Sunni and Shi'a Terrorism: Differences That Matter

[Bob's World]

As I recall Iran and Lebannon self-determined prior to the end of the Cold War, and for all their current troubles, they do not have governments imposed by the West. Iraq had also managed to throw off Western imposed governance, but got invaded a few years back...if the government there can avoid the stigma of being considered a Western puppet, they have a chance.

[Ken White]

the cold war by many years. Go back to 1919 (in some cases thousands of years earlier...). The Ottomans were on the losing side and all their former Arab lands gained some form or other of independence. the British and French chopped up the area by drawing lines on a map -- diligently ignoring anyone who knew that Middle East -- and created a series of fault lines.

The USSR moved in smartly with Agitprop during the 1920s and proceeded for the next 70 or so years to foment hate and discontent (I suspect their successors are still at it...) all along those fault lines and they were successful beyond their wildest dreams. They played all the Arab psyche buttons; colonialism, neo-colonialism, sectarian differences; western disdain, all those and more. Today, there are a lot of little old guys watching BBC World News in St. Petersburg and chuckling while they sip their vodka.

They were far more successful in shaping the attitudes of the populace than the west was in shaping governments. We may have 'won' the cold war on an overall basis -- but they definitely won in the ME. It is perhaps noteworthy that, hard as they tried, they failed in the nation with the second largest Muslim population.

The Sunni / Shia divide is generally dormant unless agitators provoke one side or the other. Iran is Shia but its problems and attitudes stem more from dreams of Darius and Cyrus than they do from a desire for religious domination. Shia populations in the other nations all get along with each other barring deliberate provocation. The Iraqi problem is one of payback, most of the other nations are trying to adapt and defuse confrontations.

However, there are still agitators working zealously. Religion is not their motive power -- that would be political power with religious issues as cover.

I think Bob's world is correct on this score:

"...Certainly Islam is central to the lives of most of the people of the Middle East; but it is not Islam that drives young men to violence.

True, it is not -- but some are using Islam to justify and endorse violence and too many in Islam are tolerant of this perversion not least because the USSR was successful for many years in planting anti-western attitudes that will be around for many more years. Islam is not the driver but is accepting and even, in too many cases, approving of that violence.

In fairness, the west has not done a very good job of refuting those attitudes.

[jmm99]

from Ken
They played all the Arab psyche buttons; colonialism, neo-colonialism, sectarian differences; western disdain, all those and more. ....

They were far more successful in shaping the attitudes of the populace than the west was in shaping governments....

Strikes me that these Cold War themes were picked up by both Shia and Sunni as their geo-political arguments - to which, extreme religious positions were added, starting with Maududi.

[Ken White]

both sides learned from each other and, other than a very few, the west did not catch on to much of anything. The USSR; the Cheka / NKVD / MGB / MVD / KGB; were probably the best intel crew around. They were flexible and shrewd, adapted well to their environments -- something the Brits do fairly well and we do not do well.

I also strongly suspect that the extreme religious arguments are mostly -- not all -- in reality more cover for political maneuvering than deep faith. A detailed study of the life, politcal ploys and shenanigans of the Imam Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini can be illuminating in this regard. He was for the Shah before he was against him. He knew Kermit, Jr for instance...