Invasion Force: Western troops return from an exercise in the Saudi Arabian desert in the run-up to Operation Desert Storm (1990-91). St Thomas Aquinas enjoined his fellow Christians to avoid all wars in which the cost of their participation was, by any rational calculation, likely to be higher, in human terms, than their abstention. Is the Middle East a better or worse place after 25 years of Western intervention?
BY THE TIME you read these words, the dispatch of New
Zealand troops to Iraq will, almost certainly, have been announced. For the
fourth time in less than quarter-of-a-century, Kiwi boots will be kicking up sand
in the Middle East. Unasked, presumably, by those seated around the Cabinet
Table yesterday morning, were the questions:
“Has the Middle East become a better, or a worse, place
since the West’s first, massive, post-war incursion, back in 1991?”
And: “Will it be a better, or worse, place for the Western
“Club’s” intervention in 2015?”
It is worth reminding ourselves that Osama Bin Laden’s
decision to shift Al Qaida’s focus to the “far-away enemy” was triggered by the
arrival of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division in the Arabian Peninsula – home
of the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. Imagine how Catholic Christians
would react to the sight of several Arab divisions setting up camp in the
Vatican City, and you’ll have some inkling of how profoundly affected Bin Laden
and his followers were by the Americans’ arrival.
The past has much less purchase on the sensibilities of the
average Westerner than it does on the hearts and minds of those belonging to
the Islamic faith. Even today, both Al Qaida and Islamic State denounce the
military contingents of the West as “Crusaders” – referencing the Frankish
knights who invaded the Muslim world early in the Twelfth Century. Nor is this
mere rhetoric on their part. Through all the intervening centuries, street-singers
from Beirut to Baghdad have kept alive the horrors perpetrated by the Christian
invaders, and recounted proudly how Islam’s great captain, Saladin, recaptured
the holy city of Jerusalem. The Crusades are as real to the people of the
Middle East as the much more recent tragedy of Gallipoli is to us.
Every grain of sand kicked-up by Kiwi soldiers’ boots in
Iraq will be weighted down with centuries of history. It is, moreover, a living
past, inextricably intertwined with the present, and its effects can be deadly.
The terrible punishments meted out to those who have fallen into the clutches
of Islamic State are not the random choices of sadistic criminals, but the fate
prescribed by Islam’s 1,383-year-old holy book, the Quran:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is:
execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite
sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a
heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”.
This is the world into which our government has decided to
send one hundred or more young New Zealanders. Our soldiers will now be
numbered among “those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger”. From the
moment New Zealand’s participation in the war against Islamic State is
announced, the fate of any Kiwi soldier, or citizen, falling into the hands of
Islamic State, is sealed.
New Zealand is very far from Iraq and Syria; so far that it
is possible the self-proclaimed Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has forgotten we
exist. The news that 100 New Zealand troops are on their way to join the ranks
of the “Crusaders” will, therefore, come as a forceful reminder of our role in
Middle Eastern history. It is to be hoped that Prime Minister Key has not
forgotten how far the influence of al-Baghdadi’s regime now reaches. If he
needs instruction, he has only to ask the citizens of Copenhagen, Paris, Sydney
and Ottawa. The “Caliphate’s” arm has grown very long indeed.
If our Government has deliberately invited the religious fervour
of the Middle East into these peaceful and hitherto tolerant islands, then we,
ourselves, will have to answer the questions they refused to consider: “Has
intervention worked in the past?”, “Will it work now?” And, “Is it justified?”
The first two answers are, obviously, “No.” But what about
the third? What possible justification can we offer for dispatching troops to a
country where millions of the people they’ve been sent to help will curse them
as enemies of God?
Is it possible that we, like the gullible inhabitants of
Medieval Europe, have allowed ourselves to be goaded into action by sermons
filled with the details of hideous atrocities? Are our soldiers about to depart
these shores with the red cross of the crusader knights emblazoned – if only
metaphorically – on their uniforms? If so, then we are embarked upon a fool’s
errand that can only end in horror and despair.
St Thomas Aquinas enjoined his fellow Christians to avoid
all wars in which the cost of their participation was, by any rational
calculation, likely to be higher, in human terms, than their abstention.
Our presence in Iraq cannot be justified. It will end badly.
This essay was originally published in The Press of Tuesday, 24 February 2015.
19 comments:
"Imagine how Catholic Christians would react to the sight of several Arab divisions setting up camp in the Vatican City, and you’ll have some inkling of how profoundly affected Bin Laden and his followers were by the Americans’ arrival."
How and why this very simple insight has managed to escape Western politicians of every stripe amazes me.
Has it really?
Could it be some want chaos in the Middle East?
Who would benefit from such circumstances?
Hi Chris, I agree with your analysis, what do you think the consequences be for the country would be if we were to withdraw support for this 'adventure'?
Good post Chris
It's worth noting that the Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Islamic Jihad against largely Christian communities in North Africa and Europe, not to mention Jerusalem and the Middle East.
As you point out, ISIS did not invent Jihad, but it is following a long established tradition in Islam beginning with their Prophet.
But that to one side, I agree that we are foolish indeed to think we can make any difference to the sectarian strife that is Islam in Iraq and Syria.
Sooner or later this will have to burn itself out with or without our help. Only the latter makes any sense.
"Our presence in Iraq cannot be justified. It will end badly."
And John Key and 50 percent of the population will blame the Greens
"Is it possible that we, like the gullible inhabitants of Medieval Europe, have allowed ourselves to be goaded into action by sermons filled with the details of hideous atrocities?"
No need to look back so far. The War Party has beguiled the gullible with hideous propaganda more recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Anti+Japanese+propaganda&client=ubuntu&hs=dMT&channel=fs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=sPjrVL--GcHemAX1iYKgDQ&ved=0CB0QsAQ&biw=1529&bih=745#imgdii=_
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Anti+vietcong+propaganda&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&biw=1529&bih=745&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Pv_rVLHJLMHq8AXo_YCIAw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#channel=fs&tbm=isch&q=Anti+communist+propaganda
I have no opinion as to the authenticity of the ISIS videos but the method looks familiar.
Brendan.
"400 years of Islamic Jihad against largely Christian communities in North Africa and Europe, not to mention Jerusalem"
This conflicts with my recollection of the History, not to mention my knowledge of the ideology. Please elucidate (with references if possible).
Any presence of ours apart perhaps from humanitarian aid will end badly. You are so right. Key has certainly learned nothing from history but perhaps his arrogance makes him immune to any understanding and his desire to play golf with the American Obama so overpowering.
If any New Zealanders are to die as a result of our being in Iraq, I hope John Key is the first...
Brendan.
"the Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Islamic Jihad against largely Christian communities in North Africa and Europe, not to mention Jerusalem and the Middle East."
You have, it seems, read widely on the subject. Which particular texts should I consult to substantiate the above statement? If it is stuff you read on the internet links will do.
To: Brendan.
Your history is wildly astray.
The Arab expansion was a combination of straightforward military conquest and genuine religious conversion, and it was largely complete by the 9th Century - barely 150 years after Mohammed led his 7th Century followers to Holy War.
The next 200 years witnessed the first flowering of Islamic civilisation, from which the peoples of the West borrowed everything from the astrolabe to zero.
You simply have to accept (if you are in the habit of believing historical evidence) that, in the drama of the Crusades, Christendom plays the villain's part
It took the Crusaders about 200 years to realise that the Middle East had been conquered by Islam Brendan? Doesn't say much for their intellectual abilities. I too would like some references :-). Obviously history has moved on since I studied this.
If you want a glance at the source material for claims like "400 years of Muslim aggression" this Youtube channel here has some gloriously enraging nonsense: http://www.donotlink.com/dubw
An antidote in the form of easily-digestible (and funny!) real history here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrRetpPyTbA
A band of religious fanatics raping, looting and killing their co-religionists, Jews and enemies alike, assured by their spiritual leader that should they die in this pursuit, their souls would go straight to heaven.
ISIS?
Well no actually.
The Library of Constantinople was destroyed.[9] Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, even nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries, and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors who had sworn to fight in service of Christendom without question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_%281204%29
I suspect Brendan is confusing the Crusader Army with the Crusader Union:
http://www.obhs.school.nz/about-us/history/crusaders-at-obhs
There are broad correlations between Isis and American fundamentalist Christians. Both seem to be waiting impatiently for an apocalypse. The end of times – Ragnarok – if Brendan will excuse the pagan reference :-). Both are trying to hasten this, Isis by provoking Western countries to fight them, and the fundies by unconditionally supporting Israel. Both are hoping for an apocalyptic Middle Eastern war. Both are as nutty as a box full of badgers, but Isis seem to be closer to their goal as they are much more savvy at using modern technology to recruit, provoke and propagandise.
Meanwhile our gallant leaders, having learned nothing from Vietnam, are happily supporting a corrupt government which excludes large numbers of its people from the political process. And John Key has demanded that they stop this as the price of our help :-). God help us all, the world is mad.
Putting aside the fact that the views of 'The Flying Tortoise' re John Key would do any aspiring Jihadist proud a more pertenant question directed at the nice Mr Little might be .....
Just on what planet are you currently parked to suggest that it would be better for NZL to send civilian advisers to assist the Iraqi government develop the countries agricultural potential. Just how long do you think an MPI agronomist would last 'outside the wire' before he/she was kidnapped to be seen next in an orange jump suit inside a cage? ... and we all know what happens next.
Your option ain't an option and you know it but clearly you felt you needed to be seen as doing something ... fail.
I notice Catherine Ryan this morning interviewing the prime minister, who said that doing nothing put us in more danger than doing something. Why on earth she didn't ask what specific threats we were facing if we did nothing, and how these were mitigated by doing something I just don't know. But that's just the sort questioning that seems to pass for incisive these days. I doubted more than half a dozen members of Isis know where New Zealand is or what it does :-). Well – until now anyway. As I said before, it's an American problem, they caused it – let them solve it. Let's leave aside agricultural aid. Not because people would be kidnapped as they possibly would, but because it will do no good in a country that is as corrupt as Iraq. Did we not learn this in Vietnam? Does nobody learn from history? Of course not – most people know fuck all about it.
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/25/gordon-campbell-are-nz-troops-the-least-of-iss-problems/
Gordon Campbell puts up a thoughtful alternative to war.
@Brendon
It's worth noting that the Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Islamic Jihad against largely Christian communities in North Africa and Europe, not to mention Jerusalem and the Middle East.
A reaction, yes, but to what?
Primogeniture in feudal society, population and economic pressures, and the problem of petty warfare between the baronial classes in W Europe set the scene. A call from Byzantium to the Pope for military aid in Asia Minor (not Palestine) lit the fuse. That the idea of crusade took such sudden hold of the population's imagination surprised even its proponents and ignored, as others here have pointed out, the fact that Jerusalem etc had already been in Muslim control for several centuries (since 638).
Is anyone noticed how Brendan throws out these factoids and lets us rant over them without actually providing any evidence? Cunning old sod. And I've just noticed that wolfboy's icon is the mighty Mekon. That takes me back. One of my screen background photographs is Anastasia :-).
A look at how religion has caused and is still causing so much death and destruction throughout the world.
"A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead. This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious behaviour that has been recurring for centuries.
Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.
The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years or so:
-- The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."
-- Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.
-- In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children -- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified.""
From here:
http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html
Post a Comment