|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2001 : 05:47:28
|
A thought I had when I saw one of ObL's recent speeches in which he attacked the UN and Russia. That to me seems remarkable because he seems willing to make all of the non-Muslim world into enemies. Yes, he claims that it's Muslims vs. infidels.
However, the Axis nations in the 1930's and 1940's were much better at building coalitions; the Nazis perverted their own ideology and declared the Japanese to be honorary Nordics. And when Hitler wanted some peace on his eastern front, he assured Stalin that the Anti-Comintern Pact was given that name to scare the London bankers.
So who could militant Muslim fundamentalists want to build coalitions with? Neo-Nazi and like-minded groups, for starters, as some news reports indicate; this includes some US white supremacists who gloated over the Sept. 11 kamikaze hijackings. Such groups share militancy, common enemies (Western governments), and common villains (the Jews, of course).
A similar sort of partner might be Japanese right-wing ultranationalists, who like to harangue people from sound trucks about bringing back the Emperor, recognizing his divinity, and otherwise returning to Japan's supposed Good Old Days. But despite the nature of the Sept. 11 attacks and a possible desire to avenge Hiroshima and Nagasaki and WWII in general, they have little interest in operating outside Japan.
A big possibie new-Axis coalition partner is disgruntled Latin American nationalists; their hostility toward Yanqui gringo imperialism makes them natural coalition partners.
The two remaining orthodox Communist countries, Cuba and North Korea, might be good allies, but they are economic basket cases that don't have much "fight" left in them anymore, and they have been seeking good relations with their neighbors. They could contribute zealous troops, but not much else.
However, religion and ObL's Muslims-vs.-everybody-else rhetoric are likely obstacles; none of these possible coalition partners are Muslims or are likely to convert anytime soon. The leaders of Cuba and North Korea are Allahless Communists, and most of the others follow either some variety of Christianity or paganism (Asatru [some neo-Nazis], Shinto [Japanese]), to the extent that they care about religion.
After this possible "Axis", I now consider the possible "Allies". Following the WWII analogy, it must be noted that the "Allies" were only really united late in the war; they were disunited early in the war, and they split into two blocs toward the end of it. Here are the biggest Allies:
The US: "America First" isolationists did not like helping Britain, but went into hiding after Pearl Harbor.
Britain: The most steadfast of them all, despite Neville Chamberlain's infamous appeasement.
France: Split internally, with the far right selling out to the Nazis and forming the Vichy government.
The USSR: Grabbed part of eastern Europe and looked the other way while Germany conquered Poland and western Europe, and also bombarded Britain. Became an ally only when attacked, though it experienced much of the worst of the fighting. Toward the end of the war, it insisted on dominating eastern Europe, and the other Allies formed a bloc against it.
So what may we learn from this? The anti-ObL coalition, like the anti-Axis coalition, is partially held together by having a common enemy; several of its members have the flaws of several of the Allied partners:
Like the US with its America Firsters, some of the coalition partners may be less-than-eager in continuing with what looks like pointlessly bombing a very poor nation -- and they may be unwilling to carry the war to Iraq in the absence of some big provocation.
Like France with its Vichyites, several Arab nations have inadvertently encouraged Islamic extremists by making Islam the only "safe" route for dissent.
Like the USSR, some nations may have their own imperialist agendas, notably China with its wanting to control Tibet and Taiwan. India and Russia may possibly qualify here also.
|
|
Topic Locked
