I agree with virtually all your points. They are the crux of the matter. But lets go a little deeper into each one.
The Shia's and the Sunni's are indeed split on religious doctrine. The split began with the line of succession to the Prophet. Shia's then as now believe that the leadership of the Muslim faith should have descended through the family line of Fatimah ( the Prophet's daughter) and her husband, Ali bin Abu Talib (also a cousin to the prophet) male heirs. This was done through 11 generations and the 12th is considered "hidden".
The Sunni's, on the other hand, believe it should have passed down to the most agreed upon leader or in the early years the Caliph. The mantel of Caliph, and who had it and who actually decided they deserved the title passed down all the way to the last leader of the Ottoman Empire. But it was always to be an elected position. It was who got to vote that created problems through the centuries.
A quick but notable point from Muslim history is that who and where the Shia and Sunni reside has been a major ebb and flow based upon leadership for centuries. For centuries Egypt was the center of Shia life while Persia (Iran) was not. Changes in leadership brought changes in religious followings.
And among both Shia and Sunni's there are major factions that have separate and distinct religious doctrines and teachings.
Today the major conflict is which of the groups has the political power and where. The French and British during their mandate periods used the same method of elevating the minority sect of the two to supreme leadership so they would be beholding to the French and the British for power. In Iraq it was the minority Sunni who ruled while in Syria it was the minority of Alawite's, an offshoot of Shia, of which the Assad family belong.
In the case of Iraq, the US government's policy for containment in Iraq was to basically take all the guns away from as many Sunni's as possible and arm as many of the Shia majority as possible so they could leave. The Shia, out of power, have unrestrained scores to settle.
One other major point to make in back round history. The current national anthem of Iraq is a Palestinian song. Each day Syrian children, before the strife, used to stand in class each morning and declare that "we are all Palestinians." And finally there are perhaps more Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan than in Palestinian territories.
In the case of Assad and Russia it is not really, deep down any love for Assad or his regime that keeps Russia in his corner. Nor is it weapons sales. It is the symbolic problem of a group of outside nations determining the legitimacy of the Syrian Leadership. Because of former incidents such as Chechnya and Kosovo and current "client" states of South Ossetia and Abkhaza in which Russia just cannot have such "regional or international" approval of legitimacy. Other nations such as Bahrain also have a huge majority Shia population while the ruling family is Sunni. In Saudi Arabia, a mostly Sunni nation, the area around their largest oil fields is mostly a Shia population. Thus Saudi nervousness about Iranian moves in the region.
But then again Putin has said dozens and dozens of times, in public forums, that the greatest catastrophic event in recent Russian history was the loss of Ukraine and other CIS nations from "Mother Russia."
Which brings me back to my concept. While the complete unification of a Greater Syria or Syriaq is the primary, and in my opinion, the best goal, variations upon the theme succeeding are better that many of the conflicts in the region currently.
(to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment