Many questions today are being asked by people in the Arab world and in the intellectual circles of the western world: Why were the results of the Arab Spring, regardless of its content, for the benefit of “backward forces” that were driven out of history decades ago? Why is a “backwards” country like Saudi Arabia playing a key role in the region, despite it being a rotten social and political system? Who granted small states such as Qatar this critical role in national issues? Who inspired the United Arab Emirates, a small weak peaceful state, to the idea of a military intervention in the distant heavens(Bahrain, Iraq)? What is the secret behind Israeli- Saudi cooperation? What is the role of the “outwardly civil” political forces, like the “Future Movement” in Lebanon, in the regional military battle, and what is required of them in the Lebanese side specifically?
What is the role of “Al-Qaeda” and the Islamic state, and the hundreds of other illusory names of military factions in the manufacturing of status quo situations in the Arab world? Why did the Arab left lose its historic role? Why has the religious speech become a logo and a campaign for the collection and build-up of extremist armies composed of people from the left and right alike?
These big questions may find their answers in the small events happening in front of us, but we seem to neglect these small examples, they disappear from our calculations and analysis in the chaos of the big questions that concern us. This article is an attempt to look at the small details that were neglected.
War Waged through the simple act of crossing borders:
Everyone knows that the Saudi-Qatari rivalry is old. It has been exacerbated recently because of Qatar’s growing role in regional policy-making, and the Arab world in particular. But common goals from the Battle of Syria, and the international forces supporting the battle, froze the emergence of this dispute and prevented its transformation to a public clash. A more secret, hidden and neglected reason was behind the escalation of the dispute that was internally muffled. It’s a pure technical reason, no one wants to stop at it. But the sequence of events compels us to stop at this small exciting detail. News of border crossing points especially from the Turkish side, and before it, the Iraqi side, finally seeped into the media, the role of militants and fighters crossing from such areas aggravated conflict and surely aggravated the internal opposition. In the end, they (media) settled and talked about the crossings as a “corridor” for arming and financing. Then a simple technicality finally dawned on us: who pays and who gets paid? This simple question starts to make sense if we were to pay close attention to Syria; where uprisings started with the slogans of peaceful reform “peaceful…. peaceful….”, then turned upside down to slogans of military victories, and then even more down when a decline in the area of military victories in the so-called Syrian opposition happened. It ended in internal divisions between the “so-called Syrian opposition” and its military branch, the “Free Syrian Army”, to the extent where the latter totally left the basic equation. The Syria situation stumbled all the way down having reached to the control of extremist “Takfiri” powers.
Why did this de-synchronization between the “border crossing armies and war strategy” and the deterioration of “Free Syrian Army” happen? And why did such a thing happen also on the Kurdish front too? Let’s analyze these observations:
In this small fact absent from the minds of people lies the answer for the most serious of questions.
Qatar’s approach to the management of the battle against the Syrian regime is based on the model of the American invasion of Latin America or before that to a certain extent, the model used in Vietnam, or finally the re- developed plan by Negroponte against Iraq. It is the approach of privatizing the war, by the creation of ready-made fighting factions on demand. This privatization in the creation of irregular militant groups was associated with the restructuring of regime military armies as well: it has become a distinctive style in the management of U.S. wars in the modern world. Dozens of countries participating in the war on Iraq for example have contributed to the strengthening of international military, be it in the form of Swedish invisible submarines scouring the depths of the Arabian Gulf, or in the form of missionary evangelical groups scouring the remote villages in northern Iraq, or through political statements or pre-prepared political positions on the media, handled openly by a Minister of Foreign Affairs from a neutral forum such as Sweden, serving as bullets of enlightenment, illuminating the sky of a new military front about to open : Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, Sudan, Japan and Germany, by the way these two countries who are forbidden any outside military involvement have been invited, through a historic decision after the Second World War to bring their military to Iraq, but of course under such names as the Corps of Engineers or non- lethal strategic military forces! It was an International restructuring of armies and in the technical weapons involved, and in the media management of battles, but also extended to the structure of the U.S. military itself, and to the nature of the structural organization of the army, which kept mainly its forces of combat, and abandoned many other fields for the benefit of private companies, which took on reconnaissance missions, monitoring, supplying logistics, transportation, espionage, prison management, and transfer of arms and communication with local forces. The second way or approach was to use special forces who carry a variety of labels and names, depending on the nature of the land and culture: under the guise of drugs and gangsters in Latin America, under the guise of collecting military -backed tribal leaders in Africa, and under religious slogans in Muslim areas. Thirdly: to stimulate (financially and otherwise) the countries and political systems that keep in pace with, voluntarily or under duress, the implementation of the project of global war, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. Perhaps the greatest success achieved in Lebanon was the lack of support and acceptance by the government to going to war openly, in an official capacity, as March 14, Geagea and Hariri parties would have wanted, but here I degress.
Qatar is leading the privatization of war!
Qatar, the small and the geographically isolated country from the ocean and the Levantine, was an ideal political, historical and cultural candidate able to play the role for two reasons: First, the ability to use privatization through its abundance in funds. Secondly, the absolute dependence on the war effort and intelligence of the Israeli military and political spheres. This made available to the state the conditions to wage war far and wide, thousands of miles away from their land. The adoption of Qatar’s privatization method of political warfare stems from its internal and external necessities. When we look at the broader issue, we find that this privatization is part of an international privatization scheme run by the US. Qatar is a subsidiary. For this reason, Qatar looked as an optimal model for the management of the war in Syria. In the case of the success of the war, Qatar reaps the benefits on behalf of the international legislators of war. In case of failure, they will be regarded as this small backwards country who were trying to secure themselves with the aid of foreign militaries and guerrilla armies, they don’t deserve the waste of time of being internationally sued morally, politically or even legally. However, even in privatization battles, they are still battles, and not business ventures, so real technical and
physical support is needed on the grounds. Here the idea arose to create the basis of war, and was formed mainly based on three elements: First, establishing a base of combat in Syria by displacing and catching/recruiting the Syrian people in need of physical, psychological and emotional help. Second, importing fighters. Third, to benefit from the effort and activity and the experience of Israel in compensation for the lack of their military intelligence, but this strategy has diminished as Qatar’s overall role in the war has deteriorated. In the years of the Afghan War, as the “marginal and peaceful” Gulf states were weeping for their stolen rights (what rights were stolen!!!), they entered the war far and wide but their collaboration was limited to recruiting those who were known then as “Batan”. They started the creation of “Batan” in their own cities: see they invented the market for “Baltan”: they are those immigrants who have been granted the right to enter and stay without restrictions or conditions of migrations. The “Batan”, such as the Syrian refugees today, are the golden goose at producing fighters. At the least, it is confirmed that ten countries in the region, hosting immigrants at camps, for example, are likely to turn them into fighters. This is one of the most important secrets of Israel’s intransigence in the Palestinian refugee issue, and one of the reasons for the Lebanese excessive generosity in the reception of refugees. It was not without significance when President Michel Suleiman, president of Lebanon, recently threatened Hezbollah with Syrian and Palestinian refugees. For this was the reason behind the opening of camps in Turkey and Jordan even before the worsening of the conflict in Syria. The donor countries have secured a hundred thousand fighters, 5% of total fighters in Syria, minimum, through the displacement of two million Syrians. This has made the Syrian political opposition, whatever its intentions were, just a peel of orange in the media: ornamental, flimsy, in the service of the long planned war. The war today is being fought in a very different way from the pictures and stories you see on the media. It is a war through funding: We Pay You As You Win. It has nothing to do with the intellectual and political affiliations of those who
achieve victories on the ground, politically and militarily, in the end only military, because they are doing it for money. This approach led to the emergence of warlords. It is a positive element in the American perspective in the management of the Syrian conflict. It is for this same reason that Lakhdar Brahimi was prompted to the foreground in Syria on behalf of the donor countries, because he was experienced at reconciling the Afghan warlords. History repeats itself in crooked ways!
(To Be Continued)