Daily News Egypt

Who supports terrorist forces in the ongoing wars? - Daily News Egypt

Advertising Area

Advertising Area

Who supports terrorist forces in the ongoing wars?

There is a war, or rather wars, taking place in the Middle East between political Islam and ruling regimes, and most observers note that on one side of these wars stands a group of states and governments while the other includes religious, extremist, and militant groups and organisations. The current scene may bring to mind …

Farid Zahran
Farid Zahran

There is a war, or rather wars, taking place in the Middle East between political Islam and ruling regimes, and most observers note that on one side of these wars stands a group of states and governments while the other includes religious, extremist, and militant groups and organisations. The current scene may bring to mind the era of the sixties in Latin America and perhaps even East Asia, when a number of states and governments loyal to the United States in Latin and South America entered into various wars against leftist groups and organisations at the time.

We can note that the guerrilla warfare used by Islamist groups now is similar to the style employed by radical leftist groups in the sixties from a military tactics perspective, with some fundamental differences resulting from distinct intellectual references.  We can say that superficial analysts and observers alone would have thought that the wars of the sixties revolved around groups and states on the one hand and armed gangs on the other. But anyone who looked deeper into the situation was able to see that one of the most important reasons behind these wars was the muffled conflict between the Soviet Union and the US, or what was known at the time as the Cold War.

Local and regional conflicts broke out against the backdrop of contradictions and local or regional causes in a number of countries and regions, but we can say that one reason these conflicts broke out was a result of a polarising desire in the world at that time: avoiding conflict between the Soviet Union and the US, with some even ignoring the local and regional conflicts that broke out and focusing only on the international aspect.

It was understood that these conflicts were “proxy wars” that took place during a moment where a clash could take place between the two poles of the world at that time, the Americans and the Soviets. This could have lead to the destruction of humanity in light of both nations owning weapons of mass destruction capable of destroying the earth more than once. In order to affirm the validity of this analysis, experts point out, for example, that armed leftist groups in Latin America received support from Cuba under Castro’s rule, and Cuba, in turn, used to receive support from the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, the US supported the ruling regimes that fought these groups. Does this mean that these wars were created and driven by Soviet and American pressure only? In other words, did these wars not take place for local or regional reasons? Were there not specific social and political forces that favoured one party over another? The answer is a resounding no.

In all of the countries where civil or regional wars took place during that, there were social and political contradictions which transformed into sharp polarisation between two parties which quickly formed civil and regional wars. However, we can say that this polarisation could have either precipitated wars or failed to do so due to a lack of capabilities on part of one side or another. But when those capabilities and Soviet or US support were available, the sharp political conflict would transform into an armed conflict more easily. We can also say that the continuation of armed conflict for long periods as a result of an inability on part of either party to win the conflict was a logical consequence of feeding or supporting parties from two different poles. Therefore, when the Cold War, came to an end with the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin wall, a new era of strategic thinking was ushered in by the US in a new world order which did not have a place for local or regional wars.

We will not go into the extent to which this prophecy or wish was fulfilled, as the collapse of the bipolar global system was supposed to lead to peace and stability either in a multipolar or unipolar world. We will simply conclude from the above that the wars of the ‘60s had the potential to continue for many years in a game of cat and mouse, whether in Latin America or East Asia, and without Soviet support. We will also simply conclude that the regimes of these countries could have persisted without American support. We must therefore ask how the forces of armed political Islam are a party to the civil wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, in addition to their presence as terrorist forces capable of directing painful blows toward Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria.

Lastly, how can the forces of armed political Islam form a security threat to the countries of the Gulf and North Africa, but even further extend their ability to threaten the security of Arab and Islamic countries to Europe? In other words, who is supporting armed Islamist groups? Are there nations and governments supporting these groups, and who are they? Only yesterday, it was apparent that the parties supporting this party or that were not doing this secretly, and openly supported whatever group they thought was deserving. It is now clear that supporters of extremist armed groups do so in secret and do not reveal their identities.

We may also ask: Have governments in the Middle East been, and will continue to be, against armed Islamist groups? This question leads us directly to another that may be more important: Are the major powers – meaning specifically the US and its allies – against armed Islamist groups, or has there been a split among the major powers on this matter? Is this division, if there is one, split horizontally so that some Western countries are with Islamism and others are not, or is it vertical, dividing some major political movements within Western countries against Islamism with others for it? If a division does exist within the major powers, regardless of whether it is vertical or horizontal, wouldn’t it be logical for there to be a similar split in the Middle East?

To answer these questions, we must know the strategic nature of terrorist forces, and in the beginning we must note that there is more than one strategy in dealing with terrorism and extremists. These different strategies are not local ones related only to political forces or the region. Instead, they are international strategies that contributed to the first climax of diverse local, regional, and international forces during and after World War II, but these strategies only crystallised and became clear and distinctive with the passage of time, especially during the Cold War and beyond.

Thus we can say that the appearance of the forces of political Islam on this stage imposed on all local and international forces a need to classify them and establish appropriate strategies for dealing with the groups. However, these forces would not have crystallised if society was not ripe for the emergence of these forces for a diverse range of economic, social, political, and cultural reasons. If the emergence was nothing more than an emergence, it would have objective, logical causes that may not expand in this regard. It also relates to the strategies of these forces for dealing with political Islam. Perhaps shedding light on these strategies and studying their influence on the ongoing wars will be the subject of our next conversation, God-willing.

Farid Zahran is a publisher and writer. He is the co-founder of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party

Advertising Area

Advertising Area

  • Reda Sobky

    WE await your next installment spelling out the actual content of who is supporting which group, this info is needed by the mass to form a selective opinion about a difficult and denied subject, thank you.

    • Faried Zahran

      Thanks a lot for your encouraging remark, all what I receive lately (among any one who relates him/herself to 25 January revolution) is accusations of treason

  • Boss

    All of you who write disparaging things about Egypt and the Egyptian Government, YOU contribute to the growth of terrorism and its recruitment..Either you support the government and our beautiful country! Or are you sneaky traitors!!

    • Faried Zahran

      Dear Mr/Mrs Boss,
      Did you read my article, unfortunately I doubt.
      I will welcome any comment by you based on what actually I wrote, not what is based on your interpretation of what I am saying implicitly.
      Faried Zahran

  • Based upon the actions of the Obama administration with respect to the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt coupled with Obama’s condemnation of the popular uprising that ousted Morsi from power, we can conclude that the current U.S. administration is either seriously misguided as it involves Islamic terrorism or that it tacitly supports it. Far from celebrating the restoration of the rule of law and stability that al-Sisi has accomplished, president Obama remains decidedly cool towards him. Egypt shall resume its role as a significant force for stability and realpolitik throughout North Africa and the Middle East. Many of us here in the United States fully support your country and its efforts to wrest democracy from the jaws of radicalism. See more at uncommonsense66.com

    • Boss

      Thank you!!! I am glad to see US citizens appreciate the tremendous work Al-Sisi devote to stabilize Egypt!

      • We stand with you, Boss. America recognizes and appreciates the tremendous efforts your great nation has taken in defense of liberty and humanity. God bless Egypt. Please read my blog and share it with your friends. It is uncommonsense66.com

  • Reda Sobky

    If you consider a meta interpretive approach in which the geopolitical goal is the destruction of the armies and political entities in the middle east so that they reconfigure as religious fiefdoms and rump states trapped in an obsolete inefficient social structure and a mind box that is self reinforcing based on mediaeval or ancient concepts. This is a challenge to the theistic structure and an attempt to rob it of its ability to succeed in uplifting its practitioners to higher levels of functioning socially and individually, in this age, by turning it into this untenable barbaric structure that will be ground out by evolutionary forces whatever happens. Then convincing everybody that this is how it was meant to be by its message which is one of the factors that make a reasoned truthful religious narrative crucial at this juncture. . Feeding both sides of the conflict with flammable materials and increasing their hostility until they go into open conflict and the social structure disintegrates and the center cannot hold, and then breakup happens. When these broken parts reform into political entities you just need to make sure none of these entities emerges as a strong entity capable of fielding an army of any consequence. This is what I suspect was meant by “creative destruction”. To me it looks like destructive destruction and in a Machiavellian world in which large scale covert and overt violent action is permitted, even to achieve unstated goals, it is possible that a single entity can feed both sides and tip the balance between them back to even any time one of them seems to be weakening or strengethening, so that the erosive, debilitating and nationally destructive conflict can stay on even if it involves ethically untenable events such as genocide of the Yazidis and the Christians in the levant. Those feeding and keeping the fires burning strong can also appear as the potential savior of the genocide victims while having directly caused the sequence that produced the conditions generative of the disaster. The interpretation of the role of each player has to take into account that many are playing both hands in the hope of destroying the arena (country) in which the conflict is taking place as a way to neutralize it as the goal of the exercise in the first place. When you show a link between a player and an event or group, it is possible that the same player is also playing and feeding the other side of the conflict through a surrogate so that what you point to is what they want you to point to while the part they want you not to find out about, they do through somebody else, and thus keeping it going and neutralize the entity without sending in troops and playing the role of invader instead accomplish the dirty deed while appearing to be the savior. This is the nature of the game…fascinating what game theory can shed light on. The personally attacking chorus means that you are getting close to the heart of the matter so the propaganda minions want to silence you, please take that as a positive and go for the full monty.

Breaking News

No current breaking news

Daily News Egypt Android App Available for free download on Google play
Daily News Egypt Ios App Available for free download on APP Store