Thoughtcrime: Understanding Islamic Extremism

With recent suicide bombings in Paris and Brussels, Islamic extremism continues to be a significant concern in world affairs. In Syria and Iraq, an international military coalition is attempting to combat the most recent example of Islamic extremism- the Islamic State of the Levant and Syria (ISIL). A seemingly unique and isolated case, ISIL is rather a symptom of the environment that creates and enables Islamic extremism. This analysis will examine three interrelated factors that have created and continued Islamic extremism in the region: 1) the suppression of democracy by authoritarian governments ; 2) divisions between religious and ethnic groups in Iraq and Syria; and 3) foreign intervention from Gulf and Western forces.

  

Suppression of Democracy by the Government

The suppression of democracy by the government was pivotal in the success of Islamic extremism. In both Bashar al-Assad’s Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, political and civil participation were completely regulated by the government.  According to an analysis by the U.S State Department in 2002, “freedom of expression, association and movement [did] not exist in Iraq.” A similar comparison was issued in 2011 by a group of Syrian activists when they proclaimed that “citizenship[is] reduced to a narrow concept of belonging to one party and to personal loyalty”.  

Opposition forces that spoke out against the regime were brutally suppressed in both Iraq and Syria. Under Assad’s rule, “torture and ill treatment [to silence] dissidents were systemic and systematic”.  In 1991, Kurdish and Shia oppositional uprisings were crushed by Hussein’s security forces.  

Embattled and suppressed, the people turned to religion as an answer to the regime’s crimes. As Robin Yassin-Kassab states, “the return to religion came in the age of the security states, and was in large part a consequence of them”. As their crimes increased and both regimes began to lose power, religion became an accepted force that filled the void left by the state. Beginning as a genuine medium of unification, this religious revival, however, proved to further suppress democracy and participation as it was hijacked by religious extremists. By suppressing civic participation, both Assad’s Syria and Hussein’s Iraq created a fertile ground for a fundamentalist revival in the region.

Divisions of Religious and Ethnic Groups

Differences between religious sects and ethnicity exist in both Syria and Iraq. Each state has mishandled and often exacerbated these differences for its own gain. This intensification of sectarian differences has created an opportunity for Islamic extremists to exploit the concerns of marginalized communities and receive sympathy for its movement.

In Syria, Bashaar Al-Assad employed a divide-and-conquer strategy to attempt to control the country. During the civil war, the regime deliberately “targeted Sunni areas for collective punishment and sectarian provocation.” Conversely, Alawis and some Shia were pragmatically protected to encourage loyalty to the regime. These tactics provoked a dual response from the Syrian people: on the one hand, they divided ethnic communities to benefit the regime and they also facilitated sympathy from the marginalized communities for the extremists groups.

ISIL “arrived in Syria as they’d oncearrived in Iraq, gently at first, exploiting the people’s torments at the hands of a well-armed occupier- in Iraq the Americans, in Syria the delegitimizedregime.” In order to win over embattled Syrians, ISIL representatives “brought with them large amounts of food and medicine” and lots of money.  In Syria especially, embattled opposition forces were forced to welcome extremists for pragmatic reasons. Due to their war against the Assad regime, opposition forces needed the logistical support and resources that the extremists were able to provide for them.

Disenfranchised Sunnis in both countries thus became the prime target for Islamic extremists. In Iraq, the Sunnis were suppressed by Prime Minister Maliki’s Shia-dominated cabinet. The government isolated Sunnis from participation and as a result, allowed “Sunni insurgents [to assert]Sunni claims to power.” In Syria, too,  the entry of Shia militias "gave the conflict a Sunni-Shia flavor [that] fitted it into a regional struggle which had not flared since the American occupation of Iraq”.

In facilitating sectarian differences for their own gain, both regimes thus helped facilitate an environment that enabled extremists to flourish in both countries. The extremists were also able to capitalize on the grievances of affected communities by portraying themselves as defenders of the marginalized classes.

Foreign Intervention

Regional and international intervention also advanced the rise of Islamic extremism in Syria and Iraq. The entry of Gulf and Western military forces, as well as financial support, has empowered extremists in the region.

In attempting to curtail the regional power of Shia-governed Iran, Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia has supported Sunni extremists in the Middle East. Although the Saudi government does not offer official aid to any extremist organizations, the Washington Institute acknowledges that “Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria”.  As Toby Matthiesen clarifies, “Saudi recruits for al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group are often motivated by a desire to contain Shiism and stem Iranian influence in the region”. 

In Iraq, the U.S invasion and occupation helped insert a majority Shia cabinet into power. This new government increasingly isolated Sunnis from decision-making. As a tribal leader from Iraq noted, “the Shia-dominated Iraqi government isolated Sunni tribes,designated us enemies and stripped us of all benefits….as a result, many tribesmen joined Daesh [ISIL] to get revenge from the state.” Isolated Sunnis in both Iraq and Syria thus became a primary target in the recruitment and power base of ISIL and other extremist groups.

Although Iraqi sectarian escalations and the Syrian civil war began internally, they have quickly escalated into a proxy war of regional and international players attempting to influence the region according to their respective interests. In attempting to impose favorable strategic and political conditions, however, foreign actors are also furthering the conditions that have enabled the rise of Islamic extremism in both countries.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need to address the problem of Islamic extremism. But, in order to treat a problem one must first understand it. A military coalition may be enough to eliminate ISIL but it will not eliminate the conditions that have enabled the rise of Islamic extremism. In order to solve this problem, solutions must focus on targeting the foundational causes: dictatorial governments, sectarian division, and opportunistic foreign intervention. A more holistic effort that includes civil reconstruction and popular participation needs to be widely supported. If not, various forms of extremism will continue to flourish in both countries and continue to affect the world.

The Real Reason Why Ebola is a Problem

After Thomas Duncan- a Liberian national who infected 2 nurses in Dallas with Ebola virus- died last week, news coverage on Ebola soared in the United States. Panic hit the television and radio waves as Americans began to worry that they too can catch the Ebola virus. Politicians, eager to politicize this issue for leverage on the midterm elections, began to call for travel bans on flights from West Africa. Rep. Phil Gingrey from Georgia even suggested that we close the U.S-Mexico border because he believes that illegal immigrants may be “carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus, and tuberculosis”. 

Putting aside the ridiculousness of the latter claim, there is a serious concern at play here: that one of our loved ones in the United States or even one of us will become infected with Ebola and die. This is no longer a problem that is happening thousands of miles away in another part of the world- now Ebola has come to our home and our communities…..now we are exposed.

And NOW it has become a problem. Now that it has affected one of us, we are starting to worry about it.

Never mind that almost 4,500 West Africans have died because of this outbreak.  Never mind that Medecins Sans Frontier (MSF), one of the first responders on the ground, have been calling for an emergency response since March of this year. Only when Ebola reaches our shores is when it becomes a problem that needs to be dealt with.

As much as we don’t like to internalize the idea, this mentality highlights the importance that race and poverty play in events like these. If poor Africans are dying from a dangerous illness far away- hardly anyone bats an eyebrow. But, when Americans become infected with this illness, then we can’t seem to stop talking about it.

An Onion article published a couple months ago perfectly exemplifies the attitude that most Western governments have in writing that finding “a vaccine for the deadly disease is still at least 50 white people from being developed” because “waiting more than 50 white people for an effective preventative measure {is} something the world would simply not allow”. 

And the parallels that this mentality has in the real world are quite striking: although the Ebola virus started spreading in early March, the international community lagged in responding in a timely manner. MSF released a statement last month blaming world leaders for “failing to come to grips with this transnational threat. The WHO announcement on August 8 that this epidemic constituted a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ has not led to decisive action, and states have essentially joined a global coalition of inaction”. 

Although the United States government has spent 100 million to respond to the Ebola outbreak, the World Health Organization has stated that funding alone will not stop the epidemic, because it is also “imperative that states immediately deploy civilian and military assets with expertise in biohazard containment." 

Even in mainstream media could one see this lack of importance: it was not even until the U.S Peace Corps evacuated in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone (and the first Westerners were infected) that the media even started reporting more consistently on the problem. 

Equally underlining this race and poverty phenomenon is the disparaging reporting done by journalists.  The descriptions made by Newsweek and CNN that fear and superstition is the norm in Guinea and that bushmeat is common at circumcision ceremonies in West Africa only reinforces the stereotype that Africans are barbaric and backward creatures.  

What reason do these authors have in writing these things other than making us believe that Africans are running around villages wearing monkey skulls?

 Maybe some tribes still do this, but not all. I lived in a small Guinean village for two years and my host-father drove a Land Rover and wore Calvin Klein shirts to work. Africa is a diverse and large continent where the cultures and way of life is far ranging. This type of journalism is not only sensational but also emphasizes the fact that this international Ebola outbreak is mostly focused on through the narrow prism of race and poverty.  

What should we worry about?

First, let’s stop worrying about Ebola spreading in the United States because due to our excellent health care facilities, sanitation levels and public health resources, the probability of Ebola spreading is quite low. If you’re not convinced of that, read these 2 articles, here and here.  

Over at vox, Julia Belluz lays bare what all Westerners should actually be worried about:

In order for Ebola to move around the world, the outbreak needs to continue to grow in West Africa…the more people infected with Ebola at the source, the more likely they are to infect other people, and the more likely those people are to travel and spread the disease.

It doesn't matter that Ebola is currently a small threat in America, and that the real focus should be stopping the outbreak in West Africa. If this political theater devolves into, say, a travel ban in West Africa that further isolates the region, the nightmare epidemic will inch closer to reality: the economies of the affected countries will continue to crumble, getting aid to the region will be difficult or impossible, and Ebola will rage on over there, which again, means it's a threat everywhere.

The Ebola outbreak is not just a problem when it reaches the United States; it has been a problem ever since it began spreading in early March in Guinea. Actually implementing travel bans (like our leaders propose) and closing our borders will only worsen the problem and the risk of spread all around the world.

If you want to help, stop worrying about getting Ebola at home and focus your attention in lobbying your government to send assistance to the most afflicted countries in West Africa and donate to the organizations that have braved transmission and worked directly with Ebola patients.

 http://www.msf.org/donate

http://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/donate-online/

And lastly, remember that this Ebola epidemic will not be the last problem that will arise in the developing world. We can continue to ignore problems in poor and marginalized communities around the world. But, being that the international community is more interrelated than ever, there will always be repercussions for people in the West if we keep ignoring the places where the true problems lie.