Things bud in the spring; fade in the fall and die in the winter. “Arab Spring” is a terminology that was used to describe a budding discontent in the Arab world a few years ago. Many areas of the world have had their “spring”-France had one that was highlighted by the French Revolution and changed France forever. Various parts of Africa had their “springs”. Parts of Central and South America had theirs. America even had its various “springs”. The difference between the “springs” of other parts of the world and America is the fact that social upheavals coming out of other parts of the world mirrored discontent with the government-usually kings and dictators. In these instances all the movement had to do was bring down the nations’ ruler and supplant him or her with a government more acceptable to the people. In America the “springs” came out of battles pitting people against people in social confrontations with the government looking on and choosing not to bring about the change that represents equal treatment of all its citizens. In this so-called Democracy it is (in essence) a battle against the races with the blacks of the nation in constant battles for equal justice under the law in all areas of the social environment. An Arab spring in America would require a revolt such as would threaten the very survival of the nation for America’s government to come to grips with its racist posture. There is a faction within the American fabric that has expressed the desire to reclaim America-reclaim it from whom? Those of the faction say they want to take America back-back from whom or back to where? The word “back” has a double meaning but I think the meaning they most want to embrace is the one suggesting taking America back to some place or time-not back from someone or group. The Caucasians of America still own a controlling interest in it and are yet exercising that control. This faction that wants to take America back is nostalgic about the time before we ever had or ever dreamed of ever having a black president. The election of America’s first black president has divided the nation more than the Civil War divided it. The notion of ever having a black president must have been the farthest thing from the minds of this faction. It caught them all by surprise. While they lament this change they just as deeply lament the times when an adult black man was a boy and an adult black woman was a girl and both had to obey them as do children. Every now and then a white police officer or some other in authority goes back there-their nostalgia gets the best of them and they tend to lose control
It’s not unusual for human reflection to take a nostalgic glance back in an effort to revisit past experiences-some of them coming from reading-others from living. History often brings to our recollection the splendors of Rome with its Roman Gladiators; the France of Napoleon when virtually every conflict was won-each time signaling France’s power; the greatness of Greece with its Parthenon; the pomp and ceremony of the Third Reich’s gatherings accompanied by goose-stepping soldiers filled with pride and self esteem because their leader had convinced them the Third Reich would last a thousand years. It didn’t even last a thousand days. Then there was the Ottoman Empire-the pride and joy of the Muslim community-founded around 1300 and reached its peak of greatness under Suleiman in the 16th century. Today’s young Muslim radicals are yearning for a return of such Muslim greatness. Since the time of these successive empires of Muslim greatness Muslims have been (by choice) scattered to the far corners of the globe to become citizens of their locale. Their present disenchantment with the position of world powers and their laws has led them to long for another time. The behavior of various, radical Muslim sects has caused the world to grow increasingly suspicious of the true Muslim agenda and wonder if it embraces religion at all. It has been made clear to all who will listen that the Muslim agenda is world domination. That happens to be a far-fetched, crack-pot idea but along the road towards this dream they have been and may continue (from time to time) to wreak havoc on the landscapes of the world. If their religion dictates terrorism and mass murder as the direction to nirvana, then the world is saying we don’t want them or their religion. Sure-we can say all Muslim sects aren’t created equal but the world seems to have no stomach to sift out the “wheat from the chaff” in an effort to determine with which one it can co-exist. From this perspective alone we should begin to look circumspectly on any group displaying a radical agenda that leaves death and destruction in its wake. The “springs” in various parts of the world that have been witnessed from time to time came about because of the “people’s discontent”. Kings and dictators were running rough-shod over the peoples of these various nations. A few examples of note look at France, Cuba and the Middle East.
France was being governed by an elite structure that afforded the upper class wealth and privileges while everyone else toiled and hardly got beyond bread for their table. France had worthwhile resources but lacked the ability to properly exploit them to its good. France did a poor job managing its farm resources as well as its exports. When it began experiencing financial shortfalls in various areas it made up the deficits on the backs of the people. The lack was most felt among the lower classes that eventually grew weary of bearing the burden for mismanagement by the aristocrats. These lower classes of people complained and toiled while their complaints virtually fell on deaf ears. This continued for years until an uprising began fermenting. The people had taken all they were willing to accept and began plans and actions to bring down a government that was unresponsive to their cries. Out of these cries and this “spring” came the French Revolution that changed the nation for the better. Does it always take a “spring” to bring about the necessary change-probably so.
“Springs” are people rebellions and they aren’t spontaneous. It’s usually years between the time the people start to complain and the time their disgruntlement reaches rebellious fervor. There is a reason for that pace of movement. One reason is the fact that rebellion against a system that’s big and powerful enough to crush you requires deep thinking and a sense of hopelessness. Normal human beings don’t get there overnight. By the time the Castro brothers (Fidel and Raul) embarked on their revolutionary journey they had seen much to their dislike. They didn’t just sit down one day and say “Let’s do a revolution”. Fidel was a level-headed person. He was a lawyer; not that all lawyers are level-headed. He had seen the abuse of power wielded by Cuba’s dictator. Batista seized power by military force and cancelled free elections. He was in bed with organized crime in addition to allowing American corporations to rape the land and exploit the people. He milked the country and the people until the peasant uprising led by Fidel Castro came about. When Fidel Castro came to power he wanted to provide for the betterment of the people. He wanted them to have an education and medical care among other things. He wanted the wealth to be decentralized from among a group of a few into the hands of the many. One of his goals was also to nationalize the corporations that had exploited the country. That act was one source of America’s anger and embargo. Cuba’s “spring” began and ended with the dictatorship being replaced by a socialist government that America still refuses to recognize as an acceptable form of government. No socialism in the eyes of America-socialism tends to spread the wealth. The wealthy deserves to keep all they have and the poor deserve only what they’ve got. I’m not sure the lower and middle classes will remain convinced that this is how it should be. America could have its “spring”.
The “springs” in the Arab world came on the heels of people’s disenchantment that was not so unlike those in other areas. Arab leaders and their families ran these various countries as if they had exclusive ownership and rights to all the wealth and resources and the people “be-damned”. The rulers and their family were rich-the people were virtually starved of their rightful share in the countries’ resources. These nations were rich in oil and other valuable natural resources and the rulers took most of the gain from these resources for themselves. They allowed big foreign interest to come in and build skyscrapers and other things that didn’t directly or indirectly benefit the people. The people grew weary of their leaders bowing to American interest while they saw little benefit. On the heels of this vast outflow of capital came a reduction in the previous outflow to the people. The people grew weary and they had their “spring” which was necessary to bring about change. Should a ruler need to die the sleep before he wakes up to the clamor of disenchantment? Moammar Khadaffi was killed and dragged through the streets of Libya. His money couldn’t save him from the disenchanted people-it was still in banks and other secret locations throughout the world. Poor man-the billionaire didn’t look so glamorous being dragged (half naked) through the streets of Libya over which he had ruled not too long before. “Springs” often bring about these outcomes.
Syria had its “spring” and is now in the season of its “fall”-fall of the government from power and an upheaval brought on by ISIS that depicts a nation that is fading-becoming unglued. A coalition of nations including America should have taken a position when Syria was in its “spring”-when Syrian rebels were fighting to overthrow a tyrannical government. Bashar al-Assad took over the Syrian government after his father died of a heart attack. He wasn’t slated to fill that role-his brother was to take over. Bashar went to school to be a doctor (ophthalmologist) completing his training in England. As fate would have it; his brother died in an auto accident and Bashar was summoned from England to come home and began undergoing grooming to be his father’s successor. His political musings suggested that he would be a different type of leader than his father was if he was ever at the head of government. His father presided over an iron-fisted, suppressive regime for three decades. The people had so long yearned for a change. When Bashar took over the people anticipated that suggested change. I’m sure America also anticipated a change with the son in control. With the father (Hafaz Bashar al-Assad) America awaited a change from his iron-fisted governance. The change never came and Syria’s “spring” began to dawn. At the time of the “spring” America was war-weary and in the throes of winding down from various other military engagements. It had no stomach for another military confrontation in Syria. America was also reluctant to fight against what it thought was the best of two evils-Bashar al-Assad or the rebels supported by “who knows”. So America stayed on the sidelines. Other nations didn’t see it fitting to take sides in the Syrian conflict against the government of Assad either. In the meantime ISIS was gathering momentum; selectively killing those who weren’t squarely on the same page with them in religion (if they had any) and ideology. As this ISIS movement progressed Assad began to panic-seeing the possibility of ISIS forces taking over Syria-including his presidency. So Bashar began supporting the “devil” to save his own soul. As ISIS grew he must have come to realize he couldn’t save himself. However, he was the same tyrant America had given a free pass as the lesser of the known evils. Now we have two evils we must eradicate-Bashar al-Assad and ISIS. The decision that sidelined America and other nations when the Syrian conflict was raging may eventually prove to be a huge mistake. They should have fought the beast then and maybe they would not be required to take on ISIS now-along with the Assad Regime.
This new radicalized, crazy, murderous group of extremist-ISIS-that has recently entered the landscape seems something less than human. I wonder who they think they are and what makes them think they can continue carrying out such an agenda in the face of the world. They can’t be about any religious agenda. This group suggests they want to create a caliphate-the desire is ambitious-more ambitious than a dream can embrace. They say they want their state to be guided by Sharia Law-an Islamic legal system derived from the Koran and the life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad. Muhammad (in essence) wasn’t a thief, extortioner or lawbreaker. ISIS/ISIL is a group of ill-intended, modern-day pirates whose goal is to take the territory of other nations (by force) and suggest it will be used to set up its own state. No group today is powerful enough to do that. No nation today is powerful enough to do that. Two of the most powerful nations of modern-day warfare (Germany and Japan) couldn’t pull that off and they were highly trained, highly motivated and well equipped. The Japanese were also willing to die for the cause. ISIS is like a group of blood-thirsty criminals on steroids. When we kill them we need to autopsy all of them because they must be high on one of the world’s most powerful mind-altering drugs. The group seems to have no humanistic qualities or compassion. If the parent of a captive could so beg for the life of her son who did ISIS no harm and it still went forth with a cruel, sadistic public execution the group is representative of a species we haven’t witnessed for some time. I’m afraid that species doesn’t even belong to the human family. ISIS has hijacked a movement and turned it into a criminal enterprise through which it gets money in any way it can. ISIS would even exact ransom from its mama. Its “spring” has an ill-fated agenda. Yes-they must be stopped quickly and by whatever means required-boots on the ground; drones in the air; bombardment from the seas and oceans; specialized combat units; jungle warriors; desert fighters or whatever-whatever it takes. They have a strange group of wide-eyed believers following them. This group obviously must consist of individuals who long for a return to Muslim greatness and think ISIS is the beginning of that return. For some reason some think the leader of ISIS (Abu Bakr Al-Baghadi) to be the caliph. Who declared him so? Did anyone or is he self-appointed? There is a great deal of ideology in his ambitions and goals but ideology doesn’t win conflicts. Yes; his group will bring death and destruction to America or any place else if it gets the chance. America needs to quell racial conflict on its own soil and begin bracing itself for an enemy that doesn’t consist of young black men residing on these shores. There is an area of the world referred to as the “Levant”. Levant in several languages means “rising” or “place of rising”. This area is in the Eastern Mediterranean and consist of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and a part of Southern Turkey. Geographically it has always been noted that the sun rises in the East-that’s where it all began. Muslim ideology emphasizes this area. The Levant has been described as the crossroads of Western Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean and North East Africa and the Northwest of the Arabian Plate. “ISIS” letters stand for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. “ISIL” on the other hand stand for Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. They are supposedly gunning to set up shop in these areas to bring the Muslim population on a return path to their former greatness. It isn’t likely they’ll ever succeed. First of all tactics of hate don’t generate love. Secondly; they can never be powerful enough to defeat the other world powers that will be arrayed against them and third; when you begin stifling the salvation of Jesus Christ to be replaced with something that leaves Him out, He will defeat you. Let none of us fear; ISIS nor ISIL is in charge-God is.