Can ISIS Shoot Down Your Airplane?

It was shocking news for every air traveller when Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 — an international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur — was shot down with a surface-to-air missile on 17 July 2014. Even though the downing of MH17 was most likely an unintentional hit by either Ukrainian separatists or Russian soldiers during the ongoing war in Donbass, none of the 283 passengers and 15 crew members on board survived the crash, making it painfully clear that surface-to-air missiles pose a considerable threat to civilian aviation.

The bomb ISIS claims to have used to down Metrojet Flight 9268

While the downing of MH17 was most probably a tragic accident, there is no doubt that many terrorist groups would be disturbingly excited to be able to shoot down a civilian aircraft. Latest proof for this was the downing of Metrojet Flight 9268, heading from from Sharm el-Sheikh to Saint Petersburg. International investigations concluded that the passenger aircraft was brought down by a bomb, which was planted on board before the flight left Sharm el-Sheikh International Airport. Again, all 217 passengers and seven crew members died. Shortly after the crash, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)’s Sinai branch claimed responsibility for the bombing, a clear indicator that ISIS is keen on targeting civilian aviation. Fortunately, airport security is relatively tight in many countries, making airplane bombings a very difficult endeavour. But how likely is it that ISIS will shoot down an international passenger flight with a surface-to-air missile?

Russian Buk-M1-2 SAM system

The first thing you need to know is that the missile that shot down MH17 was a Russian made Buk missile (SA-11). A Buk missile can only be launched when mounted on a platform (a specifically designed tank, a ship, etc.), basically a system that is very difficult to acquire, transport, and hide. ISIS and other terrorist groups will find it extremely difficult to get their hands on such a system, and securing it from coalition airstrikes would prove close to impossible. Fortunately (for them), the international arms market offers another option that is much more suitable for their need: Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems, short MANPADS. These shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons seem to be the ideal tool for terrorists and insurgents as they are relatively cheap, light, compact, easy to transport and conceal, and can be handled by a single individual. In order to hit their target (usually an airplane or helicopter), MANPADS have sophisticated guidance systems: passive infrared (IR) seekers, radio command line-of-sight (CLOS), laser-beam riders, and, most recently, global positioning technology. The U.S. Government estimated in 2004 that between 500,000–750,000 missiles for MANPADS were in existence, with approx. one per cent of them being on the hands of Non-State Armed Groups (NSAG). The next question therefor has to be: Does ISIS have access to MANPADS?

Read also: 7 Reasons Why the World Should Not Join Putin's "Anti-IS-Alliance"

Soviet Strela-2, or, in NATO-speak, SA-7 missile and launcher

At the height of the Libyan Revolution in 2011, Colonel Gaddafi made a remarkable statement. He announced that Libya’s “arms depots are now open and the masses are being equipped with all sorts of weapons in defence of Libya's independence, unity and honour.” For those who don’t know how Gaddafi’s plan worked out: He was shot dead shortly after, and the Libyan Revolution eventually transformed into the Libyan Civil War. The collapse of his government also resulted in what the Small Arms Survey calls “one of the most significant arms proliferation events of the 21st century.” Libyan rebels and civilians looted the country’s vast arms depots, capturing tens of thousands of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), including hundreds, possibly thousands of MANPADS. Many of the firearms found their way into the hands of jihadists in Syria or spread throughout North Africa, while the remaining SALW help to fuel the ongoing civil war in Libya. It is almost certain that ISIS received its fair share of Gaddafi’s MANPADS, predominantly IR guided Strela-2 pattern missiles.

Strela-2 MANPADS looted by Libyan Salafi Jihadi group Ansar al-Sharia. Note the missing gripstocks

Another source of MANPADS are other Syrian rebel groups that are supported by foreign powers. For instance, ISIS was able to “acquire” FN-6 systems that were originally transferred to more moderate rebel groups by Qatar. The FN-6 is a Chinese third generation passive infrared homing (IR) MANPADS. According to the Small Arms Survey, almost all other MANPADS models that have been sighted in the hands of Syrian rebels — at least seven more models, including at least three models not previously seen outside of government control in other countries — were designed by the former Soviet Union or Russia. It is therefore safe to say that ISIS has access to MANPADS. There are even reports of ISIS militants trying to shoot down coalition aircrafts. The next question is therefore: How big is the threat to civilian aviation?

Since its invention in the 1960’s, MANPADS have greatly contributed to human suffering. The most infamous example of their wreckful power was the downing of the civilian airplane Dassault Falcon 50 on 6 April 1994 as it prepared to land in Kigali, Rwanda. All people on board — three French crew and nine passengers, including Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira — were killed when the plane crashed and exploded. The incident lead directly to the Rwandan Genocide (which began the following day), in which up to 1,000,000 Rwandans were slaughtered.

Read also: A Recipe for Disaster - Why Iraq's National Reconciliation is Heading for yet another Collision

Ansar al-Sharia fighters holding Strela-2 MANPADS

Since the Air Rhodesia Viscount Shootdown in 1978, the first incidence of a civilian aircraft being shot down by a MANPADS, more than 40 civilian aircrafts have been hit by MANPADS, resulting in at least 28 crashes and over 800 fatalities worldwide. This means that, on average, 21 passengers and crew members of civilian aircrafts die each year in MANPADS related incidents. If that sounds much to you, consider this: According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one research study reported an average of 22 deaths a year by cows in the US alone (typically due to stomping or goring). But maybe the reason for the relatively small number of MANPADS attacks on civilian aircrafts can be explained by the previous shortage of groups vicious enough to do such a heinous thing? Admittedly, ISIS makes every effort to prove that they are capable of virtually any conceivable cruelty, so shooting down an airplane full of innocent noncombatants seems to lie well within their framework of savagery. Combined with the increasing availability of MANPADS, including recent-generation systems, there might indeed be a risk that the number of MANPADS fatalities will go up in the coming years.

The good news is: There are actually numerous countermeasures to fend off or distract MANPADS missiles. These are, however, almost exclusively used by military aircrafts — with a few exceptions: As a reaction to an attempted downing of an Israeli civilian airplane leaving Mombasa, Kenya, in 2002, when two shoulder-fired missiles narrowly missed their target, several Israeli airlines have adopted safety measures like early warning systems, flares designed to confuse heat seeking missiles, and, most recently, a laser system meant to jam the incoming missile’s “seeker”. However, other airlines have not followed Israel’s example, mostly due to fire hazard and financial concerns. But be warned: Flying with an Israeli airline like El Al might not make your trip much safer. Unfortunately, Israeli airlines are particularly at risk, since they are most certainly the favourite targets of any self-respecting Salafi Jihadi terrorist group.

An HH-60H Seahawk helicopter discharges countermeasure flares

But there are more good news: Even the most modern MANPADS missiles have an effective engagement range of no more than 8,000 metres (26,000 ft), while the much more common and wide-spread Strela-2 system only reaches about half that far. MANPADS are, therefore, no threat to a common civilian airplane at cruising altitude, which is somewhere around 12,000 metres (39,000 ft) or higher. However, they are a threat during an airplane's takeoff and landing. So, to answer the original question if ISIS could shoot down your airplane, I would say it depends on where you are flying to or from. If you are merely crossing the Middle East or North Africa, I think there is little to worry about. Even a stopover in Dubai or Abu Dhabi should not increase your risk dramatically — your airplane will be out of the reach of most MANPADS missiles after 20-30 kilometres (12.5-18.5 miles). Flying from or to an area that experiences an active insurgency is an entirely different story though. But if you really plan on flying to Damascus or a Libyan coastal town, I would say that MANPADS are probably not the biggest threat to your security.

7 Reasons Why the World Should Not Join Putin's "Anti-IS-Alliance"

Later today, Russian President Vladimir Putin will speak at the 70th UN General Assembly, where he is expected to try to talk more than 150 of the world’s leaders into joining his anti-IS-alliance. It is based on the claim that the only way to end the civil war in Syria is through support for Bashar al-Assad and the military defeat of IS. Unfortunately, a growing number of governments seem to agree with this notion. Their cruelest joke: Assad should be part of a government of national unity. Our policy-makers have to be reminded that Assad is the source of the problem, not the solution. And here is why:

1. Assad capacitated the jihadists

Every politician who is eager to contribute his or her opinion on the current crisis in Syria should not forget where the problem began. I’m not talking about the US invasion of Iraq, that is a different chapter. I’m speaking about how the Assad regime reacted to it. Like other governments in the region it was worried to be the next in line for America’s noble liberation of the oppressed. It was therefore crucial to keep the United States’ attention on maintaining order in Iraq. Assad found an easy and effective way to do so. Fortunately his prisons were filled with islamist extremists, who used their time of incarceration in what is often dubbed “jihadist university” to get further radicalised. Assad realised that these Sunni radicals, if used wisely, could be an asset rather than a menace. His plan was cunning: he sent them over the border into neighbouring Iraq, where they joined insurgent organisations like al-Qaida in Iraq to unleash the powers of hell upon the American crusaders. Unfortunately, the jihadists did not stop with their unleashing-business once the infidels had left. Instead of celebrating the victory, they intensified their attacks on the Iraqi government and gained a strong momentum in western and northern parts of the country, which would subsequently allow them to spread back into Syria as well.

Military situation as of 21 September 2015, in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts. Source: Wikipedia

2. Assad started the civil war

Despite Assad’s constant assertions of innocence, everybody knows how the Syrian Civil War really started. Inspired by the (now long withered) Arab Spring, Syrians claimed their fair share of reform and civil rights. The Syrian regime was, however, unwilling to comply but instead resorted to brutal crackdowns, massive arrests and military attacks. Unsurprisingly, the demands soon shifted from reforms to the removal of the regime, which in turn deployed even more soldiers to regain control of the situation. Of course we all know how that worked out. Large defections from the Syrian Army followed, and soon the civil uprising transformed into an armed conflict that killed a quarter of a million people and displaced half the Syrian population.

Wounded civilians arrive at a hospital in Aleppo. Source: Scott Bobb

3. Assad nurtured the Islamic State

Assad knew one thing from the beginning, one thing that runs afoul of most peoples’ intuition: jihadists are his life-insurance. Killing your own people is a murderous crime, but if some of the rebels are islamist terrorists (or all, as he tries to make the world believe), crushing them with undaunted determination is a noble quest. And even though the world by and large agrees that Assad is a contemptible bugger, many start to think that his regime is the last stronghold that stands between us and jihadist armageddon. Syrian rebels, however, who have the opportunity to take a rather in-dept look on the civil war, make a slightly different experience. A common joke among them is to speak of “Daesh’s air force” when Syrian aircrafts approach to drop their bombs on the positions of other rebel groups. Research clearly shows that regime forces and IS literally ignore each other on the battlefield and instead focus on (rather) moderate rebels. And it makes sense: in Assad’s perspective, the moderate opposition groups are the much bigger threat because they could actually gain international recognition, while there is no danger that IS will ever achieve that. So fighting moderate rebels while aiding IS is Assad’s best policy option, at least in the short run. Once he succeeds, his claims that he is merely fighting jihadists will actually come true. Should we really play his game?

4. For most Syrians, Assad is the bigger threat

If we believe our news stations, the brutality of the self-proclaimed Islamic State is unmet in Syria or anywhere else. Well, not so fast. Indeed, the murderous IS hordes have committed unspeakable atrocities and continue to do so. They regularly execute their opponents, including fellow jihadists from different factions, and even innocent aid workers and journalists. They destroy or sell historic treasures and implement a reign of terror. However, with this in mind, we should not forget what the Assad regime is doing. Remember back: during the first year of the civil war, media coverage on the government’s human rights abuses was very intense. We heard about the regime’s massive arrest, torture and killing campaigns and about barrel bombs thrown into residential areas (which, by the way, kill more civilians than IS and al-Qaida combined). And let’s also not forget about the sarin gas attacks. All in all, the regime has caused far more civilian suffering than all rebel groups combined, and it continues to do so. Nevertheless, it is IS that boasts with its cruel executions, while the regime’s barrel bombs keep on raining down, by now largely unnoticed. But the Syrians know better. They know what they are fleeing from, and most of them are indeed fleeing from Assad’s forces and their indiscriminate shelling and killing. While we worry about IS, the Syrian regime continues to bomb its people back to the Stone Age. For example, Assad’s forces are responsible for over 90% of the 307 attacks on medical facilities.

Two destroyed tanks in front of a mosque in Azaz, Syria. Source: Christiaan Triebert

5. Accepting and even supporting Assad is propaganda for IS and other jihadists

The majority of Syrians despise the Islamic State as much as they hate the Assad regime, but these days many are forced to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. They know that IS and other jihadist groups pose a major threat, but they also haven’t forgotten the many atrocities committed by Assad’s forces. Unsurprisingly, there hasn’t been a loud outcry in the Muslim world when Western powers and Gulf states launched air strikes against IS. This would rapidly change, however, once they start to cooperate with Assad. It all comes down to a simple question: if the Islamic State is defeated (however that will look like), what’s next? Will the world switch sides again to fight alongside the moderate rebels against Assad? Probably not. Or the alternative: finishing the job, crushing the rebellion and helping Assad to reestablish the status quo. The mere prospect of this scenario is a punch in the face of Assad’s countless victims. I believe that, if the world takes Assad’s side, many Syrians will not be amused. On the contrary, they will feel like the world's most powerful nations are playing a cruel joke: “First they leave us to our fate and watch deedlessly while Assad is destroying our homes and killing our families and friends, and now they even help him?!”, many will think. And who could judge them? But consider the consequences: accepting Assad, maybe even entering the civil war on his side would send a strong signal to the Sunni world, and a very negative one that is. The radicalising effects of such a message can only be imagined.

Fighters belonging to the Islamic State group in Anbar, Iraq

6. The majority of Syrians will never accept a government that includes Assad

After more than four years of, let’s face it, sectarian warfare between the regime’s Alawite minority (supported by its Shia allies from Lebanon and Iran) and Syria’s Sunni majority, during which, as discussed, both sides committed countless gruesome atrocities, all the trust is gone, probably for good. Alawites fear that the collapse of the regime will leave them at the mercy of groups like IS (not a very inspiring thought, think of what happened to the Yazidi), while Sunnis are afraid that Assad’s victory will expose them to his bloody-minded revenge. For this very reason, all rebel groups have unanimously asserted that they will under no circumstances accept a Syria with Assad. But why would the international community care about what Syrians say? Since when do we consider the realities on the ground when we draft the future of a nation?

7. There is an alternative to national unity

One year ago I wrote about why Iraq's national reconciliation is heading for yet another collision. Since then, nothing much has changed; the country is as far from any sort of national reconciliation as it was back then. It puzzles me why, despite these uninspiring results, more and more governments consider this dysfunctional policy as the long-awaited solution for the Syrian Civil War. Believe it or not, a western style, unified nation state is not the solution to all the world’s problems. Iraq has definitely experienced a whole lot of violence in the aftermath of the US invasion, but what’s going on in Syria constitutes a whole new dimension. Whoever seriously believes that Syria could achieve during civil war what Iraq is failing to accomplish with American help, i.e. to form a government that is accepted by the vast majority of its people and that, to top it all, includes the vicious mind responsible for the whole mess, must be either profoundly naïve or immune to lessons from the past. Fortunately, there is an alternative to national unity, one that I think would also solve many of Iraq's problems: division. I know, it is a very unpopular term, but now that everything broke apart already I don't see why Kurds and Arabs, Shia and Sunni should be forced to live together under one government.

Vladimir Putin in the cabin of strategic bomber ТU-160

The world has failed to support the moderate rebels while there was time. With this option off the table, there is not much left that can be done. Bombing the Islamic State will weaken them for a while, but let’s be honest, we do it to silence our conscience and because we don’t know what else to do. And that is OK, because, sad to say, there is not much that can be done. Russia’s President Putin appears to be lunatic enough to send his troops into Syria's bloody hell, where their bullets will certainly not distinguish between moderate rebels and jihadists. Well, good luck chap, knock yourself out! For the rest of us: let’s not play Assad’s game. There is absolutely nothing to gain from taking anyone’s side in the Syrian Civil War. Instead, let’s stop the flow of arms and ammunition into Syria, let’s help the Syrian refugees and support their host countries. It kills me that there is nothing else we can do, but sometimes life’s a b*tch, and that’s that.

A recipe for disaster - Why Iraq's national reconciliation is heading for yet another collision

After months of confusion, the White House finally released its strategy on defeating the slaughtering and marauding hordes of ISIS. Even though it remains almost unmentioned, the backbone of this approach is not superior air power as many commentators believe, but the (re-)establishment of an inclusive Iraqi government which makes sure that the country becomes a sectarian and ethnic melting pot in which Sunnis and Shias, Arabs and Kurds and any other groups and minorities can share power and live together peacefully. Now if you think that this sounds like a solid plan, the following quote from a speech by former U.S. President George W. Bush, two and a half years after his invasion of Iraq, will not appear utterly absurd to you: “The seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq, but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower, it is a healthy, sturdy tree.” I sincerely hope though that most people are as deeply disturbed by this witless prediction as I am, as current events in the Middle East do not leave much free space for interpretation.

Correspondence between U.S. President George W. Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, June 2004.

In my last three posts I have focussed on the most prominent reasons why the Middle East is in such a period of turmoil right now. I don’t want to repeat myself, so here is the short summary: Baghdad is not New York, the Tigris is not the Hudson River. The believe - which was hold by numerous American politicians - that one can simply invade Iraq and plant the “seed of democracy” displays an alarming ignorance and naïvety. It seems quite difficult that one could surpass such appalling lack of insight, but Senator John McCain accepted - and mastered - the challenge: “There is not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias, so I think they can probably come along” (April 23, 2003). Well, I think they probably can't, as recent events have made it painfully obvious that this is complete nonsense. In fact conflict and oppression among these sects have been going on for over a thousand years. Of course there have been ups and downs, but after the Iraq War all the signs were pointing at collision. Today many wonder whether it is the seed that was deficient or if the ground was not fertile enough to host the “tree of democracy”.

What matters here is not to solve the enigma why western style democracy with its notions of tolerance, pluralism of values and multiculturalism isn’t working in the completely artificial and forced union without any civic traditions that constitutes Iraq. What is much more important is that western leaders should shed their wishful thinking and finally acknowledge this fact and accept the consequences that result from it. Even though not all countries in the Arab World are divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, there is not a single stable democracy in this region. It will always be a mystery to me why western leaders still believe that Iraq of all countries can beat the odds and become the breeding ground of Mr. Bush’s sturdy tree. Instead of accepting the inevitable and working out new policies, our policymakers beat around the bush and try to preserve something that merely exists on paper and in the minds of some amazingly naïve optimists.

A Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devise (VBIED) explosion in Baghdad in 2006.

Even with a more inclusive government in office, it is difficult to believe that Iraq will ever achieve real reconciliation between Sunnis and Shias, Arabs and Kurds. I am not saying that each and every Sunni hates Shias and vice versa, but the divisions run very deep. Many grievances have not been addressed properly and continue to spoil national reconciliation. For example, Iraq’s Shias and Kurds suffered decades of brutal oppression by the governing Sunni minority. Let’s also not forget events like the murderous al-Anfal Campaign that culminated in the genocidal Halabja Massacre against Kurdish civilians, the ongoing insurgency in Iraq with its temporary phases of civil war (for instance in 2006-07 or these days) and the thousands of suicide bombers that killed countless innocent civilians in Baghdad and other cities.

Iraq's ethnoreligious groups. Source: nationmaster.com.

So what is the alternative? Another autocracy? Well, since the Cold War is over, this is not really an option any more. So what else? What could solve the problem of sectarian and ethnic clashes in a country whose borders were drawn arbitrarily by foreign powers (Britain and France in the Sykes-Picot Agreement) during WWI? Catch my drift? Even though it is often regarded as opening Pandora’s box, there is a third option to yet another futile attempt to western style democracy and a return to dictatorship: the division of Iraq into three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, either as three completely independent states or as autonomous regions in a very federal Iraq. In fact, many Kurds dream of their own state (“Kurdistan”) for many decades now and were even willing to fight bloody insurgencies with their central government, for example the PKK in Turkey, to gain independence. Similarly, many Sunnis, once they realized that the shoe is on the other foot and that their privileges were irrevocably gone after the Ba'athist regime collapsed, would prefer independence over a weak position in a predominately Shia state. And for the Shias themselves, not being exposed to sectarian violence while sitting on the bulk of Iraq's oil reserves doesn’t sound all that bad, too. That way the sects and ethnic groups could work out their issues for themselves. Of course there would have to be some sort of deal regarding the division of Iraq’s oil wealth (as there are hardly any oil reserves in Sunni areas of Iraq).

It is high time for the international community to realize that there won’t be a unified Iraq and that a strategy based on such hopes is doomed to fail. The sectarian and ethnic tensions which were suppressed during Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship boiled to the surface after his fall and constitute the very basis of today’s civil war. Preserving a forced union of resentful neighbors will not lead to stability, but instead is the precondition for insurgency and chaos. For the sake of the many people that have to die and suffer every day in Iraq thanks to this failed policy, let’s hope our leaders will finally realize that the maintainance of the status quo is unbearable and blocks the way to a stable Middle East.

How the West Can Help to End the Crisis in the Middle East - Part II

In the previous post I tried to explain which part the West played in the Middle East’s dismal failure to become a stable and prosper heir of the Ottoman Empire. Just to make sure that I am not misunderstood, I think it is important to stress that neither the West nor any other external power bears the sole blame for this unfortunate development. As it is almost always the case in social sciences in general and history in particular, monocausal explanatory approaches offer little if no meaningful insight and hardly ever help to understand the issues at hand. But to draw a comprehensive picture of the Middle East’s conflict situation in all its particularized aspects would not only go far beyond the scope of this blog, it is also beyond my personal capability. For this and other reasons, my entry focuses solely on the consequences of Western policies towards the Middle East and how they would have to be altered in order to support the people in the Arab World on their long and sorrowful path to a brighter future.

The Wild Card

Now it is about time to see if you are satisfied with everything I mentioned or if you have the feeling that I left out an issue of major importance. I admit it, I did indeed, and that for a good reason. While the colonization and the support for dictators was both cruel and short-sighted, strategically it does at least make some sort of sense. But the last, “half” issue (“half” because it is more a symbolic than an actual grievance for the majority of Muslims) does simply not add up, at least in my opinion. You probably wonder what the “wild card” I mentioned in my previous post is all about, or, even better, might have an idea of what I have in mind. No worries, I will not keep you on the tenterhooks any longer, so here is the mystery’s solution: I am of course talking about the West’s - and here predominately America’s - unquestioning support for Israel. Now to make this very clear, I do not want to discuss if Israel has a right to exist (I don’t see why not) or in which borders, my point is simply that Western support for Israel does not make any sense, at least not from a strategical perspective - unless you believe President Netanyahu’s horror stories about a rampaging Iran firing nuclear missiles all over the globe. I admit that not only the rhetorics of Iranian leaders, but especially the funding, training and supporting of terrorists on the part of Iran is by no means inspiring confidence, but the invocation of a major threat to the West (and its strategic supplies) by Iran seems fairly exaggerated.

Khalij Fars missile on a transporter during military parade in Iran. Source: M-ATF, from military.ir and iranmilitaryforum.net

If my assessment is correct, Israel doesn’t have much to offer, and strategic partnerships should have - in my humble opinion - mutual benefits. But while Israel is profiting enormously from its Western support (for example the Yom Kippur War in 1973 might have turned out quite differently without American assistance), it has very little to offer in return, especially since the end of the Cold War. But why is Israel so crucial in this discussion? Why is Israel a perennial issue in the news and why can’t it be a Middle Eastern country like any other? Well, I wish that would be possible, I really do, but unfortunately contemporary events show that it simply doesn’t work that way, and here is (my explanation) why: After the colonial masters withdrew, Israel remains as a symbol of Muslim impotence against the West.

The Colonial Complex

The fate that the Middle East had to suffer was not at all unique. Basically every part of the world outside of Europe was conquered and subsequently colonized by the latter. The list of injustices is long and many grievances remain unresolved to this very day, but most countries try to look forward and move on. For example, China, the world’s cultural and economic powerhouse for countless centuries, is trying hard to get back on track after the derailments of the 19. and 20. century, while India, once famous for its wisdom and prosperity, today makes every effort to overcome its colonial past and to set the course for a better future. So what is it that chains the Middle East to its own past and prevents its people from moving on? Muslim culture and the (perceived) difficulties to modernize Islam is certainly a reason, but there is little the West can do about that. But there is more. The people of the Middle East and the wider Muslim World - and in this respect they differ from other former colonies - have a constant reminder of their inglorious defeat, a reminder that makes their shared consciousness relive all the defeats and humiliations by the hands of the West that the Muslims had to suffer. Long story short: Israel stands as a symbol of their impotence against the West. And to make matters worse, Israel is also controlling the access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, one of Islam’s three holy sanctuaries. So next time you are wondering why it is such a big issue when Israel is doing a wrong that other governments in the region are doing as well without getting much opposition from the Muslim world, keep in mind that it is not as humiliating to get slapped in the face by your father at home than by the new boy in school in front of all your friends, especially when that new boy is under the exclusive protection of a motorcycle gang.

Source: "Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run" by Angus Maddison, p. 29.

Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Source: Godot13.

What the West can do

In the years to come the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will be reduced to 228,500 men. To these, the US Department of Defense provided 747,000 weapons (and auxiliary equipment, valued at approximately $626 million) since the 2001 invasion. Some of them already disappeared miraculously and many more will change hands once the US withdraws from the country. It is no secret that Afghanistan is already overstuffed with weapons not only since the Soviet war in Afghanistan in which the US also provided weapons (and training, together worth at least $3 billion), that time to the mujahideen. This makes one wonder what kind of strategy this is or if America’s fundamental, evangelical, eschaton-expecting groups took charge and attempted to launch Armageddon themselves.

Members of the ANSF firing AKM rifles during weapon training in Nawbahar District, Zabul Province, Afghanistan.

I am mentioning this to point out the gross mistakes of the past. If the West is genuinely interested in a stable Middle East, Western policies towards this extremely crucial region have to change drastically. So what am I suggesting here? As a short wrap-up, the West could contribute to an improving stability of the Middle East (that would greatly benefit Western countries’ national security interests) by keeping out of Middle Eastern affairs. This would include the non-interference in internal affairs, ceasing the support of dictators in the region and an end to siding with Israel. A policy like this would ensure that islamists will run out of arguments why to attack the West - one might also call it giving in - and therefore directly serve Western national security interests. It would also benefit the Middle East, but only in the long run. The short-term consequences of such a policy would most likely have devastating results in terms of peace and stability. The withdrawal of US troops in Iraq and Western inactivity regarding Syria created a situation that gives us a whiff of an idea of what this policy might bring in its wake. But one might also argue that the only way to create sustainable stability in the Middle East is to let its people sort things out on their own. As clinical as this might sound, it is exactly what other former colonies had to go through and are still going through today. The alternative - continuing interference in Middle Eastern affairs - has met with very little success, at least in terms of stability and Western national security interests.

But...

“Alright then, let’s get out of there and mind our own business!”, you might conclude. Well - surprise! - it’s not that simple. We all know that the West, particularly the US have interfered in other countries' affairs not only in the Middle East but all over the world. Since the end of the Cold War, these foreign intrusions have declined as the world was ultimately saved from communist barbarism. Hallelujah! But the Middle East did not only gain Western attention as a battlefield of ideologies. Controlling the governments of this region means much more than political influence. It is more than just helpful to achieve one’s own goals. It is simply crucial. Crucial for the economies of industrialized nations that rely on a good that is distributed very unequally: Oil. While the West is not particularly blessed with this commodity, the Middle East has it in abundance. Supporting dictators was therefore a useful and simple means to realize the West’s agenda. Dictators are (comparatively) cheap, controllable, if necessary easy to remove and moreover corrupt enough to betray their own people. Without them the West’s strategic supply is incalculable. Future Middle Eastern rulers might feel different about their customers, a prospect that freezes the blood in Western governments’ veins (for a good reason). And even if the US would find a way to become independent of Middle Eastern oil, her major trading partners - the EU and China - will not, and in a globalized world economies tend to collapse collectively.

A burning oil field in Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm

Another consequence of the West’s political drawback from the Middle East would be the cessation of support for Israel. As I mentioned above, the benefits the West gains from this support are few, but the alternative appears much scarier. Without Western protection, Israel would - maybe not tomorrow but certainly in the long run - be at their neighbors mercy. Pretty bad prospects if you ask me, and the very idea of ignoring the fate of Israel’s people is abhorrent to many in the West (including myself). Maybe Samuel Huntington was right with his clash of cultures...

How to solve the puzzle?

Considering the pros and cons of politically withdrawing from the Middle East, the West is left with one option, and I have a feeling that this is pretty much what’s happening right now. Instead of foreign intrusion, the West only acts when the house is on fire. If the strategic supplies or important political interests are seriously threatened or when Israel’s safety is gravely at stake, the West will try to solve the problem by the use of its superior military power. Everything below that, be it the use of chemical weapons by a government against its own people, a brutal civil war that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands and turns almost half of the population into refugees or mass executions and potential genocide does not suffice to motivate the West to intervene in a substantial manner. Backing dictators is only an option if it is absolutely imperative to keep the oil flowing. It is basically the mind-your-own-business strategy I am talking about.

As a human being, I find it very difficult to look away when people have to suffer, and many people in the Middle East have to suffer these days. Unfortunately, there is little the West can do that is not adding fuel to the flames. Islamism is on the rise and it cannot be defeated with superior firepower. Drones, invasions and bombardments as well as democratization, state-building and reconstruction failed to beat the islamists and to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim community. Instead, islamism can only be defeated by the Muslims in the Middle East themselves. This will open the gates to a brighter future and societies that are not dominated by tyrants and armed men but by the people they are really composed of.

How the West Can Help to End the Crisis in the Middle East - Part I

Most of the countries of the Middle East, spanning from Yemen to Turkey and from Egypt to Iran have been involved in a constant, seemingly never-ending stream of crisis. While the Middle East makes only 5% of the world population, it hosts 20% of it’s armed conflicts. Currently, the Israel-Palestine conflict reached a new, frustrating but - sadly - also not too unaccustomed peak, the Syrian Civil War still claims the lives of 140 people each day (without getting any media attention any more), Yemen is going through nearly three years of turmoil between different sectarian tribal militias, facing a secessionist movement in the south and a rebellion in the north and, in addition to that, large parts of Iraq and Syria are occupied by a self-proclaimed Islamic Caliphate, to name only the worst on a list of worrisome cases. To add to that, many of the neighboring countries in the wider Islamic World are struggling as well. Libya is confronted with a powerful islamist insurgency, Pakistan’s military launched yet another attempt to burn out islamist strongholds in North Waziristan while the seemingly never-ending spiral of violence in Afghanistan got into a new turn not only thanks to the Taliban's annual summer offensive, but also because of the growing activity of groups like the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani Network and Pakistani Taliban who shirk from fighting their country’s military and instead help unleashing yet another wave of violence in the war-torn country that Afghanistan continues to be.

Coalition forces demolish a Taliban safehouse in Afghanistan

 There is no way for the West to resolve all these and the many other unmentioned issues at once as the title might suggest, and any attempt would certainly be political suicide. But what we can do is to think of a new policy, a renewed perspective that allows the West to change the way we deal with the Middle East and the wider Islamic World. To some this might seem fairly useless as most of the problems in this region appear internal, but in fact they are not as much as you might think and in this and the next entry I’m going to show you why. So let’s try to find out what can be done to achieve stability, development and prosperity in the Middle East.


Why is there so much chaos and violence in the Middle East?

To understand why political violence is periodically flaring up the Middle East and large parts of the Islamic World we have to look back into the history of that region (for a very brief review of the Middle East’s history you might also want to check out my previous entry). There are two (and a half) things that - in my opinion - share the main responsibility: The way colonialism in the Middle East and North Africa was settled and the West’s (and the Soviet Union’s) policies regarding the Islamic World’s countries during the Cold War and today (the Western policies haven’t changed all that much since its end). The “half” issue is sort of a wild card, take a guess or find out more in the next entry. I will begin with the first issue, colonialism and how it was settled.

The Ottoman Empire, its dissection and the direful consequences

Long before the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers (an alliance composed of the latter and Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria) to take part in World War I on their - eventually losing - side, European leaders referred to the sultanate as the “sick man of Europe”. After centuries of expansion and glory, the Ottoman Empire was incapable to keep up with its European competitors. After falling under their financial control and suffering painful military defeats (meeting their own Waterloo called the Crimean War), the sultans were trying hard to reform the empire and catch up with the European powers. This shift caused much turmoil among their own ranks, some arguing that the reforms were not radical and secular enough while others opposed them because they saw the traditional way of life endangered. One of the most famous intellectuals of that time, Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, was a bit of both. But after he realized the enormous (and destructive) impact that westernization would have on the culture of islamic countries and the lives of their people, he and many of his disciples changed their mind and argued against an opening towards Europe and its economical, political and societal models.

Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani

After the inevitable collapse of the Ottoman Empire four years after WWI, two European powers - Britain and France - took charge over its Middle Eastern territories, and they were some of the worst executors of a testament one could imagine. At this point, a short explanation is needed. The subjects of the Ottoman Empire were in fact not one united people, neither by religion, nor by ethnicity, nor by a sense of national identity. The sultanate was a conglomerate of various ethnic, religious/sectarian and tribal groups and it’s subjects identified themselves rather along these lines than referring to their nationality. The idea of a nation state was in fact an entirely new concept to most people in the realms of the former sultanate and was met with much skepticism when introduced by their European colonial masters. If ever, an idea called “Arab nationalism” existed among intellectuals of that time, but this was far from what the Europeans had in mind. Now I invite you to take a short moment, grab a world map and search for straight lines, borders that look like they were drawn using a ruler. Just to make sure, I’m not getting at the US-Canadian border, as their populations are composed of outside invaders that completely disrupted the indigenous inhabitants’ tribal life and had no trouble adapting to a randomly drawn border. What I am talking about are the countries in the Middle East and in Africa. While Europe has - to my knowledge - only a single straight border (a very short one in the south of the Russian region Kaliningrad Oblast), the majority of countries of these regions do. Many of them, while having liberated themselves from their colonial masters, are still experiencing internal as well as external struggles. In the case of the Middle East, seemingly arbitrary borders dividing and thereby creating nations that never existed before were agreed upon by foreign politicians. One example (that I used already in an earlier post but that illustrates the situation too well to disregard it here) is how Winston Churchill, then state secretary for the colonies and later Prime Minister of the United Kingdom claimed that the creation of Trans-Jordan (today’s Kingdom of Jordan) in 1921 was made “with the stroke of a pen, one Sunday afternoon in Cairo”. To make matters worse, some sources suggest that this very afternoon followed a particularly liquid lunch.

The Middle East before and after WWI. Source: Der SPIEGEL

To make a long story short, dividing certain groups while at the same time forcing others into nation states for strategic and economic reasons (crude oil was already on the agenda in the 1920s) was a terrible mistake that destabilizes the Middle East up to this day.

Islamic nation states and the West

After the colonial powers withdrew between, the newly born nation states found themselves in a world that fast slid into what was to become the Cold War. They had to learn quick and find a cure for the weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey, the heartland of the former sultanate was never colonized and went on a path of secularization under her leader Kemal Atatürk. Many Arab countries followed her lead, drawing on older concepts like Arab nationalism or newer ones like Arab socialism (or both in combination). Yet others became monarchies (for example Saudi Arabia or Jordan) that last to this day. But what most counties had in common was the almost or de facto dictatorial style of leadership, and those who didn’t could trustingly count on foreign help, for example in the case of Iran where the democratically elected government was toppled by an Anglo-American coup in 1953 that replaced it with a western-controlled dictator - the infamous Shah of Persia. The reason for this is widely know: Oil. Can you imagine that Iran’s former prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, had the cheek to consider nationalizing his own country’s British-run oil industry? This incredible brashness had to be countered by the industrialized and, therefore, highly oil-dependent West. This law-of-the-jungle mentality went so far that former French President Jacques Chirac warned in 2006 that his country is prepared to secure the guarantee of her strategic supplies (such as oil) with nuclear bombs if necessary.

The industry as the economic motor of the West, and by now also of the East, especially when we talk about China, heavily relies on oil. Securing access to it and harming the Soviet block were the main imperatives in the West’s policy towards the Middle East (and vice versa for the Soviet Union). To achieve this, every means was justified. That meant in particular to back some of the worst dictatorships and even to, in the case of Iran, put them in charge first. Many people in the Middle East

Sayyid Qutb

soon realized that their liberation from colonialism was nothing but a Pyrrhic victory as they were still far from being truly free. Men like Sayyid Qutb, today a famous figure and must read in islamist circles from London to Lahore, were disillusioned by Western concepts like nationalism or socialism (despite its application in the East, it is in fact a Western concept as well) and promoted the cleansing from those ideas. Instead, he and many others promoted Islam as the only acceptable political concept for the Muslim world. While Qutb was hanged by the Egyptian regime, his ideas lived on and formed the basis of the islamist extremism the West is battling today.

So after humiliating the people of the Ottoman Empire, after destroying the power that protected them, after colonizing them and forcing them into mostly random nations the West moved on to support their new oppressors. Among the countless kicks in the teeth of Muslim pride, the stationing of American soldiers on the soil of Saudi Arabia in 1990 in preparation of the (first) Gulf War was certainly one of the hardest. Saudi Arabia is home to two of the three most sacred places of Islam, Makkah as the birthplace of Prophet Mohammad and Islam, and Medina, where he is buried. Prophet Mohammad prohibited the presence of non-Muslims on the Arab Peninsula, but Saudi king Fahd “asked” his hired clerics to reinterpret the Prophet’s words and miraculously found a way to justify their presence. And yet today, more than a decade after the Second (!) Gulf War, the American soldiers are still there. Admittedly, this might not seem to be such a big issue, but for many Muslims it is, and if you try to imagine Iranian or Saudi Arabian soldiers having military camps all over the United States in order to attack countries in Central America whenever they feel that they have to, you have to agree that that would be more than disturbing.

The list of grievances is much longer, but I hope this gives you an idea of what the people in the Middle East had to deal with, and the Western powers often played a crucial role in increasing the tension.

In the second part of this entry I will reveal the "wild card", but I am sure you already have an idea of what I am having in mind. I will also explain how I think the West could improve its relationship with the Middle East and thereby also take the wind out of the islamists' sails. I'm sure you don't want to miss that, so stay tuned!

UPDATE: You can find part II of this entry here.