The wildfire of protest against Islam denigration is raging across the Muslim world plunging the region deeper into turmoil. The Innocence of Muslims fake film is a clear provocation. The synchronization of actions aimed at US and other Western embassies leaves no doubt we are facing a coordinated effort by those whose interests are served by aggravating confrontation between the Muslim world and the West making the Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington topping the bestsellers list again and again… It’s not Internet this time. The only way to coordinate the campaign is to get people with no access to Internet social networks. It can be done by a segment of radical clergymen who incite violence acting against the mainstream preaching in mosques that condemns such actions as embassy attacks.
Somebody made a fake translation making the movie actors say in Arab language something different from what it was in English. Recalling Salman Rushdie and the following events in Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and so on you name it, it’s an obvious fact the whole thing is well thought over and orchestrated by the mysterious unknown. Evidently the Salaphites take advantage out of the situation, their black and white flags waving in the mob attacking the US embassy in Libya. The action was indirectly aimed at moderate Islamists and pro-Western Liberals grapping the power in the country after the so called “revolution”. No doubt the events serve the interests of those in the USA who are disgruntled with the military cuts policy of the present administration and call for boosting the military might in view of newly emerging challenges. Along with ongoing aggravation of stand-off over disputed islands in the Pacific their stance looks substantiated enough, especially in the case of naval power advocates. The US military-industrial complex leaders know well how to grasp the opportunities offered by the situation creep.
No matter how much or little we know it serves the purpose to have a cursory look at what’s in store and try to see the implications of the Middle East events we witness.
Implications
- The success (or otherwise) of actions taken by Obama administration under the circumstances may determine the November elections outcome. In any case if Mitt Romney raises the issue of complete and total failure of Obama’s Arab world policy he will not be far-off target. Let’s remember the 1979 operation to free US hostages in Teheran and the way it’s failure brought to naught the Jimmy Carter’s chances for re-election;
- The events call into question the efficacy of US intelligence community failing to give a timely warning to the embassies they may come under attacks by angry protesters;
- The USA has recently done its best to improve the standing among the region’s nations by supporting the Arab Spring uprisings (even without making precise who exactly stands behind them and what policy future rulers are going to come up with). The ongoing protests may actually reduce the gains to zero. The events we are facing strongly support the view the Western policy of supporting whoever it is striving for power in the muddle of the Arab Spring is faulty. It makes one think twice about supporting the murky hodgepodge of all kinds of opposition elements confronting the government forces in Syria. As you sow so shall you reap, something the Russian and Chinese leaders warn about, but to no avail as yet;
- In case the situation worsens (and it may as one can see watching TV news) NATO may alter its iffy military policy that focuses on air strikes as the way to win without casualties leaving terrain control to the forces opposing the government in power. There is a great chance radical anti - Western forces may grab the reins as a result. The events in Libya are an example. It may influence the decisions taken on Syria where, as I understand, the Free Syrian Army is to act as the only land force in case the action is underway;
- The weak point of Arab world is partition along religious lines into Sunni and Shiite communities. The events in question are of consolidating nature bringing Muslims of all branches together in opposition to the West;
- Actually the situation diverts the attention from Iran and the nuclear issue. The wave of anti-US actions narrows down the opportunities of handling the problem. The mission of embassies protection requires significant increase of naval presence in the region. The situation creep in one of unstable countries (like Yemen, for instance) may necessitate the evacuation of not one (the US) but a number of embassies and the citizens of the Western states providing them with due defense on the way. It will at least require the deployment of an amphibious ready group, guarded by a surface battle group and an aircraft carrier strike group deployed somewhere within the range of effective action just in case. Talking about surface ships the number of sea-based long-range land attack missiles will inevitably diminish in favor of other weapons launched through vertical launch systems. The land strike Tomahawks are the main weapon in case force is used to curb the Iranian nuclear program. Taking into consideration the US global commitments and the growing role of Asia-Pacific, the abrupt boost of naval presence in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean will inevitably lead to overstretching of US armed forces on the one hand, as well as bolster the arguments for stronger navy on the other. One doesn’t have to be a military expert to understand the combat readiness status of US armed forces on alert to carry out the mission of embassies protection makes a strike against Iran a tall order;
- A military action taken by the USA or even NATO may jolly well become a spark to a smoldering conflict entailing a chain reaction that would bring about huge fire.
There is also another aspect that cannot be ignored. The anti-US and anti-Western sentiments in general are caused in the Muslim world by the policy of imposing the values and patterns without taking into consideration the specifics of the region, culture and people’s mentality, as well as by taking unilateral military actions like it were in Iraq, for instance. Russia’s President Putin hit the nail on the head those days when he told former US President George Bush: “"Military action … is a big mistake." He was right as it turned out. The matter is it’s much easier to make mistakes than to rectify the consequences.
.
