Entangling Alliances, Part 1

Johnny Harrelson
Jun 30, 2014 at 11:54 AM

This is the first of a four-part essay series hosted here on the YAL blog which will address the alliances between the US government and sponsors of international terrorism. Stay tuned for the next three parts, which will publish daily this week.

image

Recent events in Iraq have created a furor in the media and have unsettled many Americans who have devoted precious time and energy to the War in Iraq.

Journalists and media personalities have made a lot of noise about what is going on there and the many angles to this story cite the failed foreign policy of the Obama Administration, the failures of the Bush Administration, and the false pretext of making the war an unfortunate reality. Some say we should not redeploy any forces to the area; some say our military is unable to redeploy even if it wanted to; and the situation is complicated, to say the least.

However, among the more ludicrous, albeit marginal, ideas getting airplay is the suggestion of actually redeploying American troops to Iraq on a large scale. The "reasoning" behind this outdated neocon proposal is hinged on the idea that we cannot allow radical Wahabist Sunnis to use Iraq as a base of operations to launch attacks on the United States mainland. 

In my humble opinion—and I do not profess to have all the answers—this line of reasoning is a provocative and outrageous position. It defies logic. Taking this position a full 11 years after the same rationale was falsely used to promote preemptive military action against Saddam Hussein offers an irony so sharp, it is difficult to discuss… but I digress.

Yet what is important to discuss is how United States foreign policy has gone so wrong. How has the US found itself facing a diplomatic situation where it can no longer hide the entanglement between itself, its allies, and the very terror groups which have been used so frequently to give cause for so many costly military actions?

The discussion of the United States government's backdoor alliance to state-sponsored terror has been a long time coming. Many have tried to discount it or write it off as a non sequitur. It is for this very reason that the War on Terror continues to persist and grow—with no end in sight. Until the genuine problem we face is more widely recognized, there is no chance to truly reform the foreign policy goals of the country.

Peace and prosperity should be the ruling force of United States foreign policy.  Efforts to foster a mutual relationship within the bounds of diplomacy and peaceful cooperation should be the rule, instead of using resources and leverage to provoke radical actions by proxy for petty geopolitical gain. To better understand how far we've strayed from this ideal of the founders, it is useful to take a look at the background of the proxies with which our government now works. 

The Roots of Radical Islam and International Jihad

Even before 9/11 the roots of Radical Islam have generally been regarded as indigenous to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular.  Many other authors and writers have written extensively on the subject of Wabbahist/Salafist, and Qutbi (Egyptian) inspired International Jihad.  For the purpose of this essay it is important to note the connection between these ideologies and the unique alliances they have between Saudi national interests (90% are Wahabi) and the interests of US/NATO allies in Iraq and elsewhere.

Memory Hole: Libya, Egypt, Syria

Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, ideological contemporaries, and scores of what have been called international jihadists, have flooded the Arab world with destruction. For the purpose of this essay series, it is important to note the connection between these ideologies and the unique support they have from Saudi Arabia and the interests of US/NATO allies in Iraq and elsewhere. 

Sectarian and tribal tensions have been exploited; economies have been disrupted; stable regimes are on the brink or have been decimated leaving behind a vast Somalia-esque landscape filled with death, torture, and minority persecution. 

On all counts—and in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq in particular—the US/NATO pretext for military intervention in the region has been diametrically opposite of actual outcomes of policy in the region. Worse, this interventionism has aided terror networks, emboldened them, and allowed them to run rampant all over the Middle East from Mali to Kenya, Chechnya, even as far east as China. The War on Terror is creating more terrorists.

In a tumultuous post-Gaddafi Libya, a vast unchecked black market of weapons, munitions, and finance funnels support to jihadist groups. Gaddafi was hardly an admirable leader, but this chaos and growth of terrorism is clearly linked to the destabilizing effect of American-led NATO intervention.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, the Qutb-inspired  Muslim Brotherhood received significant military aid from Washington, be overthrown by General Sisi. All of our government's intervention in Egypt has yet to produce the freedom it was supposed to foster. While the Sisi government attempts to deal with jihadist violence, it is also jailing journalists and abusing individual rights.

In Syria, thankfully, when the call came for open US intervention, the political capital of US/NATO leadership proved to be utterly spent  in the wake the disasters in Libya and Egypt

All of these interventionist debacles, like Iraq and Afghanistan before them, have failed to mitigate terrorist violence—if anything, as we're now seeing in Iraq in particular, they've made matters worse. And yet, in the midst of all this destruction, where is the attention for Washington's entangling alliance with Saudi Arabia, which sponsors so much of the terrorism our government is so terribly failing to fight?

Part 2 of this series will be published tomorrow.

Content published on the Young Americans for Liberty blog is only representative of the opinions and research of the individual authors. It does not necessarily reflect the views, goals, or membership of YAL.

I'm not sure if I over looked it, but Isis had declared themselves the Islamic State and the true caliphate sometime last night. This adds another dimension as one of the main mandates of the U.N. is to prevent genocide, which includes religious persecution. Isis is a sunni movement if I'm not mistaken which means they will kill shia and kurds just the same. With it being a caliphate all Muslims not belong to it, and they claim pretty much all of the middle east. Especially with the proclamation that once they enter a country all its laws are void.

Now as a combat vet, we shouldn't of been in most of those countries, but haven been in Afghanistan i don't regret it. Sharia law is the bane of my existence. I firmly believe we belonged in Afghanistan, we should of conducted the war better and not put a quasi dictator in charge. I'm all about non-intervention, and we were attacked with 9/11 we had a reason to go. However even Hitler had plans to attack us before we entered the war, and it is hard to just let so many people die, that probably will. And the caliphate wont stop it is radical Islam, they believe it is a global movement.  Also you have to note that Al-queada technically doesn't exist. It is pashto for the Network and it is what we call radical Islam terror cells that communicate together; Taliban Haqquani network, Hezbollah, ect. They are all different and have different agendas. Isis is 1 organization that if I'm not mistaken has been denounced by "The Network".

I'm not saying you're wrong, just something else to consider.

Calebsc55's picture

It should be noted that in Syria, early on we saw rebel outposts placed in NATO ally countries of Jordan http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/12/11/bfp-exclusive-developing-stor... and Turkey to train and develop the rebel groups which would destabilize the Assad regime. Yet here, in the wake of the disastrous outcomes of Libya and Egypt the political capital of US/NATO leadership proved to be utterly spent.

Johnny Jeremy Harrelson's picture

...

Johnny Jeremy Harrelson's picture