Has Namo's foreign policy in Pakistan freaked out?


A world order war is taking place in Syria. While the media and politicians speak of the "civil war" rather belittling, the conflict between government and opposition has long since escalated. It's real war. It is about much more than Syria. The world order war that is raging in the country between Damascus and Aleppo is far more complex than revolutions or "classic", local civil wars, and has implications on a continental and even global level. A study on the struggle for the future world order.

he peculiarities of the Syrian war, the one-sided press reports, the embarrassment and irresponsible impartiality of Western politicians, the mass executions and the brutality of the fighting, the political-religious motivation and above all the suffering of the civilian population have led me to write this mini-study. Aleppo 2013 in its enormity and inhumanity is reminiscent of Stalingrad 1943. The whole of Syria is actually a Stalingrad. The incitement to war and the arms deliveries continue, however. I believe that the Syrian war could paradoxically initiate the beginning of a new order in Eurasia, a large-scale, multipolar order that will be stable enough to ward off aggression by foreign, non-Eurasian powers and to resolve internal Eurasian conflicts peacefully.

In addition, this war confirms the thesis that the secular-rationalist project of the Enlightenment has clearly failed and that today we are experiencing a return of religions or a renaissance of political theologies / political religions. In short: we are today (in a positive and in a negative sense) in a new Middle Ages. If our secularized, depoliticized society continues to ignore or misinterpret the religious, political-religious or ideological components of non-Western societies, it not only misunderstands the nature of human beings, but also the most intimate mechanisms of a community or society.

In matters such as the Syrian war, the Wahhabi-Sunni enmity, the Balkanization of the Middle East, etc., the West will continue to make wrong decisions, forge unnatural alliances and thus cause its own downfall. The friend-foe thinking is an anthropological constant, but one should not feed it artificially and neither should one want to extinguish it with force. Even the deepest enmity is not eternal and can be ended with wise, politically wise and just decisions.

The idea for the present study, which was supplemented and updated in July 2013, arose while working on the project “Friend and Enemy in the Multipolar World Order. A treatise on the renaissance of political theology ”(University of Politics / Faculty of Social Sciences, Munich, 2012). The main thesis of this study is: “The friend-foe thinking is an anthropological constant of humanity and the political-theological complex is an integral part of legal and political history. For this reason, the world of states cannot be a depoliticized, abstract, universal unity, but is and remains what it always was: a concrete political pluriverse. Consequently, any attempt to establish a unipolar world order through political, economic or military pressure will sooner or later fail. Only a multipolar world order is perceived worldwide as realistic and at the same time efficient, because only such an organizational form will correspond to the ideas of freedom, justice and order of the majority of subjects of international law and thus find global recognition. "


Table of contents

Geostrategy and Geopolitics
for a new American century

The USA, on the other hand, is trying to take on the role of a global regulatory power in the 21st century and to create an imperial Pax Americana with all available means. This US project for a unipolar American century differs from the US strategy in the Cold War from a military point of view. On the one hand, Washington tries to secure ("democratize") countries that are of great interest to it by abusing international law (for example through the unilateral use of force under the liberal-democratic cloak of humanitarian interventionism). On the other hand, it tries to prevent the emergence of new great power competitors in geostrategically important regions. The USA is thus the most consistent advocate of a new world order by means of the empire policy of its military-industrial complex. Apart from them there is no other great power today that explicitly emphasizes its imperial mission and reaches for world domination with all available means.


Table of contents

Chess board Eurasia

Many critics of the US establishment see behind the American foreign policy of the last 20 years often only economic interests, and view the aggressions against oil and gas-rich Islamic countries as economic or resource wars or, for short, predatory wars. However, this is only part of the truth: first, the war damage suffered by the United States is greater than its war gain; second, economic supremacy is not an end goal, but, like military, technological or cultural superiority, is only a means of achieving a higher goal.

The most important goal of the US is to secure its global power. In this context, power is to be understood under two aspects, namely under geopolitical and? what is neglected in the literature? from a theopolitical point of view. On the one hand, it is understood in a spatial, geographical sense as a (military-industrial) superiority over possible competitors, according to the motto: "The limits of the planet are at the same time the limits of the US Empire". Thinking about hegemonic or imperial supremacy in security-political-military categories (e.g. as a global anti-terror war) has inevitably led to the renaissance of classical geopolitics or geo-imperialism as the worldwide American regional commandos testify.

On the other hand, power is interpreted politically, in the sense of the American chiliastic-messianic-eschatological conception, namely as the right of a people chosen by God to rule over the whole world. After the American Revolution and the translatio imperii Britannici, a strong Old Testament and at the same time neoprotestant sense of mission developed among the inhabitants of the “New World”, which today in the form of evangelicalism and “Christian Zionism” has significantly influenced US politics and the unbroken Israeli- American alliance.

The greatest threat to the US today comes, according to the prevailing opinion among geostrategists and decision-makers in the US establishment, just as it did in the 20th century from Eurasia, which is the "chessboard" on which the struggle for global domination will continue in the future Z. Brzezinski, The Only World Power, 1997: 57). The top priority of US geopolitics is, according to George Friedman, founder and head of Stratfor, to fight any power that could gain hegemony over Eurasia. That is the main reason why the USA is waging war in this region, so that despite all the human rights-democratic rhetoric, there is little interest in peace in Eurasia (G. Friedman, The Next Hundred Years, 2009: 59ff., 165, 180).

However, the USA is not primarily targeting the European central powers defeated in 1945 or the EU, at least as long as the EU or its German core does not develop into a superpower independent of America, which is evident in view of the well-planned and managed operations of the US secret services in Europe and especially in Germany it would be easy to prove (see the current NSA scandal). America has an interest in new or reinvigorated regional players and alliances that can become powerful enough to attack the US militarily or to weaken its political and economic strength and thus undermine its superpower status. Combat in this context does not mean to defeat these powers militarily, but to prevent their rise, to destabilize them.

That explains to some extent the brutal, apparently irrational military actions of the USA since 1990. It's not about establishing order, about stabilizing the region? Such tasks would overwhelm the USA anyway? - also not about military victories, which are no longer possible in view of the conditions of the new, asymmetrical wars and the religious, otherworldly motivation of the opponents, but rather to create chaos and to destabilize the potential counterpower (G. Friedman, The Next Hundred Years, 2009: 60f.). The civil-religious myth of global terrorism, which the USA created in order to institutionalize a permanent state of war across the globe and especially in Eurasia, fits in with this strategy. The so-called “war on terror” has been hyped up to a secularized crusade against Islam, and has gradually become a blank check to intervene militarily directly or indirectly (through allies and vassals) on a global level.

Further information can be found at: New Near and Middle East


The US project for the Middle East

Note by dragaoNordestino


Table of contents

Sham multilateralism

The emergence of several regional or global poles of power (Russia, India, Iran, China, etc.) is already a reality and at the same time an enormous challenge for the USA, which opposes this new global power constellation with all available forces and thus the peaceful transition from one to one make a multipolar world order more difficult. Today we are experiencing what is probably the last attempt by the American military-industrial complex to eliminate competing powers worldwide in order to secure the global supremacy of the USA. America's interventions (with or without the help of NATO) are part of the American Eurasia strategy. They take place in countries like Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan. These include the constant provocations against Russia, North Korea or Pakistan, the attempt to divide Europe into “old Europe” and new Europe, the Eastern European “Orange Revolutions” and the “Arab Spring”, and not least the (still) “Cold War” “Against Iran, or the proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Mali, Sudan, etc. An important element of this strategy is multilateralism, which is often used by the USA, and also part of it new doctrine of the US Army(PDF 1.05 MB).

This multilaterality is more of a pseudo-multilaterality, because the support of state and non-state allies is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; in short: “multilateral, if possible, unilateral, if necessary” (R. Kagan, Macht und Ohnmacht, 2004: 161). But there are cases where the USA, despite its superiority and its preference for unilateral solutions, also tries to attract other powers and forces to its side, as the wars it waged in Eurasia show. Through alliances such as the “Anti-Iraq Coalition” (1991), “Anti-Terrorist Coalition” (2001) or “Coalition of the Willing” (2003), the USA tried firstly to avoid imperial overstretching, and secondly to avoid the enemy to show that they have broad or even global support for their actions and, where possible, are legitimized by the UN. Thirdly, by creating even more hostility and confusion, with grave consequences, as the attacks in Madrid, London, Djerba, Bali and elsewhere prove.

There are also cases when the US achieves its geopolitical goals not only with the help of Western allies, but also with the support of certain forces that are believed to be America's enemies. During the war in Libya, despite their obsessive anti-terror and anti-al-Qaeda rhetoric, the western countries decided to support al-Qaeda militants in their fight against the Libyan ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi. Since the new global actor China, which is expanding its peaceful economic imperial power over Africa, was also very present in Libya until the outbreak of war,

America was suspected of trying to achieve several goals at once through an apparently unreasonable Libya policy: First, the expulsion of Chinese companies from Libya and the stopping of Chinese investments in this country, which also happened after the beginning of the war; second, the elimination of a state hostile to America and Israel (which had been on the list of rogue states until 2006) and thus the implementation of the imperial geopolitical and geostrategic agenda; thirdly, securing access to the Libyan oil fields for US corporations, similar to the one in Iraq.

From a realistic point of view, America acted rationally in the Libya case, i.e. in its own interest, and that is understandable in view of its uncertain future as a superpower. For some years now, China has been seen as a future great power and a great adversary to America. Like China, Russia, India, possibly the EU, but also regional powers such as Iran (or a Shiite alliance under Iran's leadership), Pakistan, North Korea or even Turkey can interfere with the geopolitical plans of the USA (some are already considered to be such ). Is that why America could continue to try to recruit third-party workers in its own interest? is this already the case in Mali and Syria? to destabilize uncomfortable countries.


Table of contents

Greater Middle East and Syria

The project of a Greater Middle East launched by the Bush administration in 2003 (from 2004 Middle East Partnership Initiative), a program to fight terror and to enforce freedom and democracy in the greater geopolitical area, also fits into this divide-et-impera logic from Morocco to Kazakhstan.

In reality, Greater Middle East is not a neo-conservative project, but rather "imperial continuity" (W. Ruf, Der Greater Middle East, in: R. Tuschl, Die Neue Weltordnung in der

Crisis, 2008: 13ff.). In this way, the USA is not only trying to gain access to important raw material sites, but also to solve the "Islamic problem" and, above all, to prevent the emergence of a regulatory power in this greater area.
With their strategy of “creative destruction”, the neutralization of Islam through “Balkanization of the Middle East” (J. Wagner, Birth pangs of the Middle East, 2007: 2f., hopes the American military-industrial complex(PDF 0.315 MB) to change the structural distribution of power in such a way that the emergence of a hegemonic great power and the establishment of a large-scale Islamic order (e.g. in the form of a caliphate or an alliance of core Islamic states) becomes impossible; Furthermore, according to the geostrategists' calculations, the deployment of the US Army in the region will deter all potential regional powers. The US has a regional command for these purposes
(USCENTCOM), which is responsible for the Middle East, East Africa and Central Asia.

How important this region is for the US plans is shown by the budget for the operations and management of USCENTCOM over the past 3 years (excluding the financing of the Afghanistan mission): 2011: $ 106,631,000; 2012: $ 137,167,000 and 2013: $ 179,266,000 (A. Feickert, The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands, 2013: Page 12 (PDF 0.729 MB).

The official mission of USCENTCOM is to work with national and international partners to promote cooperation between nations, respond to crises, prevent or combat state and non-state aggression, and support development and reconstruction in order to create the conditions for regional security, stability and prosperity to establish.

A focal point in the Greater Middle East is Syria. The officially announced goal of USCENTCOM is to improve regional stability and security by reintegrating Syria into the mainstream of the Arab world. At the same time, USCENTCOM is concerned about the contacts Syria has with Iran and pro-Iranian extremist organizations (e.g. Hezbollah) maintains. As the American military specialist Andrew Feickert writes in a report for the US Congress, the war in Syria is developing into a long-term, regular civil war that could pose a threat to regional security and stability. A military intervention by USCENTCOM to protect US national interests in the region is no longer ruled out. (A. Feickert, The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands, 2013: page 36. (see PDF The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands)

It is doubtful that the US has an interest in stability and security in this region, especially when one observes its behavior towards Syria. According to Brzezinski's definition, this country is not a “geostrategic actor”, i.e. a state that has the capacity and the national will to exercise power or influence beyond its borders (regionally or globally) in order to maintain the geopolitical status quo fixed by the USA change. Syria, however, is a “geopolitical fulcrum”, a state whose importance does not result from its power and motivation, but rather results from its precarious geographical location and the consequences that determine its behavior due to its potential vulnerability (Z. Brzezinski, The Single World Power, 1997: 66f.). As early as 2004, a study commissioned by the US Air Force by Rand Corporation showed that Syria poses an asymmetrical threat to Israel and that it is militarily capable of protecting the Jewish state with chemical weapons and missiles supplied by North Korea, China, Iran and Russia attack (N. Bensahel / D. Byman, The Future Security Environment in the Middle East, 2004: 183).

Also, does Syria have good relations with Russia, China and Iran? viewed by America as geostrategic actors? but also to Shiite organizations such as Hezbollah (the only army in the world that suffered a major defeat for the Israeli army in 2006). 500,000 Palestinian refugees live in Syria, as well as many functionaries of the anti-Israeli PLO who, if the Assad regime fell, would lose their safe homes and the protection of their hosts. Syria's border with Turkey also plays a very important role in US geopolitics: contrary to what Turkish politicians believe, the fall of Syria would destabilize Turkey (see the Kurdish problem or the advance of the Salafist jihadists in this region), and so on Prevent the emergence of a neo-Ottoman regional power. There are also other points which, as will be shown later, make Syria so interesting for certain major or regional powers.


Table of contents

End of the unipolar world order

Despite the optimism of the geostrategists and politicians who speak in millenarian fashion about a golden American era that will come after World War III (sic!) (G. Friedman, The Next Hundred Years, 2009: 247-257.), The US strategy of the unipolar moment to have failed. After the collapse of the USSR, the US lost its chances. The damage caused by their military adventures or economic, financial and resource policies is so great that it is unlikely

that the world? with the exception of some close state and private, transnational allies? America will be seen as a free, democratic, benevolent world hegemon. In view of the new global challenges, it is also questionable whether the US? despite their military superiority? can be regarded as a world order power in the international world of states.

Table of contents

USA - from benevolent world hegemony to imperial world order struggle

From a political science perspective, a world hegemon is an overpowering state that is understood as the functional equivalent of a supranational world authority. The hegemonic control is based on the assumption that global compliance with norms or rules can only be guaranteed by a hierarchical organizational structure with a central sanctioning authority, which is not a formal authority with legal authority, but an informal, primarily power-based quasi-hierarchy, that leaves interstate anarchy intact. The hegemonic world order is a factual, not a normatively anchored order (V. Rittberger / A. Kruck / A. Romund, Grundzüge der Weltpolitik, 2010: 306ff.).

The world hegemon achieves superpower status through the following properties, i.e. superiority in the field of military, economic and cultural-ideal resources, as well as superiority in the chapter on the influence of actual political results: Firstly, it is able to generate international rules and to comply with them by threatening Achieve sanctions, grant or withdrawal of benefits; secondly, he has the ability to politically steer and solve problems in accordance with his own preferences (including the self-serving creation or promotion of norms, rules and institutions that reflect his worldview; thirdly, a so-called benevolent hegemon provides public goods not only for his own benefit but also for the benefit of other states, such as ensuring a high level of international financial stability and financial liquidity, guaranteeing security, humanitarian aid, etc. (V. Rittberger / A. Kruck / A. Romund, 2010: 307f.).

The USA was a real world hegemon that also acted as a benevolent hegemon during the Cold War and still had superpower status after the end of the bipolar world order. However, their global predominance is relative today, partly because more and more actors are becoming less dependent on US hegemonic power structures. There are also international institutions that were created or planned without the influence of the US world hegemon, such as the Eurasian Economic Community, China-ASEAN Free Trade Area or the Eurasian Union planned for 2015.

Is the USA not doing well in the chapter on solving trans-sovereign problems? there is a risk of overburdening oneself and, as already mentioned, of imperial overstretching through war and world police tasks. Even if they had a real interest in global peace and not in sole world domination, the USA would no longer be able to win wars alone, prevent terrorism, pacify parties to civil war, tame transnational crime. For these tasks they increasingly need a coalition, private security companies, mercenaries or the help of other international actors. Especially after 2001, one observes an increased chauvinistic-militaristic exceptionalism and an imperial egoism (keyword: “national interest”), which question the status of the USA as benevolent hegemon.

Also worth mentioning are negative developments that testify that the US is not a benevolent world hegemon: the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the campaign against the establishment of the International Criminal Court, aggression and sanctions against poor countries, economic and resource wars, torture and targeted killings of (real or potential) opponents, spying on partners, allies and vassals. America also has a post-democratization and oligarchization process

gone through. The legitimation of US rule has become problematic, above all because the interests of the USA or the social groups that exercise power control and the interests of other, important world or regional actors are seldom congruent. Furthermore, especially after September 11, 2001, a divergence between hegemonic decision-makers and those affected by the decision can be observed. Weaker states and private actors are also arbitrarily excluded, which creates a participatory gap in terms of the legitimation of democratic rule.

The USA today is characterized by suboptimal effectiveness, foreign policy aggressiveness and interventionism that is contrary to international law. They are militarily and economically overwhelmed, their form of rule can no longer be described as a classic liberal democracy, but as a post-democratic oligarchy. Thus today they have become a global empire, a quasi-authoritarian power that pursues an imperial, Manichaean worldview. Guantanamo, Fallujah and Abu-Ghraib are just three symbols of failed US politics. (R. Chr. Hoffmann-Plesch, Friend and Enemy in the Multipolar World Order, 2012, unpublished).

The project for a new American century has turned out to be a dangerous utopia. The USA must say goodbye to the vision of a Pax Americana, change its foreign policy and increasingly see itself as a regional power, otherwise the consequences of its human rights and international law violations will lead to resistance to and hatred of the USA in the decades to come. Instead, however, the US is sticking to its imperial project, it has abandoned the idea of ​​benevolent world hegemony and has entered a world order struggle based on the classic imperial strategy. This includes preventing collusion between the vassals and maintaining their dependence on security issues; to keep and protect the tributary states docile; to ensure that rogue states do not unite

(Z. Brzezinski, The Only World Power, 1997: 66f.). Today's world of states has become more complex compared to the unipolar world order. We are at the beginning of a multipolar world order, whose main actors? including nuclear powers? are not exactly friends of the USA (with the exception of the EU, which is gradually trying to evade America's guardianship), and they are not real democracies either.

A particularly good example is the current sniffing scandal.!

The open and somehow sympathetic face of Edward Snowden will have to be remembered. Who has succeeded in presenting such an impact in the press from a Hong Kong refuge that the American president immediately found himself in considerable need of explanations about the state of original civil liberties and security issues in his country? If it weren't so serious, you could say: sporty, sporty. But this word gets stuck in your throat because you can't believe it. Someone wants to uphold the basic freedom and civil rights in their country and is fleeing where to? ¬ via China to Russia.

In one fell swoop, like the Kremlin aviator Mathias Rust in 1987, the young Mr Snowden tore a mask off his home country's face. The United States is no longer far from being a state committed to democratic and inalienable values.

That the US is beginning to resemble the past Soviet Union the longer it is, is terrifying. Now it is likely that empires greedy for power and influence can be sustained in the long run, only with repression and totalitarianism ..... until they then begin to crash into themselves as big inflated giants, neurotic and psychotic.

Are we becoming what we once hated?
by Eric S. Margolis (August 4, 2013)

The Chinese Taoists warned, "You will become what you hate." You are right: the attacks on the United States of America in September 2001 lead to a period of intermittent psychosis. America was thrown back in the ugly days of Senator McCarthy's red-hunt in the 1950s. The big difference is that today the evil "terrorists" have replaced the dangerous Marxists. And these days the terrorists are everywhere.

It's amazing ... just a few years ago those who were looking for justice and freedom used to move from the Eastern Bloc to the United States of America and Britain. Ironically, we are now seeing a major defector, Ed Snowden, flee to Russia.
to read on open / close: click

Note by dragaoNordestino

In the late 1980s, an old friend of mine stationed in Moscow telephoned her husband in the United States of America late that evening. She said it was "your typical stupid husband / wife conversation," mostly about a broken garage door.

Around midnight a harsh voice joined the conversation. "This is your KGB listener speaking. This is the boring, stupidest conversation I've ever listened to. Now stop and go to bed!"

Yes, those innocent times of the Cold War. Today Big Brother listens to your conversations, reads your e-mails and keeps quiet about your searches on the Internet.

When I was drafted into the United States Army during the Vietnam War, we were taught that it was our duty as American soldiers to report all war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention and to refuse to take illegal orders from superiors follow as it corresponded to the Nuremberg tribunals after the Second World War. I was proud then to serve in the armed forces of America.

Today the military tribunal against the document handler, Bradley Manning, is a reminder of the Soviet era: a show trial in which a single individual is slowly crushed by the wheels of a so-called military justice system, a contradiction in terms.

The dramatic revelations by the ephemeral whistleblower Edward Snowden bring to mind memories of Soviet-era dissidents who were incarcerated, banned, and sent to psychiatric hospitals for daring to tell the truth.

In my day, those who sought justice and freedom used to move from the Eastern Bloc to the United States of America and Britain. Ironically, we are now seeing a major defector, Ed Snowden, flee to Russia.

While the corporate media in the United States of America glosses over the scandals surrounding the NSA and the Afghan war, it is left to Russian television (RT) to keep Americans informed of the facts. Who would have thought?

We journalists used to ridicule Pravda and Trud as party propaganda. Today, party propaganda is carried out all the time by major networks in the United States, online news and newspapers.

The Republican right calls Snowden and Manning traitors, with some calling for the death penalty. Snowden's lawyers warn that if he returns home, he will face torture and possibly execution. Manning has been in solitary confinement for a long time, which is itself a form of psychological torture.

We remember the terrifying case of Chicago gang member Jose Padilla during the 9/11 hysteria. In an ordinance signed by President George W. Bush, Padilla was charged with flimsy grounds of being an enemy fighter and his rights were disenfranchised. He was locked in solitary confinement for over three years, tortured, sleep deprived, sensory deprivation, and injected with psychotropic substances. Padilla was broken physically and mentally and then sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Manning and Snowden could face a similarly horrific fate.

I don't know whether Private Manning passed on his complaints about war crimes and other violations of the law through official channels, as is normal for soldiers. Of course, he would not have gotten any further - just look at the crimes that were committed in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Breaking out of the command structure ensured Manning faced serious charges. Unleashing a sea of ​​details about United States foreign policy was bound to result in severe punishment.

As far as we know, Manning's revelations did no harm to America, they only exposed Washington by making it look rowdy, double-faced and extremely cynical. Bureaucrats hate embarrassment much more than espionage.

Snowden responded to Barack Obama's campaign call for whistleblowers to expose waste and rights violations. America’s intelligence services have clearly exceeded their limits and are likely to violate the law. A majority of Americans disbelieve the claim that they were spied on to protect the country from hazy terrorist threats.

Snowden and Manning are, in my view, patriotic Americans who warn their country that the ruling elite, obsessed with power and out for global domination, have strayed from the right course and are in violation of the United States Constitution. If perhaps imprudent, they acted with courage and honor.

Original item ARE WE BECOMING WHAT WE ONCE HATED?

Source: antikrieg.com


Table of contents

Multipolarity and large-scale planning

The USA, which at the beginning of the 21st century was still considered the victor of the Cold War and the only remaining superpower, will now in all probability lose its status as the sole world power and will have to share power with other global forces. The successive geopolitical paradigm shift? from the multipolarity of the first half of the 20th century to the bipolarity of the Cold War and on to the world hegemonial unipolarity after 1990? have the world of states radically changed and the coexistence of various actors such as states, large areas, empires (the still capable US empire or the Chinese empire, which is still in statu nascendi), is made possible again.In contrast to a unipolar system, which is characterized by the hegemonic or imperial supremacy of a state or association of states, in a global multipolar system there are several politically equal or equal centers. Today's world order is multipolar again? it consists of several poles of power that are not equally strong militarily and economically or are superior to the American military-industrial complex, but from the point of view of the USA fragment the unipolar order and destabilize the “American century”. Because geopolitical power shifts in history have always been accompanied by conflicts and have constantly led to the emergence of new friend-foe constellations, today's proxy wars or the “war on terror” appear as “militarily supported geopolitics” (W. Ruf, Der Greater Middle East, in: R. Tuschl, The New World Order in the Crisis, 2008: 23).

The current order is not only a multipolar, but also a large-scale, organized world order that is gradually taking the form of a global system of large-scale orders. Despite the transnationalization or globalization of international law, the secularization and modernization, the economicization, denationalization and depoliticization of a considerable part of the world, and contrary to the efforts of the USA, this trend seems to be irreversible. It seems that the metropolitan revolution that can be observed in Eurasia is not being driven by universalistic, western-secular values, but by particular social ethics or geostrategies and neo-orthodox creeds that are rooted in various political-religious / -theological complexes. For the secular Euro-Atlantic elite, this means not only tough competition, but also the end of their dream of democratizing the world in their own image.

Given these realities, the new century does not seem to be an era of universal values, a concert of democracies, but an era full of tension and confrontation. In addition to China and the Southeast Asian metropolitan area, India and the South Asian metropolitan area, Russia and the Northern Eurasian metropolitan area and the greater European area (EU), there is also a greater culturally-religiously than geographically or economically-politically defined area. Several inner-Islamic forces compete in this space, openly fighting each other and thus indirectly helping America's only superpower, America, to fulfill its imperial agenda.


Table of contents

Between the puritanical jihadist world revolution and
Pan-Arab nationalistic greater spatial order

The current worldwide return of religions and the rebirth of political-religious thought are not only reactions to secularization, modernization, globalization and the associated loss of identity, but also a supra-historical continuity. As the example of the Islamic world shows, the various denominational currents have outlasted the successive waves of secular ideologies of western style. These world-immanent universalistic forces could not assert themselves (in pure form) against the history-transcending Islamic "folk spirit" and were exposed to a rapid process of degeneration. Original forces that belong to the most intimate structure in history, such as parish, religious or regional forms of social organization, are considered to be signs of supra-historical continuity (A. Al-Azmeh, Die Islamisierung des Islam, 1996: 35).

Today more and more Arab and non-Arab Muslims regard Islam as the only antidote to the decline of the umma and as a weapon against its internal, non-fundamentalist, mostly state or external, anti-Islamic enemies. Medieval-looking terms such as jihad, mudchahid, chilaafa, shahid, murtad, kuffar, sharia etc. are an indispensable part of today's everyday language of young Muslims.

We are now experiencing an Islamic world revolution that has developed into a global jihad under the pressure and at the same time with the help of the western, predominantly American military-industrial complex. As the example of Syria today shows, the Muslim world is polarized. It moves between different, sometimes contradicting notions of order, ranging from a puritanical-Wahhabi caliphate to the classical national-Arab state and further to the western-oriented secular state and a Christian-Islamic, in the "sacred Eurasian empire" (A. Höllwerth, Das sacred Eurasian empire of Aleksander Dugin, 2007) incorporated greater spatial order. The Sharia, the only legal system in Islam that is recognized by puritanical conservative forces, plays a decisive role in the new or, depending on the circumstances, disorder in the Islamic world, which is driven by internal and external factors.

Table of contents

Islamic legal theology

The “re-Islamization” of the Islamic countries, which has increased since the 1970s, was not only a political-religious problem, but also a legal-political and legal-theological problem. The attempt to adopt Western political systems was accompanied in Islam by an attempt to adopt Western legal conceptions and legal systems. Both attempts failed because the pro-Western forces did not take their own Islamic tradition and mentality into account. After the end of colonialism, the western ideologies were described as un-Islamic by the majority of Muslims. Even today, according to leading Islamists, the ideas of democracy and human rights represent an “evil ideology”, a “new secular religion” that is now being propagated by neo-colonialism under the US leadership (A. Al-Azmeh, Die Islamisierung of Islam, 1996: 171).

An important internal Islamic point of contention is the Sharia. The primary sources of this legal system are the Koran revealed to the Prophet Muhammad and the Sunna, the sum of the legally binding utterances, actions and affirmations of Muhammad. The law of the ancient Islamic community was unsystematic and heterogeneous. There was no Sharia in the later sense and therefore no coherent Islamic legal system. In addition to general Koranic guidelines and, in some cases, specific ad hoc regulations, there were also pre-Islamic rules for living together. Gradually, the notion has established that a legal system should not be based on legal norms and decisions derived from pre-Islamic traditions and pragmatic considerations, but that it should be based exclusively on the religion of Islam.

Thus the Koran and the Sunna became criteria for the creation of law. A short time later, the conclusion by analogy and the consensus prudentium were accepted as secondary sources of law, but these are only used in certain cases that are not dealt with in the Koran and the Sunna, and they can only be used in the spirit of the Koran and the Sunna) (A. Noth, The Sharia, the religious law of Islam, in: W. Fikentscher / H. Franke / O. Köhler, Origin and Change of Legal Traditions, 1980: 416ff.).

The various schools of Islamic law emerged later for at least two reasons. First, Islam was confronted with alien forms of life as it spread to other peoples and countries. Since a true Muslim first of all not only has to verbally testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger, but should also live in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna, Islam has tried to find an answer to the various traditions and forms of society and to find legal systems of the newly Islamized peoples. Second, Sharia was not the creation of a legislative Islamic ruling class; The foundation, development and preservation of the Sharia law lay in the hands of private individuals who, in the absence of a high authority to give instructions, represented different legal views, despite fundamental agreement. Out of practical necessity and because of differences of opinion, various Islamic schools of law emerged, which, unlike in the secular West, were not abstract legal systems, but life forms based on concrete, socially anchored practices. Thus, Islam was structured like a "religion of law". For this reason another, non-juridical current emerged, namely Islamic mysticism. The mystics never moved completely outside the Sharia, but they took the view that the external legal form of religion and social life is not enough to bring people closer to God. One also needs an inward and intimate rapprochement which, together with a reflection on Koranic piety and Islamic legal theology, lay the foundations of Islamic mysticism. (A. Falaturi, The Sharia? The Islamic Legal System, in: Bavarian State Center for Political Education, Weltmacht Islam, 1988: 97f.)


Table of contents

Sunnis vs. Shiites

The discrepancies between “mystics” or moderate Muslims and “legalists” and the differences between different schools of law can still be felt today. Two Islamic law schools in particular are important for today's upheavals in Islam, and especially in Syria. The first, the Hanbalite school named after Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855), was a Sunni, conservative-dogmatic reaction to rationalist tendencies in Islamic society. For Hanbalites only the traditions of the Prophet and the first companions of the Prophet apply and no other legal means (later, however, the “correct conclusion by analogy” was also used). Approval of the past and the idealization of the ancient Islamic community play a major role; moral, private judgment has much more weight than theological and legal controversies and problem solving. The Hanbalites strive for the continuation of the effort (idschtihad), all laws from the Koran, the Sunna and the consensus of the first generations? of the venerable, righteous ancestors (salaf as salih)? to be derived and, if necessary, to be reinterpreted (of course only in the spirit of the Koran and the Sunna).

This dogmatic-conservative school of law later gave rise to pietistic currents such as the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamic revolutionaries. A radical trend is Wahhabism, which is based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) and calls for a return to the pure Islam of the primitive community of the 7th century, in which Allah's sole rule was decisive. According to Wahhabi teaching, Muslims are not allowed to worship the prophet or pray in front of the shrine of the saints, nor are they allowed to cultivate the holy graves. Strict adherence to Sharia law applies and all non-Sunni (e.g. Shiites, Sufis, Alawites) and moderate Sunni Muslims are to be treated as heretics and apostates. The teaching of this sect is state doctrine in Saudi Arabia and at the same time a guide for millions of Muslims worldwide who, under the name of "Salafists", play a controversial but important role in today's disputes in Islam and especially in the Great Middle East.

The second school of law that is important for today's Islam is that of Shia, the school of Muslims who follow the imams who come from the Prophet's family. Unlike the Sunnis, the followers of Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, believe that he was the rightful successor of the Prophet. In the Shiite imamate theory, the Koran and the Sunna are recognized as sources of law, but the consensus of scholars is replaced by the decision of the “infallible imam”. After his disappearance, the 12th Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Mahdi lives in secrecy and will appear before the end of the world. In place of the secondary sources of law, this school set up reason as a legal means. In addition, several foreign ideas, including ancient Persian and Gnostic elements, have flowed into the Shiite movement. This has attracted the enmity of the Sunnis, especially the Wahhabis; the Sunni theologians describe the Shiites (as well as the Alawites, who are in power in Syria) as un-Islamic, unbelieving or pagan. However, the school plays an important role in Iran, where it provides the foundations of theocracy, in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, etc.


Table of contents

Political religion, sectarism, the effect of Sharia law: the case of Syria

Between these two major, conflicting currents of Islam, millions of Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Sufis, Christians, moderate Sunnis and members of other faiths have tried to create a peaceful coexistence. In Syria, for example, this was possible due to a quasi-secular political religion represented by the state and party, fixated on Christian-Islamic and multi-ethnic coexistence, but under the pressure of an autocratic, national and socialist state system that forbade any purely religious and ethnic party. Hafiz al-Assad? Baschar's father and president until 2000 ?, Syria has had an iron hand for almost 30 years

ruled and made a “bulwark of stability” from a chronically unstable country (N. Bensahel / D. Byman, The Future Security Environment in the Middle East, 2004: 177). The price for this, however, was great: repression, nepotism, power in the hands of the authoritarian Ba'ath Party and its allied small parties, the predominance of the Alawite minority over the Sunni majority, etc. In the course of the so-called "Arab Spring" it came to an end March 2011 to protests against the Assad government, which over the course of the months developed into a real war, but which looked more like a proxy than a civil war and later even became a quiet, externally controlled invasion of alien forces. The critics of the Assad government, who sought a peaceful transition to a free and democratic order, were relatively quickly ousted by armed domestic oppositionists and foreign, mostly Salafist jihadists. Although the anti-Assad opposition has a broad spectrum? including the Syrian National Council (SNC), the National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change (NCC), the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the Local Coordinating Committees (LCC), the Council for the Syrian Revolution, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Al Qaeda / Al -Nusra Front and "freelance fighters", Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, etc.? It is easy to see that the main (visible) actors in the opposition are the FSA fighters and the jihadists.

The post-colonial grouping of nation states in the Middle East region was interpreted as a “regional subsystem within the world order” (B. Tibi, War of Civilizations, 1995: 89). One can go further and describe this sub-system, whether in a pan-Arab or in a local-national or social-national form, as a rudimentary, but for a short time promising regional order that is well on the way to a stable, independent or in the sense of Carl Schmitt The dream of all pan-Arab, local-national and socialist militants of a strong non-denominational Arab unity in the greater Middle East has moved further due to the chaotic events in Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine and today Syria If you look at the current example of Syria, the population of this region finds itself between a political-religious defensive struggle, which is organized by predominantly non-fundamentalist national, partly also socialist or moderate Islamic forces, and a large-scale, legal-religious DSC hihad, which is militarily waged by various radical groups.

On the side of the supporters of the quasi-secular, national-etatist-oriented political religion, some of Syria's Eurasian allies, such as Russia, Iran, Hezbollah / Lebanon, China and forces from Iraq, fight directly or indirectly;

On the side of the anti-Assad opposition, alongside Syrian opposition members, there are Sharia-believing jihadists, "god warriors" from African, Arab, Caucasian, Western European countries and, more recently, from Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are mainly financed by Salafist-Wahhabi forces and driven into battle.
All of this with generous moral, political and logistical support from Euro-Atlantic actors who are trying to accelerate the Balkanization of the greater Islamic area regardless of losses. The opposition and sectarian violence and the state response to it have so far claimed more than 100,000 lives and turned Syria into a landscape of ruins.

Apart from the interests of foreign, non-Islamic powers in Syria and the Great Middle East, it must be mentioned at this point that the internal Islamic conflict could not have reached the current intensity without the Sharia dispute between the moderate and radical Muslims.But the effect of Sharia law in Islamic history has gone far beyond its practical application. First, like its representatives (private actors, not rulers), it has remained independent and not adapted to historical events; it has always been understood as the “code of ideal Islamic demands”. Second, the Sharia was also effective from a “quantitative” point of view, as evidenced by the extension of its competence to all areas of human activity. Thirdly, the “(re) activatability” of the Sharia can be named as a possible effect, which can be demanded regardless of time and place due to the ideal character of this law. (A. Noth, The Sharia, the religious law of Islam, in: W. Fikentscher / H. Franke / O. Köhler, Origin and Change of Legal Traditions, 1980: 432ff.) One can consequently implement the Sharia and thus also Make the legal religious demand of jihad a program of conservative-dogmatic movements, which has been observed at the latest since the Afghanistan war (2001) and the Iraq war (2003) and increasingly today in Syria.

As far as Syria is concerned, one can say that with the final seizure of power by the Alawite minority (1970), the conflict with the Sunnis, and above all with the Wahhabis, was preprogrammed. After 1970, this could refer to a medieval fatwa by the Sunni legal scholar Ibn Taymiyya? Founder of the “political theology of the Muslim civil war” (D. Diner, Political Theory of Civil War, in: J. Taubes, Theory of Religion and Political Theology 3, 1987: 238)? appointed. According to this, the Syrian Alawis deserve excommunicated as apostates, according to the Sharia, the death penalty. For Ibn Taymiyya they were "worse than Jews, Christians and Gentiles" because of their esoteric, Shiite-Sufi religion and the allegorical interpretation of Sharia. In addition, due to their collaboration with the Crusaders and the rejection of the first three caliphs, they were viewed as traitors.


Table of contents

Nation state or supranational caliphate?

In a Ramadan message from the central media office of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (the internationally active Sharia-believing “Party of Liberation”) it was announced on July 9th, 2013: “May Allah destroy the injustice of Assad and his ilk in this month of the month their place establish the caliphateso that the light of Islam may make the world shine again. Amin! ". This is not mere rhetoric, but an example of the current renaissance of the medieval idea of ​​the caliphate, which is being reactivated mainly by Puritan Sunnis. Today's conflicts in Islam not only have to do with faith, political-religious convictions or sectarism, but also with concrete political notions of order. Islamic history shows that the “we groups” in Islam do not derive their identity from the existence of a nation-state above them, but from ethnic (e.g. the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq) or sectarian (e.g. the Shiites) in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon) bind particularities.

The Islamist uprising is directed not only against the enemies and apostates of Islam, but also against the Arab nation-state as an institution that did not grow on Islamic soil, but was imported from abroad under the slogan “From the kingdom of God to the nation-state”. (B. Tibi, War of Civilizations 1995: 72ff., 83). Today's Islamic fundamentalists want to reverse this process, the slogan is now: "From the nation state to the caliphate". What is happening in Syria also has to do with the rejection of secular, moderate Islamic or un-Islamic ideologies as well as forms of government and life. For Sunni Pietists, the rise of the Alawites in the military and in politics represented "the highest possible negative increase in the sacredly rejected context of barbarism", an "amalgam of Arab nationalism, military rule and secularism", all of which were incorporated into an "apostatic ethnic minority rule" (D. Diner, Political Theory of Civil War, in: J. Taubes, Theory of Religion and Political Theology 3, 1987: 241). The idea of ​​the nation state or the pan-Arab greater area order is opposed today to the idea of ​​a supranational caliphate and a fundamentalist greater area order with a prohibition of intervention for Sharia-hostile or -ignorant powers.

Islamism is indeed constitutive of the state even without liberal, nationalist and socialist components, as Iran proves, but the pious Sharia believers reject the idea of ​​the state as a Western institution and understand the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate as a sacred duty. Based on the case of Syria, which could now be seen as a textbook example, can one recognize the three characteristics of Sunni fundamentalist jihadism, which are linked to the characteristics of globalization? Multiculturalism, transnationalization, de-territorialization? remember, and let the jihadist current appear as a worldview suitable for the 21st century: its “multicultural constitution”, its “transnational organization” and its “de-territorial community concept” (S. Huhnholz, Jihadistische Raumpraxis, 2010: 113).


Table of contents

War of Syria as a world order war

Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate from Northern Ireland (1976), as head of a peace delegation, visited Lebanon and Syria (May 1-11, 2013) at the invitation of the “Musalaha Reconciliation Movement”. Based on many authorized reports and her own investigations, she found that there is no conventional civil war in Syria, but a proxy war with serious violations of international law and humanitarian law. This war is being waged on behalf of foreign powers that lead to the

Achieving own goals train and finance around 50,000 foreign jihadist fighters: “These death squads are systematically destroying Syria's state infrastructure (electricity, oil, gas and water works, high-voltage pylons, hospitals, schools, public buildings, historical cultural sites and even religious buildings). In addition, the country is inundated with snipers, bombers, agitators and bandits. They operate with aggression and Sharia law and thus rob the Syrian people of their freedom and dignity. They torture and kill those who refuse to join them. They have strange religious beliefs that leave them with a clear conscience even when they commit the most cruel deeds, such as killing and torturing their opponents. It is well documented that many of these terrorists are constantly on a stimulant like Captagon. The general lack of security gives rise to the terrible phenomenon of kidnappings for a ransom or to generate political pressure. ”(M. Maguire,A proxy war is taking place in Syria on behalf of foreign powers, 2013,)

In fact, modern Western warfare against barbarism has so broken every boundary of civilization that the imagination of a normally thinking audience is simply overwhelmed.



She has also lost all reason. A Turkish MP makes public that ambulances are being used to supply the terrorists with weapons and ammunition!

Terrorists from the Al-Nusra FrontIranian television broadcaster Press TV reported that on Monday August 5, 2013, 450 civilian Kurds in northern Syria massacred 450 civilian Kurds in the north of Syria. It said 330 women and old people and 120 children were murdered in Tall Abyad County, Raqqa Province.

Note by dragaoNordestino

The Syrian war is truly not a classic civil war, but perhaps a decisive world order war for the future of Eurasia, in which powers and forces fight that have different geopolitical or geostrategic and economic interests and, in some cases, completely opposite religious and ideological convictions.


Table of contents

Geostrategic War


Islamist rebels / terrorists have flaunted the heads of their opponents on some Syrian city limits. They offered to give the headless bodies back to the families, but for a ransom of around 100,000 Syrian pounds.!

The war is being waged so radically that it can already be considered total war. The foreign jihadists are protected by some powerful states, giving them a high degree of irresponsibility that encourages them to conduct heinous atrocities against innocent civilians with impunity. As Mairead Maguire shows, even martial law is not respected, so many war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed. .

Why are Euro-Atlantic actors so interested in Syria?

As mentioned above, Syria is not a geostrategic actor that can change the geopolitical status quo fixed by the USA, but a geopolitical fulcrum, a state whose importance results from its geographical location. According to US General Wesley Clark, there was already a plan in November 2001 for a five-year campaign against seven Islamic countries: Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Syria (M. Chossudovsky, A "Humanitarian" War Against Syria ?, 2011,. The French ex-Foreign Minister Roland Duma also confirms the information that the war in Syria was long planned. There are at least four reasons that speak in favor of the war in Syria as a geostrategic war:

First, the geographical location: Syria is in the “hot” center of the Greater Middle East and has borders with Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Iraq and also access to the Mediterranean Sea. It is therefore the ideal place for geopolitical "chess movements" and geostrategic confrontations. Whoever controls Syria has a direct border with Israel. When control is exercised by an anti-Israel power, Israel's security is at risk. If, on the contrary, an Israeli-friendly power takes control of Syria, then part of the Israeli border is protected, Lebanon is isolated and the connection between Hezbollah and Iran is broken. If this power is also a Euro-Atlantic NATO member, then Syria, together with the NATO country Turkey and the non-NATO ally Jordan, will form a security belt around Israel (the only democratic country in the region in the western sense) and at the same time minimize the Russian-Chinese-Iranian presence in the region. Only the border with Egypt would continue to pose a threat, at least as long as there is no Israel-friendly power in Cairo.

Second, the anti-Israel attitude and the asymmetrical military potential: As a result of its geographical location and the clear anti-Israel orientation of its current government, Syria is considered dangerous. The 2003 US House of Representatives resolution on Syria's responsibility for restoring Lebanon's sovereignty (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1828/text) claims that Syria is passive or active is involved in acts of terrorism, provides a safe haven for several terrorist groups and provides support for terrorist organizations with the help of Iran (Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Headquarters) (Section 2: 1-5). It also mentions the constant rocket attacks Hezbollah, with the help of Syria and Iran, are carrying out on Israel (Section 2: 12, 14, 15) and the chemical, biological and ballistic weapons that could be used in an asymmetrical war against Israel, as well as the Russian-Syrian cooperation in the field of civil and presumably military nuclear technology (Section 2: 16-24). Last but not least, Syrian support for the anti-American rebels who are resisting in Iraq is emphasized. (Section 2: 30-34). Among other things, Syria should stop expanding its military arsenal and support anti-Israeli terrorist organizations and rebels who are killing US soldiers in Iraq (Section 5: (d) 1, 3, 4).

Third, the formation of dangerous alliances: Syria has very good relations with three powerful Eurasian actors? Russia, China, Iran? who have special geopolitical and geostrategic or economic interests in the region and are therefore interested in maintaining the current status quo in Syria. Russia has a base in northwest Syria, in Tartus, which has been converted into a permanent Russian naval base for nuclear-armed warships (temporarily vacated due to the fighting). The military-technological cooperation with the Assad regime turns Syria into Russia's bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East, where Russia and its Eurasian geostrategists / politicians, with the help of China and in consultation with Iran, are trying to act as a regulatory power. Russia is protecting Syria, and one could say that the Kremlin is determining diplomatic events at this moment and, together with Hezbollah and Iran, also the military struggle over Syria. Syria seems to be the real red line for these Eurasian powers. China supports the Syrian defensive struggle not only for ideological, economic or geostrategic reasons, but also for pragmatic domestic political reasons: China accuses the Muslim Uyghurs of terrorist connections to Syria, where they, as members of the East Turkestan Muslim Movement, are fighting on the side of the Sunni fundamentalists. These fighters, according to the official explanation, are a great threat to the integrity and security of the Chinese state. Only one sentence suffices here about the geostrategic importance of the Syrian-Iranian alliance: The route of the US army, NATO and the Israeli Zva haHagana to Iran leads through Syria.

Fourth, the US's Eurasian strategy: As mentioned above, the US is trying to destabilize strong Eurasian regional powers (individual actors or alliances) directly or indirectly so that they cannot become strong enough to undermine their superpower status.


Table of contents

Weltanschauung war

The Syrian war is also a worldview war, even if nothing about it has been heard in the Western press or in the foreign policy statements of the Euro-Atlantic governments. The strategists at USCENTCOM also believethat the reasons for Syria's domestic and foreign policy actions, unlike in the case of Iran, stem more from short-sighted calculations than from a deeply anchored ideology.

That does not correspond to the realitybut is an attempt to disguise the origins of the conflict, portray Assad as a power-hungry dictator and the pro-Syrian forces as fanatical supporters of state terrorism. It is clear that Assad is not a democrat. But the reality is a little different. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, pan-Arab nationalist efforts towards independence and self-determination intensified in Syria, as in other provinces of the defeated empire. Pan-Arabism, which among other things was a reaction to the Young Turkish Panturanism, is gaining more and more supporters. The development of political identities in this epoch took place in the field of tension between pan-Arab and territorially oriented, Syrian or Lebanese loyalties and Arab-Islamic currents, which, contrary to the opinion of today's Salafists, do not necessarily exclude each other in individual cases. For example, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem saw great similarities between the principles of Islam and those of National Socialism: affirmation of the struggle and community, the leadership principle and the notion of order, the high valuation of work. A. El-Husseini, speech to the 13th Voluntary Mountain Division of the Waffen SS “Handschar”, Young Forum 3, 2004: 46).

In 1920 the allied victorious powers of the First World War decided, with the approval of the League of Nations, to redivide the defeated Ottoman Empire. France received the mandate for Lebanon and Syria until 1943. After the Ottoman experience and under pressure from the French, the Syrian nationalists radicalized themselves and, in addition to pan-Arabism, also adopted fascist and Nazi elements.

National Socialism in particular offered a possible starting point in the search for a new, purely Syrian social order (G. Nordbruch, Nazism in Syria and Lebanon, 2009). As early as 1932, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) was founded under the sun wheel swastika flag. Its founder and leader, the Christian Orthodox journalist Antun Sa’ada, was a Germanophile and a supporter of the Third Reich. He understood the Syrian nation as a fertile mixture of civilized peoples such as Sumerians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Christian and Islamic Arabs. According to his nationalist-Pan-Syrian view, today's Syria, Lebanon, the Turkish province of Hatay, the areas of the former Palestine including Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait were united in one Greater Syria (Bilad al-Sham).

The principles of the SSNP are: First: Syria belongs to the Syrians; second: the Syrian question is a national question in its own right, which must be resolved independently of other national questions; third, the Syrian question is the question of the Syrian nation and the Syrian fatherland; fourth: the Syrian nation is the unity of the Syrian people that has developed since prehistory; fifth: the Syrian fatherland is the physical milieu in which the Syrian nation developed; sixth: the Syrian nation comprises a unified society; seventh: The national-social renaissance of Syria is exhausting its energies

the capabilities of the Syrian nation and its political and cultural history; eighth: The general interest of Syria takes precedence over any other interest.

In addition, there are some reform principles of Syrian social nationalism such as the separation of state and religion; all clergy are prohibited from interfering in national politics and national jurisprudence; all barriers between the various religions and their sects are to be lifted; the abolition of feudalism and a national organization of the economy are prescribed; this also includes building a strong army that can effectively participate in determining the fate of the nation and the fatherland. (B. Tibi, Vom Gottesreich zum Nationstaat, 1991: 184f.)

In 1947, Michel Aflaq, a Roman Catholic teacher who was also a Germanophile and an ardent Hitler supporter, founded a second pan-Arab party, the revolutionary-secular, nationalist, socialist and anti-Israel Baath Party. This party was founded by enthusiastic supporters in many Islamic countries: 1949: Palestine, 1951: Lebanon, 1952: Iraq, 1954: Jordan, 1956: Bahrain, 1958: South Yemen, 1964: Sudan, 2011: Tunisia.

Generations of Syrians and other Arabs have been raised in the spirit of these two related currents. In the spirit of the Pan-Syrian,

Social-nationalist, Baathist worldview, the current Syrian political elite was also educated, which has not given up the dream of Greater Syria even in the 21st century.

The alliances with other Arab, European or Asian forces and powers appear natural in this sense. The mixture between nationalism and socialism is a typical Eurasian current, which is still valid today as state doctrine in countries like Russia, China and Syria. The opponents of this worldview are on the one hand the Wahhabi-Salafist actors like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, who think more religiously than ideologically, on the other hand the USA (and some allies and vassals) and Israel, who know exactly after their experiences with the Third Reich how easily National Socialist solutions inspire whole peoples and how much political and military power accumulation these can lead.

Syria's allies also interpret this war as a worldview war. From a Russian-Eurasian perspective, Islam does not form a geopolitical unit. Russia's position on Islam is both religious and geopolitical and explains its party name for Syria. Aleksander Dugin, the Russian political philosopher of neo-Eurasism, explains Russia's pro-Syrian, pro-Shiite and pro-Shiite position as follows. On the one hand there is “Eurasian Islam” in Iran, Lebanon, etc., i.e. Shiite and socialist Islam, Sufism, Syrian Alawism, in general, mystical-traditionalist, contemplative, diverse and deep Islam. This Islam is the friend of Russia and Christian Orthodoxy. On the other hand, there is the Wahhabi-Salafist Islam in Saudi Arabia, the radical-Sunni Islam in Pakistan, etc., which, similar to Puritan Calvinism, are based on pure teaching. Puritan Islam rejects tranquility and multipolarity, according to Dugin, and imposes a monotonous, purely ritualistic, primitive practice on everyone. He was “Atlantist” and pro-American and thus an enemy of Russia (A. Höllwerth, Das sacral Eurasische Imperium des Aleksander Dugin, 2007: 491f.).


Table of contents

Religious war

Religion plays an important role in the Syrian war. Among other things, it is a religious war. As already shown, the causes of the enmity between the Puritan Sunnis and the other believers in Islam go back a long way and are a constant in Islamic history. In the case of Syria, this hostility was held in check for decades by the autocratic Baathist regime. What is happening today is a relatively new development. The jihadist network in Syria adopted and established militant Islamism as its ideology in two main phases:

A pre-revolutionary phase that began with the Iraq war in 2003 and was heavily influenced by Al Qaeda ideology and rhetoric. Syria has been an important passage for many foreign fighters infiltrated into Iraq. Later, with the help of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and the support of some neighboring countries, Lebanese jihadists took over responsibility for logistics and military work in Syria. The jihadist Zarqawi was that

Al-Qaeda governor in Iraq and Sunni zealot who justified his military operations and beheadings theologically (V. Trimondi / V. Trimondi, War of Religions, 2006: 442).

The revolutionary phase after the start of the unrest in 2011, in which the network of Salafist jihadists consists mainly of radical Sunnis who joined various groups that were founded after the beginning of the "revolution". This bloody phase is through Urban guerrilla tactics and terrorist techniques marked(PDF 0.392 MB).

The goal of religious zealots is to found a caliphate, ideally without the help of non-Islamic powers. Due to the open western support of the warriors in Libya or Syria, the caliphate supporters are trying to distance themselves from the West. In a statement by Hizb-ut-Tahrir on the resolution of the Arab League (November 9, 2011), they warned the warriors of God: “The assertion made by the West and its followers that change is only possible with Western help must not mislead you .