« Last of the Notes for UNL's International Politics | HomePage | Questioning Price and Elkind on Adolescent Risk, Schools, and Development »

Sunday, February 05, 20061139169900

Abu Musab Zarqawi, Think Different. (The Muslim Brothers Already Are).

"Praise be to God who gives strength to Islam with His victory....," by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, U.S. Central Command, 9 January 2006, http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Shared%20Documents/What%20Extremists%20Say.aspx?PageView=Shared (from ZenPundit).

Long before he began his blog, or even guest blogging here, tdaxp has focused on al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He often knows better. Note this time, though.

think_different


Zarqawi should follow the Muslim Brothers. He should think different.



The Party can be considered the Iraqi branch of the -- a scary politico-terrorist organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat. But the is supporting elections in Iraq, while Zarqawi's terrorist group "" is opposing them. Why?

Because the Iraqi Islamic Party is thinking different.

Or more specifically: because the Iraqi Islamic Party is thinking higher.

While the classic work Man, the State, and War lists three levels of international politics analysis, really there are five:

MnemonicLevelExample
ManIndividualsGeorge Bush, Osama bin Laden
His FriendsGroupsRepublican Party, al Qaeda
the StateStatesUnited States, Iraq
Her FriendsAlliancesNATO, Arab League
WarSystemsThe underlying assumptions


In his letter, Zarqawi castigates the Iraqi Islamic Party for ignoring the Groups level of analysis

We address a message to the Islamic Party, inviting it to abandon this rough road and ruinous path it pursued. It was about to destroy the Sunnis and implicate them in relying on worldly life and accepting the jahiliyah [pre-Islamic] rule, which they disguised as legitimate interests. They should have called on people to perform jihad for the sake of the almighty God and to grieve over our sisters and brothers in the prisons of the worshippers of the cross, instead of rejoicing and dancing in streets to celebrate an imaginary victory and alleged conquest. Where is their zeal for religion and Muslims?


As well as the States -- the IIP seems unconcerned with seizing Iraq!

“This Party coordinated contacts with Zalmai Khalil Zad, the U.S. ambassador, who is ruling Iraq, when he met with their leaders in the Green Zone before voting on the infidel constitution, and told them: Vote on the constitution and have what you want. Thus the deal was struck and the Party started to give tempting bribes to certain tribal chiefs to convince them of the need to participate in the elections. What did they get in exchange? A seat in parliament was promised if the tribal chiefs promised to preserve the security of the U.S. forces in their areas. A religion is being sold and a jihad stopped in exchange for a seat in a parliament that does not prevent harm or fight infidelism. Has madness reached the extent that a man should sell out his religion for worthless mundane offers?


At these levels Zarqawi is right in his criticisms: Sunnis make up only 15% of all Iraqis, so a democracy would not favor Sunnis.

But the Iraqi Islamic Party isn't looking at group and states -- its looking at alliances and systems.

While Zarqawi is nickle-and-diming in Iraq, the Iraqi Islamic Party (along with the ) is looking at the Arab world.

The Muslim Brothers want Syria, where they would in a free election.
The Muslim Brothers want Egypt, where they would win a free election.

By thinking simply, Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq are fighting the US and against democracy to take one country.
By thinking different, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Muslim Brothers are working with the US for democracy to take many countries.

The Muslim Brothers know better. They think different.

Comments

Dan, I would agree with you my friend, if Zarqawi was a leader of a legitimate, non-violent movement. Unfortunately, AMZ is a vicious terrorist and a savage that has been responsible for promoting the current chaos in Iraq and the bloodshed of hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians and our American service members. We have spent countless hours trying to destroy this man. At this point. we don't really care if he thinks differently. Iraq and the world would be a better place if he simply just died.

Posted by: Sonny | Monday, February 06, 2006

Sonny,

Thanks for the comment. I first found your "Effects-Based" blog off of ZenPundit.

As Tom Barnett has written, one advantage of demonizing our enemies is that it allows enemy groups to switch sides by just knocking off a few villains. The Khmer Rouge pulled this trick in Cambodia -- a quickie execution of Pol Pot, and suddenly the KR is a responsible party in peace negotiations.

A best-case scenario for Iraq means integrating Sunni Arab parties (such as the IIP) into the Iraqi government, which would then isolate al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Hopefully, then aQiM would either turn on itself, or "think different" and pull a KR.

I'm not that optimistic. I think bolstering a Kurdish-Shia government would have been wiser from the start, and that such would still be better.

Still, the administration has been relatively consistent in its goals, and encouraging IIP-style different thinking is part of that.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, February 06, 2006

Post a comment