Analysis, Side Feature

Views on the News – 22 July 2017

Headlines:

  • America Ends Covert Support for Revolutionary Groups in Syria
  • US Applies Pressure to Pakistan to Stop Afghan Mujahideen
  • America Moves to Consolidate her Control over the Saudi Regime
  • 2017 could be the Worst Year for American-Muslims
  • Saudi King’s Son Plotted Effort to Oust His Rival
  • Third American-Afghan war?


America Ends Covert Support for Revolutionary Groups in Syria

A senior US general has mistakenly spoken openly about the termination of a US programme to support Syrian revolutionaries, confirming earlier unofficial disclosures from US officials. According to Politico:

U.S. Special Operations Commander Tony Thomas confirmed Friday that the U.S. had ended its covert program aiding rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the decision was made after assessing the years-long operation’s capabilities and by no means an effort to curry favor with Assad’s chief backer, Moscow.

“At least from what I know about that program and the decision to end it, absolutely not a sop to the Russians,” Thomas said at the Aspen Security Forum. “It was, I think, based on an assessment of the nature of the program, what we’re trying to accomplish, the viability going forward … tough, tough decision.”

It’s unclear whether Thomas intended to confirm either the existence or the end of the program, which, as a covert operation, U.S. officials to not publicly acknowledge. The comments appeared to take the CIA – which declined to comment – by surprise.

Thomas almost immediately tried to walk back his comments after leaving the stage, telling reporters he hadn’t confirmed anything and was referring only to “public reporting.”

It is now well-known that America runs a multitude of covert programmes to arm and support proxies throughout the world, in contradiction to their own legal principles and norms, so the general’s mistake is really one of ‘etiquette’ only. Regarding the Syrian operation specifically, this has already been known publically and indeed used by the US government as evidence of American support for the Syrian revolution. The truth however is different from this.

The Syrian tyrant, Assad, is in fact an American agent, like his father before him. America has been working to defend Assad and defeat the revolution, and funding to certain groups was only intended to promote the so-called ‘moderates’ and weaken the revolution through dividing it. However, now that America thinks the revolution is close to ending, they have decided to terminate the support that they were giving.

Muslims will never benefit from the support of the disbelieving foreign powers, who serve their own interests only and wish only the destruction of the Ummah and her deen.

 

US Applies Pressure to Pakistan to Stop Afghan mujahideen

The Trump administration has begun applying pressure on Pakistan to support the American occupation of Afghanistan. According to Reuters:

The United States will withhold $50 million remaining in military reimbursements to Pakistan for fiscal year 2016 because Defense Secretary Jim Mattis believes that Islamabad has not done enough to blunt the Islamist militant Haqqani network, a U.S. official said on Friday.

The decision was not the first time that the Pentagon has declined to make military reimbursements to Pakistan. Last year, it withheld $300 million. Pakistan has been reimbursed $550 million of the $900 million it was authorized to receive in fiscal year 2016.

Of the rest, $300 million had already been reprogrammed for other purposes, but had not been previously reported. Mattis’ latest decision affects the remaining $50 million.

It is clear from this reporting that Pakistan remains a significant recipient of US aid, and it is evident from Pakistan actions that it continues firmly to implement American-driven policies. However, America is becoming desperate because of the deep threat to its occupation of Afghanistan, where it now controls less than half the country, being mostly limited to the major cities, as happened to the Soviets in the last years of their occupation of the country.

The Afghan mujahideen are not within Pakistan’s control at this time. However, America thinks that Pakistan has the ability to create conflict within them by mobilising its own assets, for example the Haqqani network. Pakistan is not so confident that those such as Haqqani would accept to enter into conflict with the rest of the mujahideen and, furthermore, is not sure that this would make any difference to the Afghan jihad, which is being carried by ordinary Muslims throughout Afghanistan and not just centrally-organised groups. The American plan has been produced in desperation and Pakistan remains unconvinced that it will work.

Muslims must study such events to realise America’s fundamental weakness and inability to impose its authority upon the Ummah without the help of traitors within our agent ruling classes. The Ummah must rise up and take control of its own affairs, implement Islam and eject the disbelieving foreigner from our lands.

 

America Moves to Consolidate its Control over the Saudi regime

The American agent King Salman has taken yet further steps to consolidate control of the Saudi regime. According to the Washington Post:

Saudi Arabia’s king has stripped the Interior Ministry of many of its key mandates, including counter-terrorism, and transferred those powers to a newly created body overseen by the monarch, the state agency reported Friday.

The development comes after King Salman last month appointed his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as crown prince, after ousting the previous second-in-line to the throne, Mohammed bin Nayef, who was also the interior minister.

The Saudi Press Agency said Salman ordered the creation of the Presidency of State Security to be under the command of the king, who also acts as prime minister.

The Interior Ministry will no longer be in charge of counter-terrorism, criminal investigation and the special forces, among other mandates — all of which have been transferred to the new body.

“Whatever concerns security of the state, including civil and military personnel, budgets, documents, and information will also be transferred to the new authority,” one of a series of royal decrees read.”

For those who have been following the Saudi regime closely over the decades, it is evident that this has remained the object of struggle between Britain and America. It was Britain that first introduced America into Saudi Arabia, in the aftermath of World War I and the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate. Britain needed to extract America from its post-war isolation and also needed to bring America to the Muslim world to balance the Russian threat, now in the form of the Soviet Union. However, by the 1950s, Britain found America increasingly dominating the Muslim world at British expense, and even suffered public humiliation throughout the world on account of the Suez crisis. Therefore, in the 1960s, Britain succeeded in bringing King Faisal to the throne, overthrowing his brother through the use of the National Guard. Since then Saudi has changed between pro-American and pro-British kings, with power divided between the Defence Ministry and the Interior Ministry (which controls the National Guard). Now finally, however, with British influence in the Muslim world almost at an end, the Americans have managed to eliminate the threat of the Interior Ministry as an alternate power centre to the Defence Ministry. This is after already fully consolidating authority in the hands of King Salman and his family.

The weakness of the Americans is close at hand just as the weakness of the British before them. But if Muslims do not realise this weakness, then they will continue to labour under American instructions for a long time, just as they laboured under British control many decades after Britain’s fall from superpower status. It is time for us to place our trust in Allah (swt) Alone, to fear Him only, and to prefer martyrdom to bowing to the disbelieving foreigner. Nothing prevents us from re-establishing the righteous Islamic Khilafah State upon the method of the Prophet (saw), except lack of confidence in our Deen and in ourselves.

 

2017 could be the Worst Year for American-Muslims

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the US rose 91 per cent in the first half of the year compared to the same period in 2016. A report published by CAIR states that the number of hate crimes spiked from the corresponding period of 2016, which was the worst year for anti-Muslim incidents since the civil rights organisation began its current documenting system in 2013. The number of bias incidents in the first half of 2017 also rose by 24 per cent on year. “The presidential election campaign and the [Donald] Trump administration have tapped into a seam of bigotry and hate that has resulted in the targeting of American Muslims and other minority groups,” said Zainab Arain, the coordinator of CAIR’s Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, reports The Daily Sabah. CAIR reports that the most frequent type of incidents, documented by CAIR in the second quarter of 2017 involved harassment, defined as a non-violent or non-threatening incidents. The second most common type of bias incidents were hate crimes and involved physical violence or property damage. “Twenty per cent of incidents occurred because of an individual being perceived as Muslim. A Muslim woman’s headscarf was a trigger in 15 per cent of incidents,” the report added. California University researchers released a similar report in which they found 196 incidents of hate crimes or discrimination against Muslims in 2015, a 78 per cent increase from 2014. FBI data showed 257 anti-Muslim related hate crimes in 2015, a 67 per cent rise from 2014. Human Rights Watch and the Washington Post have reported. This issue stems from two basic problems, first and foremost it is believed that many of the crimes go unreported, while other crimes are actually hoaxes with dubious political motivations. [Source: The Express Tribune].

This is unsurprising, as the US media constantly fuels vitriol against Muslims living in America and the state offers very little protection. With Trump in power, the attacks against Muslims are bound to increase in ferocity.

Saudi King’s Son Plotted Effort to Oust His Rival

As next in line to be king of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef was unaccustomed to being told what to do. Then, one night in June, he was summoned to a palace in Mecca, held against his will and pressured for hours to give up his claim to the throne. By dawn, he had given in, and Saudi Arabia woke to the news that it had a new crown prince: the king’s 31-year-old son, Mohammed bin Salman. The young prince’s supporters have lauded his elevation as the seamless empowerment of an ambitious leader. But since he was promoted on June 21, indications have emerged that Mohammed bin Salman plotted the ouster and that the transition was rockier than has been publicly portrayed, according to current and former United States officials and associates of the royal family. To strengthen support for the sudden change in the line of succession, some senior princes were told that Mohammed bin Nayef was unfit to be king because of a drug problem, according to an associate of the royal family. The decision to oust Mohammed bin Nayef and some of his closest colleagues has spread concern among counterterrorism officials in the United States who saw their most trusted Saudi contacts disappear and have struggled to build new relationships. And the collection of so much power by one young royal, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has unsettled a royal family long guided by consensus and deference to elders. “You may have now such a concentration of power within one branch and within one individual who is also younger than so many of the cousins and sons of former kings that it may begin to create a situation where the family is out of whack,” said Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a fellow for the Middle East at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, who studies Persian Gulf politics. The insularity of Saudi Arabia’s sprawling and phenomenally wealthy royal family is well known, often leaving diplomats, intelligence agents and members of the family itself struggling to decipher its inner workings. But since The New York Times reported last month that Mohammed bin Nayef had been confined to his palace, United States officials and associates of senior royals have provided similar accounts of how the elder prince was pressured to step aside by the younger one. All spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to endanger their contacts inside the kingdom, or themselves. In response to questions from The Times, a written statement by a senior Saudi official denied that Mohammed bin Nayef had been pressured and said that the Allegiance Council, a body of senior princes, had approved the change in “the best interest of the nation.” The statement said Mohammed bin Nayef was the first to pledge allegiance to the new crown prince and had insisted that the moment be filmed and broadcast. The former crown prince receives guests daily in his palace in Jidda and has visited the king and the crown prince more than once, the statement said. [Source: New York Times].

The Western media’s portrayal of the coup as an indigenous initiative is woefully incorrect. Mohammed bin Salman could not deposed Nayef unless the US gave him the green light. The West disposes of rulers, henchmen, and loyalists like discarded tissues. The same fate awaits all rulers of the Muslim world who serve their western masters.

Third American-Afghan war?

The decision by the Trump administration to bolster the presence of US troops in Afghanistan raises questions about America’s getting into the third phase of its Afghan war. The number of additional troops is likely to be 3,000 to 5,000 in addition to the 8,800 or so American soldiers already engaged in the war that is in its 16th year. Intriguingly, there has not been any formal Afghan policy announcement by the US president. Instead, he has just authorised the Pentagon to take a decision on the surge figure, indicating the increasing US reliance on a military solution to the Afghan crisis. What is described by the White House as a stopgap measure ie ‘setting troops levels’, may push the US deeper into the Afghan quagmire in the absence of an exit plan. This decision to send additional troops underscores a reversal of the Obama administration’s policy envisioning the complete withdrawal of US combat forces from Afghanistan; it is also a departure from Trump’s own election pledge to not get militarily involved in foreign conflicts. Surely the troop surge was necessitated by the spreading Afghan Taliban insurgency causing an increasing number of military and civilian casualties in the war-torn country. The most recent series of terrorist attacks in Kabul are the deadliest since the US invasion in 2001. And the killing of more than 160 Afghan National Army soldiers in an attack on a military garrison in Herat, believed to be a more secure region, underlines the deteriorating security situation in the country. With a deteriorating security situation and a weak and divided government in Kabul unable to maintain its control over territory, the challenges that confront the US in Afghanistan now are somewhat similar to those faced in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. In fact, the situation has worsened with the conflict extending to both sides of the Durand Line dividing Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further exacerbating matters is the rise of the militant Islamic State group which has claimed many of the recent terrorist attacks in Afghanistan that have taken a huge civilian toll. While the Trump administration is still in the process of reviewing its Afghan policy, there seems to be no clear thinking in Washington on exploring the possibility of a political solution to the Afghan crisis. The use of the ‘mother of all bombs’ cannot bring an end to this bloody war. The war will be further prolonged with more disastrous consequences — for Afghanistan and the region — if the surge in troops is not accompanied by intensified political and diplomatic efforts to bring the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table. The suggestion for reviving the Afghanistan-Pakistan-US-China quadrilateral forum sounds positive, but there is a need for a more proactive approach. [Source: The Dawn]

The best way forward for Pakistan is to abandon the paradigm of international relations hinged on the nation state thinking and to move towards the re-establishment of the Khilafah state (Caliphate) upon the method of the Prophethood. Only then will the crusader war come to an end in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.