MILITIAS, THE UN AND THE MIDDLE EAST

• First, militias within Iraq.  Within Iraq, there are more gangs and militias than ever before.  Today, they are playing an increasingly decisive part of the picture in this troubled nation.  Because of this reality, James Glanz asks these questions:  “Which Sunni and Shiite militias, armed tribal groups and even criminal gangs need to be fought?  Which can be bargained with?  Which are potential allies as the United States seeks to break the increasingly chaotic cycles of attack, revenge and rivalry for turf and spoils?” 

What are some of these groups?  The largest Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr and called the Mahdi Army, has been one of the most influential.  (There are now rumors that this large militia is now splintering and these factions are operating on their own, carrying out their own kidnappings, executions and paramilitary operations.)  There are other Shiite militias, including the Iranian-trained Badr Organization and the Fadhila militia, both of which are powerful in the south.  There are also powerful Sunni militias attached to tribal leaders, ex-Baathists or al Qaeda cells.  In addition, there are Iraqi private security contractors, quasi-government militias originally assembled to guard oil pipelines and powerlines, criminal gangs and various neighborhood watch groups.  In a very real sense, the US is paying a dear price right now for making militias a part of the solution they envisioned for Iraq in 2003.  Many of these militias are now out of control, avenging each killing with more violence and bloodshed.  If the current Iraqi government cannot bring order out of this chaos, there is little hope for any kind of stability within Iraq.  Perhaps another dictator similar to Saddam will reign in all these factions with the sheer force of power and might.  Then we will wonder why we overthrew Saddam in the first place!!

• Second are the militias of Lebanon, especially Hezbollah.  Hezbollah is a militia formed in the 1980s when Israel occupied southern Lebanon.  Under the leadership of Sheik Nasrallah and with the success of its perceived recent war with Israel, Hezbollah wants a bigger share of the power within all of Lebanon, not simply the south.  Once a militia of thugs and tough guys, Hezbollah seeks respectability and political power.  It draws on both Syria and Iran for its powerbase and its money.  It symbolizes the growing “resistance” against US presence in the Middle East.  The most obvious sign of the renewed attraction of resistance to the US is the rejectionist front built around the alliance between Iran and Syria.  Originally formed in resistance to a common enemy—Iraq—the Syria-Iran alliance seeks to extend the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, undermine peace moves between Israel and the Palestinians, and make certain that the US is defeated in Iraq so that it will try no more new ventures in the Middle East.  This alliance also embraces smaller clients who share these goals, such as the main Islamist parties within Lebanon, Hamas and other Middle Eastern nations.  Further, the debacle in Iraq has given credence to the Iran-Syria propaganda line that the US seeks only to divide and rule the Muslim world, so as to control its oil and to impose Western culture on this part of the world.  The greatest danger for the US is that its actions in Iraq will push more moderate Muslim nations toward this resistance and rejectionist front.  With this goes the very strong possibility that Lebanon will come under the sway totally of Hezbollah or fall once again into a bloody civil war, principally between Hezbollah and the more pro-Western factions within the country.  None of this would be good news for Israel or for the US.  The presence of these various militias, aided by Syria and Iran, are a growing source of instability and violence within the Middle East.  In one sense, these are troubled times for the Middle East—far worse than when Israel was facing the organized nation states of Jordan, Egypt and Syria. 

• Finally, a closing thought about the United Nations.  On this program, several times I have questioned the legitimacy and value of the UN.  A poignant example has recently come to light—the UN Human Rights Commission.  Editorially, the New York Times writes, “When it comes to the world’s worst and most consistent human rights violators, like China, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar and Sudan, there has been a tendency to muffle words and conclusions and shift the focus from individual and political rights to broader economic and social questions.”  But when it comes to Israel, the Commission is vitriolic in its condemnation of Israel.  It is a classic case of a double standard and thoroughly unfair.  This Commission demonstrates the inadequacy of the UN and its irrelevancy to world affairs.  How can an intellectually honest body of international leaders not condemn the genocide of Darfur in the Sudan, not condemn the atrocities of North Korea, but then turn on Israel, the only functioning democracy within the Middle East, and speak of war crimes and harshly critical pronouncements against Israel?  No one with a straight face can find legitimacy in a Commission that does such things.  It is one of the most grossly unfair and arbitrary examples of the ineffectiveness of the UN.  Proverbial blinders are being worn by the world’s leaders and it seems impossible to do anything about it.  May God have mercy upon us!

See the New York Times editorial (21 November 2006) on the UN Human Rights Commission; The Economist (21 October 2006), pp. 25-26 and (11 November 2006), pp. 51-53; and James Glanz, New York Times (26 November 2006).