WHAT HAS REALISM TO DO WITH REALITY?:

Ignorance May Be Bliss, but It Makes for Bad Policy: Analysis of the Iraq Study Group Report (Timothy R. Furnish, 12/18/06, History News Network)

Baker and Hamilton et al. suggest bringing Saudi Arabia into the diplomatic mix, which is probably a good idea; however, they muse that “the Saudis might be helpful in persuading the Syrians to cooperate” (p. 48). Well, while it’s true that both the Saudis and Syrians are Arabs (unlike, of course, the Iranians and Turks and, for that matter, Kurds), that is where the resemblance ends. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is ardently religious, styling its Wahhabi Sunni sect as the most piously Sunni state of all.

Syria, on the other hand, is officially secular—the government is run by the Ba`th Party (akin to Saddam Husayn’s ousted one in Iraq), a decidedly non-Muslim, Arab Socialist organization. However, unlike Saddam or the Saudis, the al-Assad family regime running Syria does so in the name, and with the support, of a quasi-Shi`i sect called the `Alawis or Nusayris which comprises probably less than 10% of the population. `Alawis have been considered heretics by Sunnis since the time of Ibn Taymiyah (d. 1328), who issued fatwas condemning them. 1 And since Ibn Taymiyah’s writings were a major influence on Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), the founder of the Wahhabi brand of Islam, one wonders just how the modern Wahhabi Saudi government would have any pull, or even desire to intervene, with the heretical `Alawi regime in Damascus? And one wonders if the ISG staffers really were ignorant of this rather important facet of Islamic history?

In fact, the Sa'uds should have been recruited long ago to help topple the Assads.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 18, 2006 8:30 AM