War on Terror: Syrian Civil War and Al Qaeda - Report Example

Name of Author Professor Subject Date Introduction The willingness to support or participate in suicide bombing practices and whether it is prompted by principles of religion or politics are some of the questions that is very difficult to answer for anybody; be it Islam fundamentalists, politicians, religious elders or just the common man (Toft 2007). Since the Islamic law does not differentiate between state and religion matters, it would be safe to say that the simple answer to the questions would be that the suicide bombing practices are inspired by politics and religion (Toft 2007). This concept is however not favoured by many as it ignores, to a great extent, key issues that go a long way in determining whether the primary mover towards these practices are religious or political (Toft 2007). According to Hafez (2007), religious differences have been the major cause of conflicts in modern era. Although they may not be deeply rooted to avoid intractability, most of these conflicts have become sufficiently obstinate to warrant the use of force as the only means of resolve. Perhaps, questions may arise as to why force may be needed in order to bring under control perceived religious opponents. Suicide bombing analysts are of the opinion that because religion has more to do with faith rather than reason, Islam religious extremists are resistant to rational discussions and compromises, consequents of politics (Gambetta 301-333). They therefore prefer using force to control their religious opponents. Incidences of suicide bombing in Iraq started to escalate with the invasion of United States in the country (Hafez 2007). This invasion was interpreted as war against the Islamic religion by power brokers in the country, Saddam Hussein being one. After the downfall Saddam Hussein’s regime, very many different violent groups were formed that made terrorist acts their main agenda. These groups such as al-Qaeda were majorly made up of insurgents; individuals who were left jobless and were determined to do anything within their capabilities to bring back a government that’s was strong enough and was Sunni led (Hashim 2009). At first they would target US and coalition troops by planting roadside bombs and although they managed to pass a message to the forces, they realized there was another way to do it. Between 2004 - 2006, these insurgents focused their acts on civilians which increased the number of suicide bombings as coalition-Iraqi forces weakness was exposed (Hashim 2009). The insurgents could now attack anywhere at any time; markets and bus stations being the most vulnerable areas. It was difficult for allied forces to quickly adapt to this change and the consequences were dire; during this period, suicide bombing accounted for 10% of deaths in the battlefield and 90% of civilian deaths (Goldenberg 220-226). The Rule of Iran Many would term Iran as a tyranny, but if the happenings in the country since Ahmadinejad became president is anything to go by, it is quite not the case (Buchta 31). Iran is not a tyranny as such and the president’s office does not have the last word on affairs affecting the country. Political scientists are unanimous that the office that truly takes up this role is the office of the Council of Guardians, headed by the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The fact that Iran permits elections and allows demonstrations by its citizens in case elections are contested goes to show that Iran is not a tyranny of any sort (Buchta 31). Questions thus arise as to what kind of beast Iran is as many are of the opinion that its regime needs to evolve. The Islamic Republic of Iran practices an “electoral authoritarian” kind of rule. This means that it is primarily authoritarian with clerics and military personnel running it behind the scenes and use elections as a means of legitimizing themselves (Buchta 93). This kind of rule has been seen as a new phenomenon to the politics of Middle East and viewed by many as very important. It is a Shiite ideological thought developed by Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of like-minded neofundamentalists who made sure that it is enshrined in Iran’s constitution thereby institutionalizing Islamic clerical rule (Saikal 35). Ayatollah has ensured that the legitimacy of clerical rule is maintained by stating that his leadership is based on a divine calling and has even gone further to monopolize the way the sacred law is interpreted by the citizens. The circles of clerics are guided by thematic principles such as ostentation, unity, ascribing to hostilities with respect to other states’ actions and solving political problems with military force, and a principle of ultimate victory. Others are however of the opinion that it is a medieval theocracy since its constitution vests sovereignty solely in God and not to its citizens. It also primarily uses the main religion, Islam and the holy book, the Quran to refer to matters of the law. This means that all laws, the constitution included, have to conform to Islamic law. This Sharia rule in Iran is thus solely dependent on the guidance of senior religious leader who executes all matters of state and power in order to ensure that such executions are in conformity with Sharia (Saikal 202). The country’s constitution can therefore be said to be a mix of all these elements; authoritarian, theocracy and democracy. Rule of Syria Unlike Iran, Syrian rule was way different in terms of principles applied by its leaders. Syria gained its independence on 17th April 1946 but experienced political upheavals through to 1960 (Hinnebusch 15). Within a ten year period after independence, Syria had drafted four different constitutions. Coup d’états were characteristic in the country, specifically due to the increasingly power concentration to the military as they were seen as the only establishment that had the ability to seize land in a dispute between Syria and Israel for the Syrian people and also in keeping power (Hinnebusch 18). For a long time, parliamentary institutions were characteristically weak perhaps due to competing parties that were resigned to helping elite landowners and Sunni urbanites with utter disregard of the failing economy and a growing number of neglected peasants. Continued power concentration to the military led to Syria the signing of treaties with the Soviet Union and later Egypt in exchange for military equipment and anti-imperial ideologies respectively (Hinnebusch 38). General Salah Jadid rule from 1966 furthered hostilities against Israel and other Arab states particularly Saudi Arabia as he aligned the country with the Soviet. Instead of advocating for an inter-Arab army forces alliances he called for war against Zionism and even attempted to change Syria in to a socialist nation, consequently causing strife and economical instability in the country. Under Salah’s rule conflicts with Israel deepened as the latter continued to farm in the demilitarized zone (Hinnebusch 43). Internal conflicts were also experienced between the right-wing forces and civilian-wing which saw Hafez al-Assad, Defense Minister, rise to power as he overthrew Salah Jadid. Hafez al-Assad first mission was to consolidate power and form a government organizational infrastructure that the country needed so much. In 1973, after so many milestones under al-Assad short period in power, Syria passed a new constitution which defined it as socialist state and also gave Islam recognition as a majority religion (Buchs 2). Despite al-Assad’s achievements, his government did not lack critics among them the Sunni Muslim fundamentalists who openly objected to the secular values initiated by al-Assad’s Ba’ath program. They were also against being ruled by Shia Alawis. These Muslim fundamentalists then started uprisings in various regions in Syria, Aleppo and Hama for instance, and even tried to assassinate Assad. This incidence prompted Assad to start emphasizing on the adherence of Islam by the Syrian people and also opted to support Iran in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 (Buchs 10). The Muslim Brotherhood, a group part of the Muslim fundamentalists based in Hama were attacked by government forces and left roughly 10,000-25,000 civilians dead or injured, later to be referred to as the Hama massacre. During the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, Syria was part of the then US-led coalition forces against Iraq which consequently led to improved ties with the United States and other Arab countries. After a 30 year rule, Assad died in 2000 and his son, Bashar al-Assad succeeded him. Although the constitution could not permit him to assume presidency due to his age, the parliament amended the constitution to lower the President’s minimum age. Bashar was thus nominated by his party and later elected Syria’s president unopposed through a referendum. The summer after his election, the people of Syria could sense hope as political forums emerged and like-minded groups met to discuss political issues as well as social issues (Buchs 21). This movement was the political brainchild of several political activists such as Riad Seif and Jamal al-Atassi. Through political demands by political activists, Assad ordered the releasing of 600 political prisoners and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to continue with its political activities (Hinnebusch 58). This pro-reform period was however short lived as Assad’s government began ruling with the authoritarian nature that was characteristic of Hafez al-Assad rule as more and more intellectuals were arrested despite the occasional amnesties. By this time, ties with the USA were growing further apart and in 2002 this tension worsened when the USA revealed that Damascus was obtaining WMD’s and became an opponent of Syria since it had forged stronger ties with Hamas, an Islamic Jihad Movement, a terrorist group according to EU , Israel and US, an allegation Syria strongly denied (Buchs 28). Assad also denied that Syria was habouring Iraqi fugitives but this did not stop the US from slapping sanctions to Syria as it believed that Syria was supporting terrorism. Protests led by activists such as Michel Kilo were held to criticize the totalitarian nature with which Assad’s government ruled and called for reforms (Buchs 30). They were arrested without the promised reforms taking off. Syria became one of the countries in the world that censored the internet with certain popular websites being blocked and enforcing laws that allow government agencies to monitor internet use (Hinnebusch 72). Her international relations greatly improved over time as was evident when her ties with Iraq were re-established. Air strikes by Israel greatly severed these relations as Israel claimed Syria was constructing a nuclear plant on that site with the support of the Korean government (Buchs 30). However, continued diplomatic summits saw the end of Syria’s isolation by United States as Assad looked to boost efforts to end the Middle East war and in 2008, talks on a peace pact between Israel and Syria had reached an advanced stage. In the same year, 17 people died from an explosion and the Syrian government blamed Islamist militants. Talks with the US continued in 2009 but came to a halt in 2010 when USA claimed again that Syria was supporting terrorist groups (Buchs 34). Syrian Civil War The Syrian uprising that has been at the forefront to see that democratic reforms are enforced has led to a civil war that been a continuous internal conflict between rebel groups composed mainly of supposed Al Qaeda terrorists encouraged by Arab spring and the Syrian army (Starr 7). These protests prompted the Syrian government to deploy the army to Damascus to control the protests where civilians were shot dead. In retaliation anti-Assad groups created the Free Syrian Army in 2011, made up mainly of independents units and in response that government sent troops to Hama where these groups were based, to re-establish order (Starr 29). Meanwhile Assad had accepted to have Arab observers in Syria and many people assemble to meet them. During this period, two suicide attacks killed two dozen people in Damascus, the first of a sequence of suicide bombings that persisted in the Syrian capital throughout 2012 (Starr 111). The Syrian government has continued claim that it is Al Qaeda that has been responsible for the attacks and has accused the West and the United Nations of ignoring these attacks. Al Qaeda The founding philosophy of al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet War that took place in Afghanistan in the 1980’s between Afghan Marxists and Afghan mujahideen (Bevy 3). The United States channeled funds to the Afghan mujahideen who were against Soviet occupation of their land. During this time, Arab mujahideen were increasingly joining the jihad to fight the Afghan Marxist rule, supported majorly by Muslim organizations with operations globally, Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK) being the main one (Bevy 7). Maktab al-Khidimat was largely funded by the government of Saudi Arabia although wealthy individual Muslims were also involved. Maktab al-Khidimat was first set up in Peshawar by Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam (Atwan 48). For a long time Osama Bin Laden poured his personal fortune into al-Qaeda and approached his business partners and used his ties with the Saudi Arabian royal family to solicit for more funds. They organized lodges and collected supplies that would be use in the construction of training camps to be used by the foreign mujahideen recruits. MAK began spreading its network further and in 1986 it opened a recruiting base in the United States and it is from this spread that MAK evolved to al-Qaeda (Atwan 54). Today al-Qaeda has bases in 65 countries worldwide. Analysts have categorized it as a religious group boasting of over 50,000 members in strength. After the Soviets withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden used the resources he got from the anti-Soviet war to change al-Qaeda’s attention towards those he perceived were opponents of Islam, basically the West (Atwan 50). The Afghanistan government was against the group’s operations and it changed its base to Saudi Arabia then to Sudan and then back to Afghanistan (Bevy 25). The philosophy of this terrorist group has been one termed as “defensive jihad” where by the leaders encourage all Muslims to fight against what the group perceives to be attacks directed at the Muslim community worldwide and has gone further to threaten the possible overthrowing of “non-Islamic regimes” they believe repress their fellow muslims and substitute them with legitimate Islamic regimes. They also aim to expel Western forces from Holy sites in Iraq and to turn Jerusalem into a Muslim city (Bevy 28). In an effort to ensure that these goals are realized, Al-Qaeda partners with and supports terrorist groups globally that fight Muslim states they believe have leaders who are traitors (Egypt and post-2002 Afghanistan), those that fight governments that allegedly repress Muslim citizens and those that fight for the establishment of an Islamic state within their territories (Bevy 37). Support for these terrorist groups is in two ways; by training them in al-Qaeda camps and by allowing its members to go around the world helping these groups realize their objectives. In a bid to add to the classic terrorist attacks methods, these trainings centered on insurgent warfare and it is believed that the number of insurgent fighters have greatly risen over the years with an estimated ratio of possibly 15 to 1. War analysts agree that Al-Qaeda’s revulsion for the West and its allies makes insurgency the best defensive jihad (Bevy 40). The portrayal of the United States and an enemy of Muslim community has helped the group garner support all over the Muslim world. According to them, this view is supported by the occupancy on Islamic Holy sites by the United States troops and further invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Until today, al-Qaeda’s biggest groups operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Atwan 258). Despite the fact that USA’s Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 brought to an end Taliban’s rule and Afghani support for the group and even destroying their training camps, al-Qaeda has remained dangerous and a major threat to Afghanistan’s stability(Atwan 259). Outside of these two territories, al-Qaeda has continued with its operations in Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Chechnya and Kashmir. In Saudi Arabia, attacks on the country’s regime and American security forces have been on the rise, and it has been revealed that al-Qaeda leaders have continued to make efforts to gain contact with southern Lebanon. Al-Qaeda thus remains a threat to global peace whatever form it takes (Atwan 259). How Terrorist Organizations Convince Recruits Trying to understand the methods used by terrorist organizations in recruiting people is not an easy task. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that someone would just volunteer, without reason, to be experimental subjects of terrorism. The most popular image that people have on terrorist organizations recruitment is that it looks for disillusioned Muslims annoyed by the support Israel has got from the US and the West’s occupancy in the Muslim world. These terrorist organizations usually have pass messages that fulfill specific needs that usually to be recruits really need. These needs - need for revenge, need for recognition and the need for thrill and adventure - are what terrorist organizations target and they promise to offer these unfulfilled needs (Ranstorp 34). The ability for terrorist organizations to make potential recruits violent has its base in how they carry out their search and once they are successful in their search; they group these recruits according to what they want most. There are majorly four groups as mentioned earlier, the revenge seeker, the thrill seeker, the status seeker and the identity seeker (Ranstorp 34). The revenge seeker usually thinks he is a victim of circumstances and that there are external forces responsible for his unhappiness and failures (Ranstorp 35). It was found out that potential recruits were usually angry not at the West but at their families since the culture of Middle Eastern societies put emphasis on individual dignity than on personal liberty. Once this dignity was lost humiliation and anger overpowered them and the only way to feel better is to channel it some other place (Ranstorp 35). The belief that they could personally right the wrongs of the world makes it easier for terrorist organizations to feed them with propaganda about the West, consequently fueling their anger which they direct towards the West and allies. For the status seeker are usually not residing in the Middle East rather they reside in the diaspora. They perceive their surrounding community as unappreciative of him. They compare their current home in the diaspora to that of their “real” community and believe that they would succeed, be respected and appreciated in the latter (Ranstorp 36). For instance in these foreign countries, they are usually discriminated upon and are appreciated only for their cheap labour. According to them, they have worthwhile values that are not reflected in society due to the positions they hold in their foreign communities. They therefore look for fellow countrymen, who have attained “high status” with the perception that it is these high status individuals who can understand them and thus they try to prove to them what they are worth (Ranstorp 36). With their belief that time is running out without them showing their worth to the society, they turn to terrorist organizations which offers them the only opportunity to succeed. The third group is the identity seeker whose concern is to be recognized as part of an organization. For most adolescents, one’s personality is strengthened if he aligns himself with a satisfying and an operational identity as is the concept behind street gangs to the bands of al-Qaeda (Ranstorp 38). People in this group are in need of rules and regulations and points of view that are characteristic of groups since associating with a particular group defines them. Group mentalities of identity and acceptance thus become important as a young person grows. Terrorist organizations therefore have clear rules on how they should behave in case they are recruited. This coupled with an articulate vision of where they want the organization to be portrays them as the best group to join to potential recruits (Ranstorp 38). Lastly, the thrill seeker as the name suggests want to prove to others that they can achieve a difficult task or even survive a dangerous adventure. They are driven and have a lot of energy. Usually they go looking for the next new adventures everywhere and usually come from the middle-class families (Ranstorp 40). With this in mind leaders in terrorist organizations often make sure that propaganda on victories are communicated widely via the internet where this group mostly spends its time thereby making them feel that joining terrorist organizations offer the best possible form of adventure and thrill (Ranstorp 40). Works Cited Hafez MM. Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. 2007. Print. Gambetta, Diego. Making Sense of Suicide Missions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: 301-333. Print. Hashim, Ahmed. Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq. London: Hurst and Company. 2006. Print Buchta, Wilfried. Who Rules Iran? : The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic. Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 2000. Print. Saikal, Amin. The Rise and Fall of the Shah: Iran from Autocracy to Religious Rule. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2009. Print. Buchs, Annette. The Resilience of Authoritarian Rule in Syria under Hafez and Bashar Al- Assad. Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies. 2009. Print. Hinnebusch, Raymond. Syria: Revolution from Above. London: Routledge. 2002. Print. Starr, Stephen. Revolt in Syria: Eye-witness to the Uprising. London: Hurst Publishers. 2010. Print. Atwan, Bari Abdel. The Secret History of Al-Qaeda. California: University of California Press. 2008. Print. Bevy, J. Lawrence. Al-Qaeda: An Organization to be Reckoned with. New York, NY: Nova Publishers. 2006. Print. Ranstorp, Magnus. Understanding Violent Radicalisation: Terrorist and Jihadist Movement in Europe. London: Routledge. 2009. Print. Read More

Iran is not a tyranny as such and the president’s office does not have the last word on affairs affecting the country. Political scientists are unanimous that the office that truly takes up this role is the office of the Council of Guardians, headed by the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The fact that Iran permits elections and allows demonstrations by its citizens in case elections are contested goes to show that Iran is not a tyranny of any sort (Buchta 31). Questions thus arise as to what kind of beast Iran is as many think that its regime needs to evolve.

The Islamic Republic of Iran practices an “electoral authoritarian” kind of rule. This means that it is primarily authoritarian with clerics and military personnel running it behind the scenes and using elections as a means of legitimizing themselves (Buchta 93). This kind of rule has been seen as a new phenomenon in the politics of the Middle East and viewed by many as very important. It is a Shiite ideological thought developed by Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of like-minded neo fundamentalists who made sure that it is enshrined in Iran’s constitution thereby institutionalizing Islamic clerical rule (Saikal 35).

Ayatollah has ensured that the legitimacy of clerical rule is maintained by stating that his leadership is based on a divine calling and has even gone further to monopolize the way the sacred law is interpreted by the citizens. The circles of clerics are guided by thematic principles such as ostentation, unity, ascribing to hostilities concerning other states’ actions and solving political problems with military force, and a principle of ultimate victory. Others are however of the opinion that it is a medieval theocracy since its constitution vests sovereignty solely in God and not to its citizens.

It also primarily uses the main religion, Islam, and the holy book, the Quran to refer to matters of the law. This means that all laws, the constitution included, have to conform to Islamic law. This Sharia rule in Iran is thus solely dependent on the guidance of a senior religious leader who executes all matters of state and power to ensure that such executions conform with Sharia (Saikal 202). The country’s constitution can therefore be said to be a mix of all these elements; authoritarian, theocracy, and democracy.

Rule of Syria Unlike Iran, Syrian rule was way different in terms of principles applied by its leaders. Syria gained its independence on 17th April 1946 but experienced political upheavals through to 1960 (Hinnebusch 15). Within ten years of independence, Syria had drafted four different constitutions. Coup d’états were characteristic in the country, specifically due to the increasing power concentration to the military as they were seen as the only establishment that could seize land in a dispute between Syria and Israel for the Syrian people and also in keeping power (Hinnebusch 18).

For a long time, parliamentary institutions were characteristically weak perhaps due to competing parties that were resigned to helping elite landowners and Sunni urbanites with utter disregard for the failing economy and a growing number of neglected peasants. Continued power concentration in the military led to Syria signing treaties with the Soviet Union and later Egypt in exchange for military equipment and anti-imperial ideologies respectively (Hinnebusch 38). General Salah Jadid's rule from 1966 furthered hostilities against Israel and other Arab states particularly Saudi Arabia as he aligned the country with the Soviets.

Instead of advocating for inter-Arab army forces alliances he called for war against Zionism and even attempted to change Syria into a socialist nation, consequently causing strife and economical instability in the country. Under Salah’s rule conflicts with Israel deepened as the latter continued to farm in the demilitarized zone (Hinnebusch 43). 

Read More