We are days away from a possible military operation in Syria led by the US. Whilst David Cameron and Barack Obama decide on the extent of the intervention, some Muslims are silently or openly consenting to their plans under the pretext of it being the “lesser of two evils”, writes Dilly Hussain.
Once again, another “red line” has been crossed and the White House and Downing Street are ever nearer to taking military action in another Muslim country, this time it’s Syria for supposedly using chemical weapons.
Warships have been dispatched to the Mediterranean, American and British military bases in Turkey, Jordan and Cyprus are waiting orders and yet again, another Muslim country will be bombed into submission under the facade of “protecting human life”.
What is more concerning is how some Muslims are either silently consenting or openly propagating it as the “lesser of two evils”. Before I delve into this audacious concept (in regards to Western interventionism), I want to briefly remind Muslims of recent factual events.
How many times will Muslims allow themselves to be fooled by this worthless principle that is always uttered by the US, Britain and other Western governments about “red lines?” In Iraq it was WMD’s (yet to be found) and harbouring Al Qaeda. Based on false intelligence, George W Bush and Tony Blair waged a war that cost the lives of a million Iraqis, displaced millions, a country that remains in rubble till today justified by the urgency of “regime change” and bringing democracy to the Middle East.
In February 2003, millions of people protested in 800 cities around the world against the Iraq war. Guinness Book of Records 2004 listed it as the largest protest in human history. Demonstrations were held in Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Republic of Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica, but did the “vanguards of freedom and humanity” take heed? No.
Israel’s use of chemical weapons (white phosphorus) during Operation Cast Lead in 2009 caused the deaths of many Gazans, but I guess this wasn’t that “large-scale” to be deemed as crossing the “red line”. How dare I forget, it’s Israel – they’ve got the green light to pretty much break every “International law” that exists.
What was the red line that led to Western intervention in Libya? Oh yes, “human rights violation” and a possible genocide. Of course, NATO airstrikes only killed a “few” civilians as a result of friendly fire, but Libya is now a flourishing democracy and the National Transitional Council (NTC) is the symbol of freedom that sprung from the Arab Spring!
All sarcasm aside now, have Muslims not learnt from the lessons of Iraq and Libya and the hypocrisy of American and British “red lines?” If they genuinely cared about the loss of human life, why has it taken two and half years after witnessing 100,000 deaths, millions of displaced refugees to intervene in Syria? I don’t think it was about removing Saddam and Ghaddafi, as evil and brutal as they were, there was more to it than “regime change”, and the same applies to Assad.
Breaking the “axis of resistance” or preventing an Islamist victory?
Tony Blair called Bashar a promising “reformer” when he took over after the death of his father Hafez al Assad. As years passed and Syria’s relationship strengthened with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran, there appeared to be an “axis of resistance” emerging. Personally, I didn’t see any resistance from these three players, and the uselessness and treachery of neighbouring Arab states shouldn’t be a benchmark to measure or define resistance.
Yes, some al-Fajr missiles were sent to Hezbollah and Hamas by Tehran and Syria allowed weapons to go through to Gaza and Lebanon, but let’s be serious, no missile was launched into the Golan Heights by Bashar and no Revolutionary Guards were sent to fight the Israelis like they have been in Syria. And if this is the definition of “resistance” that some hold so dearly, then truly the Muslims are in a dire situation.
Obama and Cameron have held back in openly supplying arms and funding to Syrian rebels on a large scale because they feared it may fall into the “wrong hands”. These “wrong handed” rebels are none other than the Islamist brigades, who oppose Western intervention, on numerous occasions stated that Israel would be attacked next and their ultimate goal is re-establishing an Islamic state (Khilafah) once Assad falls.
Putting aside some of the laughable labels some have attached to the sincere mujahideen who are receiving weapons and funding from wealthy individuals, non-governmental donors, global Islamic organisations and by capturing weapon cachets belonging to Assad forces, there is no doubt that secular factions within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have been supported by the West and their regional proxies, and are intent in fulfilling the colonial agenda.
Not to mention the farce of an organisation, Syrian National Council (SNC) who were created by the West to sit in 5-star hotels to discuss the future of a nation where they have not received a single scratch over its struggle.
In the following article (https://5pillarsuk.com/2013/07/30/analysis-of-syrias-rebel-leaders/), leaders of five of the most effective Syrian Islamist brigades (excluding Jabhat al-Nusra and Al Qaeda affiliated groups) voiced their wish to establish a state governed by Shariah, no Western intervention to help them achieve it and clear enmity towards Israel. Why would Saudi, Turkey, Qatar and the West prop up these guys? They don’t follow the Salafi or “Wahhabi” manhaj of Saudi Arabia or have the hastiness to make takfir like some of the scholars of Riyadh.
So this brings me to the conclusion that the US, Britain and France have decided to kill two birds with one stone. The Islamist brigades who are successfully gaining ground in Syria (let’s not be fooled by the loss of Qusayr) need to be eliminated in case they get access to weapons that could possibly be the final game-changer against Assad, and of course replace Assad with one of their puppets who will protect their interests and restore the balance of power in the region.
Lesser of two evils?
The bitter truth is that the Muslim Ummah needs to learn to deal with its own problems. This may sound very harsh considering the thousands that have died, not only in Syria. Those who speak of God-given “victory” need to understand that truth will NEVER prevail over falsehood, and good will NEVER prevail over evil in the hands of the West.
How can the West that works tirelessly to change Islam to conform to liberal secular values, attaches labels to divide and rule our communities, occupies and slaughters Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, drones innocent people in Yemen and Pakistan, funds armies to kill their own people and unreservedly protects the Zionist entity be the lesser of two evils?
If Muslims believe that Allah (swt) would liberate the Ummah from oppression and occupation via NATO, EU or the UN, we really need to wake up and smell the coffee. What happens in the Muslim world is a Muslim problem, and until we can stand on our two feet and deal with our tyrannical dictators and oil rich obese Kings without begging for Western assistance, maybe that day Allah (swt) will bring the Ummah from darkness into light.