Alliance of NATO and Islamic radicals: theater of the absurd or subtle calculation?
The “Twitter Revolutionary” wave launched in the Middle East and North African states since the beginning of this year and received, thanks to the efforts of the biased media, the name “Arab Spring” appears to have entered a new phase: direct military suppression by coalition forces of Western countries those regimes that, despite the strongest foreign policy pressure, still found the strength to resist.
In fact, the “Arab Spring - 2011” scenario involved foreign military intervention from the very beginning. Those who study the true causes and driving forces of the “color revolutions” of the last two decades have not doubted this. Let me remind you once again the truism. Their goal is not to overthrow the authoritarian regimes as such, or even the triumph of Western democratic values, but to establish a fundamentally new system of government in one country or another - approved by the West, imposed by the West and legitimized by the West.
However, at the same time foreign intervention is still an extreme measure, to which the interested forces resort only in the case when all other means of achieving the goal are exhausted. Such cases are not so frequent, since such attacks are exposed, first of all, to states with incomplete or, according to the apt expression of well-known political scientist and researcher of modern social and political processes Sergey Kara-Murza, “limited” sovereignty.
The use of extreme measures has so far been required only in the case of Libya, because the charismatic Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was a truly independent politician, he did not give in to brutal diplomatic pressure, and Tanks loyal troops by mid-March drove the so-called rebels to Benghazi itself, when only direct military intervention by NATO prevented their final defeat.
Despite the fact that Libya has been exposed to overt informational-political, and then direct military aggression (with an unprecedented buildup of informational) for already half a year, the Jamahiriya showed enviable resilience (by Arabian standards, of course).
Let me remind you that in order to dump Ben Ali in Tunisia, it turned out to be enough mass youth demonstrations, supported by Western public opinion. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned after two weeks of fierce clashes between protesters and protesters with police and military units, accompanied by very articulate statements by Western politicians.
On their background, Muammar Gaddafi looks like a titan of spirit, continuing desperate resistance in an already seemingly hopeless situation. Although, in principle, his choice is now small: either to die a martyr, having gone to that world in the aura of an honest and inflexible fighter for his country and people (in fact, turn into an Arab Salvator Allende), or to be arrested and shamefully hanged like Saddam Hussein .
Well, this is really a fateful choice. Not only for a single person, but also for his people. In fact, the struggle is already underway, not for power and control over the country as such, but for the right to become a bright banner for future generations of Libyans.
I repeat, the rapid fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes at the beginning of this year was due, first of all, not to the adherence of their ruling circles to certain democratic values about the inviolability of the people’s right to vote, which require them to immediately retire, just under the windows of the government residence an impressive crowd of protesters, but by the indisputable fact that both these states and their presidents were firmly integrated into the existing system of world order and firmly tied to not financial and speculative bonds. Therefore, their ability to counter revolutions, supported and, quite obviously, directed from the West, was extremely limited. In fact, how can you effectively deal with an adversary from whom you yourself are heavily dependent: both politically and spiritually?
And the matter here is not even in some accounts in Swiss banks of top government officials, which at a decisive moment this enemy is threatening to arrest. The problem lies much deeper. By accepting the rules of the game, set by the West and imposed by the West as some kind of universal, mandatory and non-negotiable standard for non-Western societies (which, no doubt, are Arab countries), these states deliberately put themselves in a flawed and very vulnerable position. Moreover, not so much from the United States or Western Europe, as from their own religious fundamentalists. Which, as we can see from the example of the “Arab Spring” and especially the war in Libya, easily play the role of not only the “fifth column”, but also the direct ramming, with the help of which the West consistently destroys the rudiments of Arab secular statehood.
Speaking about “corruption” and “cruel authoritarianism”, against which, for some inexplicable reasons, various sociopolitical forces have now rallied, we will not seriously consider. All this in this case is nothing more than the necessary information component in military-political aggression against a number of Middle Eastern and North African states, during which the most seemingly unnatural and illogical alliances emerged, which, at first glance, the alliance of Western countries looks like Islamic radicals from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaida in Libya.
In order to explain this apparent paradox it is necessary to make a small digression.
The Islamic world (including the Arab world as the fundamental principle of the Islamic world) for many centuries stories there existed (in relation to Islam, it would be just appropriate to use this particular verb - “existed”, and not “developed”) almost autonomously, without being exposed to any serious foreign influence. There were practically no political, ideological, cultural borrowings from outside, which, in fact, did not give rise to the cultivation of powerful opposition within Muslim countries in the form of fundamentalists.
The situation began to change dramatically in the late XIX - early XX century. The Islamic world, having suffered a total defeat in a clash with the economic, military-technical and intellectual aspect that many times surpassed it in the West, almost fell into a state of colonial dependence, gradually began to change. First of all, high quality. Above the age-old Islamic core, a weak, and then more and more tangible European plaque began to appear. Turkey was a pioneer here, having taken the European ideas of democracy, education and civil society as a basis. In 20-30, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal-Pasha Ataturk, a genuine cultural revolution was accomplished in this country, the final product of which (a secular Europeanized state) was in fact a complete rejection of the ideal of Islamic fundamentalists. The statehood of many Arab countries in 50-60-s was formed with a noticeable cultural and political influence of the USSR. And socialist ideas, which in those years were very common in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, were also known to have nothing to do with Islam and Sharia.
The entire second half of the 20th century in Muslim countries two, seemingly counter-directional and mutually exclusive processes took place: Westernization and Europeanization of these societies were simultaneously accompanied by the growing influence of Islamic fundamentalists who fiercely protested against this Europeanization. In principle, our prominent thinker Alexander Zinoviev gave an exhaustively accurate description of this phenomenon in his book “The Global Human Being”: “This is a complete civilization (that is, Islamic - IB), absolutely incapable of development ... They gradually accumulate an alien western presence . Mature protest against him. An anti-Western explosion occurs. The initiative is captured by fundamentalists. And it all starts over again. ”
Indeed, in the eyes of the Islamic radicals, the secular regimes of the Arab countries with their constitutions, presidents, parliaments and the suffrage for women are completely barred from any legitimacy. After all, the goal of radical adherents of Islam is Islam itself. Their ideal is not even an Islamic state as such, but a certain community of people (ummah) who live according to Sharia. In which, of course, the institution of a secular presidency or general parliamentary elections is not provided.
Therefore, in the fight against the same Libyan Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi, the union of the West and Islamic radicals looks quite logical when thoughtfully and deeply considered. They have a common enemy. For the West, Gaddafi is unacceptable as an independent non-Western politician who has long ruined his nerves, and for Islamists, just as a non-Islamic politician, because the Jamahiriya with its socialism and the idea of people's committees is as alien to them as a bourgeois republic with constitutions, parliament and president.
I have already written about the true goals of the war unleashed against Libya. But why as the main ally of the West chose Islamic radicals?
I think the answer is obvious. With all the hysteria that has been injected in the Western media over the Islamic threat for more than a year, the West is not afraid of religious fundamentalists. He is not afraid in the sense that he does not see in them a force capable of posing a serious threat to his dominant position. Indeed, can the very same al-Qaeda really threaten the interests of the United States and NATO states, against which it seems to lead an irreconcilable jihad, if they exceed it militarily, politically and economically many times over. Obscurantists, with fanatical rage, are destroying their own states and plunging their inhabitants into the dense Middle Ages (which, in fact, is not hidden, because the standard for Islamic radicals is the caliphate of the 7th-8th centuries) cannot be genuine rivals in the struggle for world domination. What kind of real confrontation with the West can we talk about, if in a fundamentalist state, with a completely destroyed system of secular education, it can be an impossible task on its own (I emphasize it’s your own, without importing technologies!) To start mass production of at least light rifle and artillery weapons, not to mention high precision! To what rapid and widespread degradation the power of fanatics leads, we could observe at least by the example of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
To a certain extent, today the Muslim world lives in a state of a certain duality, if not worse. Without borrowing European spiritual and state values, without exporting technologies, without introducing a secular education and health care system, it would be absolutely untenable in the modern world. The demographic explosion experienced by Muslim peoples over the past decades was the direct result of the introduction of the achievements of European and Soviet medicine. Without them, the population of these countries, as well as several centuries ago, would have mowed child mortality and terrible medieval diseases, which would simply level the high fertility factor. The rise in the standard of living and the availability of the benefits of modern civilization have given rise to the growth of ambitions of certain forces in the Islamic world. But their implementation will lead in practice only to the negation of the factors that gave rise to them. The actual return to the VII century, for which Islamic radicals are fighting, will inevitably be accompanied by the destruction of everything that gives these radicals at least some weight in the world.
Therefore, Western leaders, who now openly incite Islamists to secular states, are very comfortable with such an ally. Moreover, in the world fire, which, judging by many signs, being in an acute financial and economic crisis, the West is strenuously inflating, the Islamic radicals are prepared for the unenviable fate of cannon fodder. That is, an extremely active, but dark and dense force, by means of which objectionable regimes that could represent at least some kind of threat to the interests of Western countries are being eliminated from the political scene.
By the way, a characteristic feature. In our North Caucasus, in particular, in Dagestan, where the center of sabotage and partisan war is drawn most clearly, the legal wing of Islamic militants - the so-called human rights activists - work closely with not only Western non-governmental organizations, but also with foreign embassies (primarily American). And people walking in skullcaps and hijabs, foaming at the mouth to protect those with weapons in the hands of fighting against everything secular (constitutions, parliaments, presidents, education, etc.), in fact, it is not the first year that they have received financial support in the diplomatic missions of those countries that, in fact, gave the world all these attributes of any modern state . That is, they ask for help from those with whose mediated civilizational and cultural influence (for the ideas of democracy, civil society and universal suffrage, the adherents of which in words are the highest persons of Russia, were born precisely in the bosom of Western Europe) seem to be fighting.
What is it? Theater of the absurd? The grimaces of the postmodern era?
No, worse. This is a subtle political calculation of the leaders of Western countries. Therefore, those bearded men who are now raging on the ruins of the Tripoli and the French Foreign Legion of Tripoli, captured with the support of the English, and yelling: “Allah Akbar!” Are, in fact, only pawns in a foreign and large-scale geopolitical game.
Where do serious bets and really break the bush completely different forces.
Information