On August 21, 2013, the Tyrant of Damascus, Bashar Al-Assad, exterminated more than 1400 Muslim civilians with chemical weapons after failing to break their will. Such brutality immediately sparked words of condemnation from world powers, especially the West. America was initially very vocal in calling for a military strike then quickly backed away towards a political solution where the Assad regime would surrender the chemical weapons. Why now has America taken a strong stance against the Syrian regime? Why was it standing still when hundreds of thousands were being killed in the last two and a half years?

The lives of those hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children killed before the chemical weapons attacks are no less valuable than the ones killed with chemical weapons.

What has caused great urgency for the US and Europe is that currently the revolution forces have come closer to triumph and victory, while the Assad regime is on the verge of collapse. The sudden collapse of Assad would create an unfavorable situation to the US and Europe. General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, explains the US view of the Syrian massacres and the reason for US involvement: "Syria today is not about choosing between two sides... It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not" Dempsey leaves no doubt that the real concern of the US is not the plight of people, rather it is the interest of the USA, which Dempsey stated in his own words "a regime in complete alliance with the US and its agenda in the Middle East".

America's main concern is who should or should not lead Syria after the collapse of Assad's regime. In his speech on September 10, President Obama further clarified America's position when he stated "the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism." What Obama means is that America would bring together the Assad regime with representatives from the opposition, of America's choosing, guaranteeing a "resolution" that would keep the current regime with minor face changes. So what has caused Obama and Kerry to drastically switch their position from a military strike after hyping for weeks that it was the only solution? It is clear that the Muslims in Syria do not want just a change of faces; they want to completely replace the regime. By choosing the path of a political process, America has bided more time for the Assad regime. It also bought itself more time to garner support amongst the opposition with the purpose of creating a viable, "moderate" opposition.

The reality of war in Syria is not about the use of chemical weapons or conventional weapons. It is a revolution that was launched under the banners of Islam for the removal of the US installed regime of the Assad family, which has caused mass suffering, pain, destruction, imprisonment, and killing of tens of thousands of people over the course of 40 years. Any involvement by America, or the West, would only continue this suffering.

Muslims must not ask for America's help.  Nor should they seek protection from any non-Muslim nation. Allah (swt) has forbidden us from seeking such help:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَتُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا مُبِينًا

"O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case?" [TMQ Al-Nisa: 144]

It is further supported by the saying of our noble Prophet Rasul'Allah (saw):

«لَا تَسْتَضِيئُوا بِنَارِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ»

"Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists." [Baihaqi]

«فَإِنَّا لَا نَسْتَعِينُ بِمُشْرِكٍ»

"We do not seek help from the polytheist." [Ahmed and Abu Dawud]

The solution for Syria will not come from the East or the West.  The sufferings of people of Syria will not be resolved by democracy or capitalism.  The people of Sham will only get relief with the Islamic State. Only the Islamic State will give them honor and security.  Indeed, only Islam will resolve the problems in the Middle East and the world; only Islam will replace tyranny with justice.  Muslims should only work for the establishment of the Islamic State and support those who are working for its establishment in the Muslim World.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ

"O you who believe! answer (the call of) Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life." (TMQ Al-Anfal: 24)

A speech by the Media  Office of Hizb ut Tahrir Wilayah Syria Br. Nasser Sheikh Abdul Hai in Abyan mosque in the western countryside of Aleppo ...  An expression of the pains of the Ummah and the labors of the great Sham revolution.

Sunday, 09 Dhul Qi'ddah 1434 AH, corresponding to 15 September  2013 CE

Headlines:

• 11 Million Users Quit Facebook in the U.S and UK
• Veil Threat: UK Muslims Outraged by Possible Ban on Religious Dress in Public
• Syria crisis: Destroying Chemical Weapons 'Is Doable'
• America Still Hopes for Taliban Talks: US Envoy
• Butcher of Gujarat Modi Woos Muslims

Details:

11 Million Users Quit Facebook in the U.S and UK

Facebook users are quitting the social network in droves due to privacy concerns and fear of internet addiction, according to new research. Increasing numbers are taking part in what's been dubbed 'virtual identity suicide' and deleting their accounts.  Analysis of more than 600 people, by researchers from the University of Vienna, found that data protection issues and social pressure to add friends were also among the reasons for leaving. Others quoted shallow conversations, general dissatisfaction and loss of interest in the site. Compared to the sample of those who continued to use Facebook, the quitters were older, on average, and more likely to be male. Reasons for quitting Facebook were mainly privacy concerns (48.3 per cent), followed by a general dissatisfaction (13.5 per cent), negative aspects of online friends (12.6 per cent) and the feeling of getting addicted (6.0 per cent). Brenda Wiederhold, editor of the journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking which published the findings, said: 'Given high profile stories such as WikiLeaks and the recent NSA surveillance reports, individual citizens are becoming increasingly more wary of cyber-related privacy concerns. [Source: Mail Online]

Veil Threat: UK Muslims Outraged by Possible Ban on Religious Dress in Public

The Muslim community in the UK has been ‘disgusted' by the idea of a possible ban on Muslim girls and young women from wearing veils in public places. Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne says the government should consider the ban. "We should be very cautious about imposing religious conformity on a society which has always valued freedom of expression," a Liberal Democrat Minister told The Telegraph. "But there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married," Browne said.  "That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain," he added.  The chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a group that works with young Muslims in the UK, said he was "disgusted" by Browne's comments.  "This is another example of the double standards that are applied to Muslims in our country by some politicians," Mohammed Shafiq said.  "Whatever one's religion they should be free to practice it according to their own choices and any attempt by the government to ban Muslim women will be strongly resisted by the Muslim community." The debate comes after Birmingham Metropolitan College changed its rules last week in an unprecedented move. It previously banned Muslim students from wearing niqab - a veil that leaves only a slot for the eyes. An online petition against the ban was signed by 9,000 in 48 hours and forced the institution to drop the ban, which had been in place for eight years.  [Source: Russia Today]

Syria Crisis: Destroying Chemical Weapons 'Is Doable'

The chief UN weapons inspector says it will be difficult to find and destroy all of Syria's chemical weapons, but he believes it is achievable. Ake Sellstrom told the BBC much depended on whether Damascus and the opposition were willing to negotiate.  He said his team concluded after a visit to Syria that the nerve agent sarin was used in an attack in a Damascus area on 21 August. The UN Security Council is now trying to agree a resolution on the issue. Western nations blame government forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the deadly attack in the Ghouta area. Damascus - backed by Russia - says the opposition forces are to blame. Mr Sellstrom told the BBC's Newsday programme that dealing with Syria's chemical arsenal was "doable". "But of course, it will be a stressful work," he added. "Depending on the position of the Syrian government and the position of the opposition, depending on how much they could negotiate, it could be done. "It will be a difficult job." The report, however, did not apportion blame for the attack.  [Source: BBC]

America Still Hopes for Taliban Talks: US Envoy

A US envoy said Monday that Washington still hoped to talk directly with the Taliban to support an Afghan peace deal but that the militants seemed unwilling to do so. The Taliban opened an office in the Qatari capital Doha in June aimed at talking to the United States ahead of next year's withdrawal of most American troops, but diplomacy collapsed before it even began. "We would still like to see that dialogue initiated, a dialogue that would involve the US and Taliban directly but would also involve the Afghan government or its High Peace Council," said James Dobbins, the US special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan. "We're not giving up hope. We continue to hope that there will be a positive development at some point, but we can't predict when," Dobbins, who was expected to lead the US side at talks, told reporters in Washington. "The Taliban are now, as a practical matter, unwilling to engage with the United States, with the Afghans, with anybody," he said. The Taliban office in Doha styled itself as an embassy of a government-in-exile from the Islamists' 1996-2001 reign, angering Afghan President Hamid Karzai who briefly pulled out of separate talks with the United States on a post-2014 security agreement. In turn, the Taliban refused to talk to Karzai, calling him a US puppet, even though the United States had hoped for the Afghan government to play the main role in talks with the Taliban. Dobbins blamed a "genuine misunderstanding" over the role of the office. President Barack Obama has promised the war-weary US public to pull combat troops out of Afghanistan next year, ending the longest US war that was launched after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The United States has set a goal of concluding the security agreement with the Afghan government next month.[Source The News International]

Butcher of Gujarat Modi Woos Muslims

Four days after the BJP announced that Mr Modi will be its candidate for PM for the 2014 general elections, the Gujarat Chief Minister is doing the rounds of Ahmedabad collecting blessings and good wishes. The BJP has organised a recruitment drive with special emphasis on inducting 100,000 Muslim youth. In Mumbai, Muslims linked to the BJP's minority cell gathered at the historic Makhdoom Shah Baba mausoleum or Mahim Dargah to "pray for Mr Modi's long life."  In organised effort in Gujarat, a group of Muslims linked to the BJP celebrated the Chief Minister's birthday with a giant, 64 kg cake. Similar cake-cutting ceremonies were held in a few other cities. As Mr Modi makes a bid to be Prime Minister next year, he needs to win friends and influence people. In that effort, he is also attempting to turn a debate over his secular credentials on its head. He is accused by political rivals of being a divisive leader, but his party insists that Mr Modi enjoys support among minorities too. The Gujarat Chief Minister is accused of not doing enough to stop the communal riots that mangled his state in 2002, leaving hundreds of people, mostly Muslims, dead. [Source: NDTV]

Recently, there has been a lot of coverage about America's planned exit from Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take place sometime in 2014. Hence, it would be good to review whether America has changed its strategic vision for Afghanistan or is the withdrawal purely a tactical move. If it is the latter then what are the factors involved in pushing Washington to leave Afghanistan. This paper will intend to answer such questions.

Recap

So let's begin by recapping the importance of Afghanistan for America. If you recall in our Q&A dated on 20/10/2010, we mentioned that America's strategic goals behind the invasion of Afghanistan were:

1.  Prevent Russian and Chinese domination of Eurasia

2.  Prevent the emergence of the Khilafah "Caliphate" State

3.  Control the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian Sea and the Middle East

4.  Control the security and the transit of hydrocarbons from the Caspian Sea and the Middle East

This was based on the following evidences:

"Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia...almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy." [Zbigniew Brzezinski, "A Geostrategy for Eurasia", Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997]

"The US has had the ultimate aim of preventing the emergence of any major power in Eurasia. The paradox however is as follows - the goals of these interventions was never to achieve something - whatever the political rhetoric might have said - but to prevent something. The United States wanted to prevent stability in areas where another power might emerge. Its goal was not to stabilize but to destabilize, and this explains how the United States responded to the Islamic earthquake. It wanted to prevent a large, powerful Islamic state from emerging. Rhetoric aside the United States has no overriding interest in peace in Eurasia. The United States also has no interest in winning the war outright...the purpose of these conflicts is simply to block a power or destabilize the region, not to impose order." [George Friedman, "The next 100 years, a forecast for the 21st Century", 2009]

There is no dispute between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party over these goals. So there are no competing visions between Bush and Obama in foreign policy matters over this region of the world.

The difference between the two parties is related to operational strategy i.e. how to legitimise America's occupation of Afghanistan and retain some semblance of stability, so that she can pursue the aforementioned strategic goals. The operational strategy has been the constant source of dispute between Bush and Obama governments, as well as between officials within the Obama administration. Hence, the operational strategy has changed several times, but despite successive revisions under Obama, the strategy has settled on four key objectives. These are:

• Increase the capacity of the Afghan government to establish its writ over the country. This means building the Afghan security forces, police and army, appointing competent and loyal governors and minimizing corruption in the Afghan government.

• Destroy al-Qaida and those Jihadis amongst the Pushtun opposed to US occupation.

• Encourage moderate Taliban fighters to defect and join the central government.

• Enlist the help of NATO, Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, China and other states to participate with the US in solving Afghanistan's problem in a regional context- more of a multi-lateral approach to addressing the challenges posed by Afghanistan.

There is no question that America has struggled to achieve the forgoing operational strategic objectives, and therefore under Obama and his allies there is intense realisation that Afghanistan is no longer winnable i.e. it cannot be stabilized as set out by the objectives of the operational strategy.

Factors that have caused America to reconsider its position in Afghanistan

There are several factors that have contributed to this:

International factors

• In 2008, in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the global financial system came under extreme pressure and almost collapsed. This had a profound impact on the economies of America and Europe to finance wars and intervene in countries abroad.

• America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have exposed the strains in America's military. Simply put. America is facing "military over reach" and cannot maintain its current level of military commitments abroad. Washington is under intense pressure to reduce its military foot print to a manageable level.

• Since its intervention in Iraq in 2003, America is no longer the super power it used to be, and facing increasing pressure from other major powers like Russia, Britain and France in different parts of the world. In the Asian Pacific, America is increasingly worried about the emergence of China, which Washington fears if left unchecked Beijing will challenge its hegemony in the Asian Pacific region. Graham Fuller former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council in 2006 described the challenge faced by America from its adversaries. He said, "In the last few years, diverse countries have deployed a multiplicity of strategies and tactics designed to weaken, divert, alter, complicate, limit, delay or block the Bush agenda through death by a thousand cuts. That opposition acts out of diverse motives, and sometimes narrowly parochial interests, but its unifying theme usually unspoken is resistance to nearly anything that serves to buttress a unipolar world. ["Strategic Fatigue", National Interest, 2006]

The combination of these international factors have had a profound impact on America foriegn policy in two areas over the last year or so:

A.  America has spent circa $550 billion on the Afghan war since 2001. Furthermore, successive budgetary cuts in the military have rendered it difficult for America to fight wars on multiple fronts.  This has placed a huge toll on the defence budget. In January 2012, The New York Times in an article entitled "Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget" stated:

"In a shift of doctrine driven by fiscal reality and a deal last summer that kept the United States from defaulting on its debts, Mr. Panetta is expected to outline plans for carefully shrinking the military - and in so doing make it clear that the Pentagon will not maintain the ability to fight two sustained ground wars at once. Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to "spoil" a second adversary's ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone."

So America, which once boasted about its ability to fight two simultaneous wars, finally admitted that it could only fight one.

B.  Hence, America is now forced to prioritise on which wars it wants to fight. America is faced with multiple challenges and has to cope with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also prepare for war against China in the Asian Pacific, as well as the Middle East. Nonetheless, it is China's dramatic rise that is worrying American policy makers the most. In March 2012, the Congressional Research Service prepared a report for US Congress entitled "Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration's "Rebalancing" Toward Asia". In the report, it clearly states:

"Underlying the "pivot" is a conviction that the centre of gravity for U.S. foreign policy, national security, and economic interests is being realigned and shifting towards Asia, and that U.S. strategy and priorities need to be adjusted accordingly. For many observers, it is imperative that the United States give more emphasis to the Asia-Pacific. Indeed, for years, many countries in the region have encouraged the United States to step up its activity to provide a balance to China's rising influence."

The reduction of America's military footprint in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the repositioning of its military and naval forces in the Asian Pacific signals that America is treating with utmost importance, and if the need arises, Washington is prepared for military confrontation. This is known as Obama's Pivot to Asia strategy-re-balancing of US interests from Europe and the Middle East toward East Asia.

Regional factors

There are three regional factors that have complicated matters for America to forge a durable solution to the stability of Afghanistan.

• NATO led by Europe has resisted numerous American attempts to get more engaged in the occupation of Afghanistan. Ever since the commencement of NATO operation in Afghanistan under the guise of International Security Assistance Force in 2003, certain European countries have been reluctant to put their troops and assets in harms way. Belgium, Italy, France and Germany have all invoked specific caveats that allow them to place their troops in quieter areas of Afghanistan. Subsequent, NATO summits have failed to redress this issue, and America has found it difficult to carry on with the burden of the Afghan war considering its priorities have changed. In 2012 at Chicago, NATO countries finally accepted to draw the curtain on their Afghan misadventure. The statement at the summit read:

"After 10 years of war and with the global economy reeling, the nations of the West no longer want to pay, either in treasure or in lives, the costs of their efforts in a place that for centuries has resisted foreign attempts to tame it."

• America failed to get Pakistan to mobilise more troops to conduct military operations in the tribal area, especially North Waziristan. This is despite that fact that its agents Zardari and Kayani, and those in the political medium worked tirelessly on the behalf of their master to make the case for greater involvement.

• India acting under the tutelage of Britain also made it difficult for America to succeed in Afghanistan. It did this by refusing numerous American requests to reduce hostilities between the common borders of India and Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan was unable to redeploy troops to its Afghan border and assist America in its plan to subjugate the resistance.

Local factors

The open tussle between Obama and the military leadership over US troop numbers and the time required to implement the operational strategy, led to General McCrystal's dismissal and greatly served to undermine the morale of US and NATO troops. Furthermore, this further emboldened the Pushtun resistance.  US General James Conway, head of the US Marine Corps questioned the withdrawal date. He said:

"In some ways we think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance. We think that he may be saying to himself, in fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, we only have to hold out for so long,'" ... "I honestly think it will be a few years before conditions on the ground are such that turnover will be possible for us."  [US General: Afghan deadline 'giving enemy sustenance', BBC News Online, August 24 2010].

The manner, in which US troops conducted themselves, very quickly not only alienated the US from the Afghan population, but increased the ferocity of the resistance against the occupation. These measures included the desecration of the Quran, urinating on dead majhideen, indiscriminate killing of women and children, employing Tajiks to carry out raids in Pushtun areas, aiding corrupt officials etc.

Thus we say that the international, regional and local factors pushed America to abandon aspects of the operational strategy and move towards holding direct talks with elements of the Taleban to seek an honourable exit. However, this does not mean that America has abandoned its strategic vision for Eurasia-it has merely parked it, and Afghanistan in the future will serve as a launch pad.

However, Inshallah the establishment of the Caliphate will soon put an end to America's ambitions and make Afghanistan and all the Muslim lands a distant memory for it.

By Abid Mustafa