robbed. But now they are poorer. They don't even have homes. Or the ones they do are shambles. They lose loved ones in constant battle. What FREEDOMS did they gain?? I look at the devastation and it just boggles my mind. I look at the faces of parents as they bury their children, grown and young children,..and I'm just so frustrated. To what "end" do they continue to fight? To what "Noble Cause" are they sacrificing such a precious thing?
If I lose my child or my grandchild because a race of people are being tortured, are suffering or dying, that would be one thing. But for riches? For land? And if they lose their children because of persecution, or torture, if they lost them because they were not free to practice their religious beliefs.. then when they had the ability, when they had the monies, why didn't they defend themselves? I'm constantly wondering "how did they get where they are today?" Then we tried to help, and they hate us? Someone help me understand that mindset!!
All I'll say is, I'll take America any day!!! I love our diversity, our Religious Freedoms. That we enjoy such a bounty of religious beliefs in NO WAY threatens my/our belief system. It enriches it, because I know I'm free to believe whatever way I want. It enriches us as Americans. I'm so thankful to live in such Freedom!!! We are well aware of the sacrifices of our Childrens lives, of our fellow Veterans lives, that has ensured that Freedom. Even when the political turmoil is explained as well as you just explained it, I'm left with a lingering question mark on the whole thing.. WHY??
Just "food for thought". Again, thanks for a thoughtful intelligent post. We all need to understand the history of that Region. Now if I could just truly understand the "decisions" of the people in that region of the World.
In closing I will say that America has stood beside those who felt oppressed. We may not have always got it right, we may not have supported the right people in hindsight, but at the time, the political ideologies we supported seemed like the most prudent. So no, we didn't always get it right and most likely will get it wrong again one day. But we have tried to help oppressed people who were suffering, who were tortured. I can't help but wonder what an intelligent person would have us do different????
.... after all, we sacrificed our sons and daughters for the sake of others. (John 15:13) I happen to feel that was Noble and honorable.
In truth, I have wondered a LOT of late, if those precious lives were worth it, with all the rhetoric coming from ungrateful Nations. This situation is different now, now we are defending our own.
But I don't think I will ever forget the Kurdish man holding his little girl and sharing her fate in death, nor do I regret our defense of them. How could we not help?
How could we not be against Hitler?? How can we ever get the images of innocent women/children and men being tortured and killed by an inhumane Taliban?? Whom we believe KILLED INNOCENT CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN OF THE UNITED STATES by aiding Osamma Bin Laden. As did Iraq in our opinion, and we may find out just how deeply they were involved one day!! If they supported the Terrorist "in any way",.. they are just as guilty.
Anyway,..thanks again! I hope people will take the time to read your post. It IS complex,.. but with a lot of thought, we can understand better what is happening. With a LOT of thought, we understand the complex issues facing our Nation today.
I apologize to you. I said 30 years ago..it was 20 years ago..in 1981. I must have hit the 3 instead of the 2. I am really sorry about messing up like that. I'll try to monitor my typing better. :(
I read it again, out loud, to my wife, a writer herself. She says "Very well written and organized". Bookmarked!
What you and I see as the fruits of peace, they think are the fruits of victory. What we see as the fruits of justice, they expect only from oppression, for the benefit of the oppressors. What we know comes from hard work, they think comes from trickery. They think of us as victorious oppressors constantly engaged in trickery, and they think such is the secret of our success. When they react to calamity all around them by furious violence, they think they are pushing for a victory somewhere. When they see the misery caused by tyranny and torture, they see safety only in becoming the tyrants and torturers, instead of the tyrannized and tortured. When we pay them oodles of cash for their oil, they think it must be some kind of trick, and that we are exploiting their natural resources.
The wildest conspiracy theories are constructed, when necessary, to make whatever happens fit into categories like those, and to avoid anything that appears the opposite. I realize when all rolled together into that depressing a litany, it can seem as incomprehensible as where you started. And it is not true of all, obviously. But more people than you can imagine really believe that is just what the real world is like.
There are two main classes of reason for this. One is simpler and more basic, and lies behind that ingraditude you sense. In the overall scheme of things, it is a human weakness that provides fertile soil for the other class of reasons, which I will get to. But first this basic one. It is psychological, a species of wounded pride.
It is easier to admit they have just lost important fights, than to admit their hatred and endless fighting with one another has destroyed the lives of their children. Think about it. A defeated man can dream of victory. A man who knows his own vices have wrecked what he most cares for, feels himself to be a worm. It is easier to admit a clever sharper has fooled him - which after all is mostly the sharper's fault, his greed - than it is to admit he has wasted his time in fruitless pursuits and failed schemes. It is easier to call the punishments he has felt, injustice than to call them justice. Any fine upstanding fellow may suffer injustice. But only criminals are punished justly.
All of that is in human nature. You or I can be as susceptible to it as the next man. We may know these things to be moral errors, and may manage to avoid them. But we are exposed to making them, because we are merely human. It is a frailty more than an evil, although certainly it can result in folly and injustice. This sort of cause is merely fertile ground for the second sort, which is far worse in my estimation. The second cause is deliberate, done by some men to others, on purpose, for the ends of the first.
Remember that we have been involved in a century long struggle for dominion of the earth with some very nasty people driven by very twisted ideas. The cold war, and before it the period of the world wars, spread the vapors of that struggle over the entire world. And our enemies in those struggles were men who would say anything and do anything to make trouble for us. They were armed ambassadors of cynicism.
You or I, here in this country, can look back on that long struggle and remember that we knew we were on the right side, that we acted nobly on behalf of the good of all mankind, and that we were confident right through it that we would win through in the end. We know such things in our bones, despite moments of wavering and despite some domestic forces that lacked that faith. But all of that is not how the whole thing was experienced in much of the rest of the world.
Armies went forth and proclaimed that our prosperity was not a result of peace but of successful war. They taught wherever they could that our trade was not mutually beneficial but exploited and oppressed the wretched of the earth. They made out every intervention on the side of the threatened or downtrodden, a cynical imperial adventure serving the greed of wealthy corporations. And the average person somewhere between the power blocs, did not know which of the stories to believe. Some of them may have listened to native charity, or may have been encouraged by actions we took that directly brought benefit. But others beside them listened to the whispers of their wounded pride, and believe the cynical story their egos wanted to believe.
This did not all magically go away when a wall fell in 1989. Hundreds of millions of people had been evangalized by a bottomless cynicism, and plied with a thousand tales of our wrongdoing. The spiritual results of the catacylsms of the last century have scarcely begun to heal. And along the way, a thousand little wannabees have dreamt of themselves as the next tyrant to rise by the arts of propaganda and civil war. They are still out there, like boys from Brazil. We are still mopping up the spiritual mess made by a general political crisis, which raged for a lifetime in the last century.
I hope this helps make some sense of the attitudes you rightly detect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.