In my last post, I observe how the terrorists are losing the War on Terrorism, despite recent gains. The purpose of this post is to make other general observations about the war.
The civil war in Syria has pitted terrorist against terrorist, as al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” fight the Iranian-backed terrorist-sponsoring Baathist regime of Bashar Assad and its ally, Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that had more American blood on its hands than al-Qaeda before the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. Because it is in the interest of the
States and its allies in the War on Terrorism
that neither side wins they must be careful not to advantage one side or the
other. It is not surprising that there
is also a split within the Sunni Islamist camp, with the “Islamic State,”
formerly “Al Qaeda in Iraq,”
which had been in Iraq
since before the overthrow of the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003, as
Islamists vie for supremacy in order to make themselves caliphs. The U.S. and its allies may take
advantage of these splits, but cannot rely upon them.
A series of recent comments by world leaders were worth posting. I note Egyptian President Abdel el Sisi’s observation of the global threat to peace and security by Islamists who intend to establish a worldwide caliphate under strict Islamic law. I also note Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s observation that Islamist terrorists target their victims not because of their government’s policies, but because of who the victims are, that is, those whom they regard as infidels who refuse to submit. Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations drew a parallel between
and the terrorist organizations it supports, like Hamas and Hezbollah, and
al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State.”
Although Iran, Syria and
Hezbollah are Shi’ites while al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” are Sunnis, they
are all Islamists, that is, militant Muslims who believe in spreading Islam by
any means necessary, including violence, and imposing strict Islamic law. An analogy is the difference between
Marxist-Leninists and Maoists, both of whom are intent on conquering the world
by any means necessary to impose Communism.
Indeed, despite their differences with Sunni Muslims, the theocratic Islamic
Republic of Iran has been the model throughout the Islamic World for Islamic
law and the Mother of Terrorism. In
even supports Sunni terrorists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad when it is
expedient. The strategy of Al-Qaeda and
the “Islamic State” of trying to spark sectarian war between Sunnis and
Shi’ites to weaken the Iraqi government has been ineffective, as Sunnis and
Shi’ites live peacefully together in the same towns, worship at the same
mosques and even intermarry and have not been fooled by the terrorists’
strategy. In short, despite the
religious differences between Shi’ite and Sunni Islamists, Netanyahu is right
that they are two sides of the same coin.
U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered the American military to augment the civilian American government effort against the Ebola virus outbreak in
West Africa. This strategy is prudent for safety reasons,
as modern travel and commerce increase the threat of contagion, but also to
prevent political instability from which Islamists might take advantage in
these weak states, some of which are recovering from years of bloody civil
wars. Obama’s anti-Ebola strategy is
thus similar, in terms of the War on Terrorism, to former President George W.
Bush’s efforts in Africa versus Malaria and the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus, in addition to the good will it fostered.