5/1/20 William Van Wagenen on the Salafist Roots of the Syrian Uprising

by | May 2, 2020 | Interviews

Scott talks to William Van Wagenen about his recent Libertarian Institute article exploring the extremist roots of Syria’s civil war. Contrary to the popular narrative, according to which peaceful, secular, democratic protestors were met with violence by the Syrian government, Van Wagenen explains that Muslim Brotherhood activists were really inciting the protests and attacking Syrian security forces from the very beginning. Though the government has undoubtedly killed its own citizens, this was not a case of peaceful demonstrators being met with force, but one of force being met with force. Not to mention, of course, the fact that America’s support for “moderate rebels” has turned out to be, as usual, support for some of the most brutal and radical islamist militants.

Discussed on the show:

William Van Wagenen has a BA in German literature From Brigham Young University and an MA in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. You can read more of his writings at the Libertarian Institute. Follow him on Twitter @wvanwagenen.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Tom Woods’ Liberty ClassroomExpandDesigns.com/ScottListen and Think AudioTheBumperSticker.com; and LibertyStickers.com.

Donate to the show through PatreonPayPal, or Bitcoin: 1KGye7S3pk7XXJT6TzrbFephGDbdhYznTa.

The following is an automatically generated transcript.

Play

All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast fee.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
All right, you guys, introducing William Van Wagenen.
He is a regular writer for the Libertarian Institute, and he's got another one on Syria here, The Solifist Roots of the Syrian Uprising.
Welcome back to the show, William.
How you doing?
Hey, I'm doing well.
I appreciate you letting me on.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
Appreciate you joining us here today.
And listen, another masterpiece, and you've sure done, what, I don't know, eight or ten of these for the Institute so far, and they're just great, especially going back to the early history of the Syrian war there.
So here you're addressing the all-important question, I guess, of the origin of the war.
The common narrative is that peaceful protesters went outside to protest, and then the government shot them, and that radicalized them, and the protest movement turned into a war.
Is that about right?
Yeah.
So that's the standard narrative.
And in that, the thing that never gets mentioned is what was going on in the Solifist community in Syria at the time.
In that mainstream narrative, there were just the peaceful, democratic, secular protesters, and there's no mention made of the Solifist community, what Solifist activists were up to, what Muslim Brotherhood activists were up to.
And so if you just take a closer look, it turns out that the Solifist community was really active, and they were, in my view, and in the view of some of the Syrian scholars that I cite in the paper, it was Solifist activists that were driving the early protests to a large degree.
And then also there were Solifist militants who were attacking Syrian security forces and police from the beginning.
So they were really launching an insurrection, armed insurrection, from the beginning, rather than, say, there being, again, secular democratic protesters who were then violently suppressed by the government.
And then as a response to that, then suddenly people decided to take up arms, become militarized, and then suddenly, as if out of thin air, all became Solifists and jihadists and started creating all the armed groups that, you know, we see later on and that are acknowledged.
But actually all that stuff was going on from the very beginning.
All right.
So now let's rewind a little bit back.
I used to interview Eric Margulies and people like him, real experts on the Middle East back during Iraq War II.
And we would talk about how the neocons' crazy plan, as David Wormser put it in Coping with Crumbling States, is to expedite the chaotic collapse of the Baathist states, Iraq, and then in this case, he was referring to Syria, so that we could, you know, better determine how things should be in the future after we're done destroying what's there now.
And I distinctly remember talking with Eric Margulies about this and probably would have been 05 or 06 at the latest, and asking him, well, but so who's there to replace the Assad regime if they did get rid of it?
And I remember asking Patrick Cockburn and others this back then, and they all had the same answer, which is there is no organized political force in Baathist-controlled Syria that could possibly replace them other than possibly the Muslim Brotherhood.
They were the only people who really had an organization ready to go, and they were perceived as being Al-Qaeda-lite, essentially, Sunni Islamists, only in most places not as violent as the Bin Ladenites.
So then the argument, it was like a joke.
So you get the Muslim Brotherhood if you're lucky, but you might end up getting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
And then, of course, just a few years later, that's exactly what happened.
But so if you want, go back and talk about the rise and the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.
And then as my follow-up question to that is, what was the role of literal Al-Qaeda in Iraq at that point, at the start of the war in, say, the spring of 2011, or at what point did Zarqawi's group, then calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq, before they started going by al-Nusra in Syria, at what point did they come across and really start making their presence known?
Yeah, sure.
So again, that's something to keep in mind, that the Muslim Brotherhood had started an armed insurrection against the Syrian government, starting essentially in 1979, that lasted until 1982, that started with this famous massacre of Alawite army cadets in Aleppo in 1979, and that essentially ended with the battle in Hama in 1982.
And ever since that time, the Muslim Brotherhood has been repressed in Syria.
During that period, 1979 to 82, again, the Muslim Brotherhood started an armed insurrection, and it was important to know that, for example, one of their chief ideologues named Saeed Hawa was writing things at the time, citing Ibn Taymiyyah, the medieval Salafist scholar who advocated genocide against Alawites for being heretics.
Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Saeed Hawa in 79 to 82 were basically advocating killing Alawites for religious reasons and committing genocide and things like that.
So that's kind of the background.
And so when 2011 came around, you had a lot of these same, much of the same movement that was kind of ready to try to restart that war from 79 to 82.
They wanted to reignite or restart that war again in 2011.
And there were a lot of characters from the 70s and the 80s that reemerged.
One person, for example, was a noted jihadi named Abu Khalid al-Suri, who fought with the Muslim Brotherhood in the 80s and then ended up going to Afghanistan, fighting with al-Qaeda basically during the 80s there.
Everyone knows that story.
And then when the uprising in 2011 was about to get underway, this same person, Abu Khalid al-Suri, who was very famous, he helped establish the earliest armed group in Syria that fought once the uprising started, which is called Ahrar al-Sham.
And he received money from al-Qaeda, from Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan, and received a lot of support, it looks like, from Saudi intelligence and from Salafist networks in Saudi Arabia.
And so this is like March, April 2011 is when Ahrar al-Sham was getting started.
They were attacking Syrian security forces and police.
They were getting foreign fighters coming from Saudi Arabia to help them, getting weapons from Saudi Qatari intelligence, again, with the approval of the U.S., of the CIA.
So as far as the question goes, when did al-Qaeda become involved in the Syria war?
The usual answer is that the franchise, the Syrian franchise of al-Qaeda is Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, which was started when the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Baghdadi, sent the leader of Nusra, Ejolani, to Syria, supposedly in like August 2011.
And then the Nusra Front didn't actually announce their existence until January 2012, with some pretty big bombings in Damascus.
So everybody kind of assumes that, well, if the Nusra Front, the official al-Qaeda franchise, didn't announce its presence in the war until January 2012, that al-Qaeda must not have been part of the uprising or the war until that point.
And previous to that time, all the people fighting against the government must have been these secular, democratic revolutionaries.
And it wasn't until almost a year in that al-Qaeda really got involved, and so the insurgency went from secular and democratic in orientation, allegedly with the Free Syrian Army, and only over time did it transform into a jihadist insurgency, when al-Qaeda officially announced its involvement in January 2012.
But when you look at the formation of Ahrar al-Sham, again, their own fighters and commanders have acknowledged that they were forming armed groups in March and April and May in 2011.
And there are, of course, Syrian soldiers and security forces that were being killed during that period of time.
And again, it was a longtime jihadi, Abu Khalid al-Suri, who helped start the group and who was receiving money and funding from al-Qaeda.
So that essentially was like the original involvement of al-Qaeda was really the armed group Ahrar al-Sham.
But that just gets papered over, looked over, and people imagine that, again, al-Qaeda didn't get involved until January 2012, when Jabhat al-Nusra really started making its activities open.
Yeah.
Now, I'm sorry, I have this one from November, but I'm sure that there was another one from earlier in 2011 by Alistair Crook, former MI6 officer turned journalist.
Great guy, friend of the show.
And he was reporting in here that, well, Prince Bandar is sending off jihadis to go and fight in the war.
And from here, that's pretty much all you need to know.
We already know from just a couple of years before this that any Saudis fighting in Iraq War II were fighting on the side of the Sunni-based insurgency and probably as part of Zarqawi's group against the U.S. there.
And they're Shia allies in that war.
And so what more do you need to know at that point than, never mind that there are some Islamists involved in this thing, but Prince Bandar of Saudi intelligence is helping run the thing and get the whole deal going again.
It's going to look just like the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, only on the other side of the border here.
Right.
And a former Bush administration official, John Hanna, who was a national security advisor to Dick Cheney, if I remember correct, he wrote an article in Foreign Policy in April 2011, where he alluded to that, that there was a chance that Prince Bandar was going to fire up the old Sunni jihadi network and point it in the general direction of Iran.
And John Hanna in the article, he basically argued that, you know, hey, Bandar is going to do this and we need to make sure that when this happens, it's done in a way that aligns with U.S. foreign policy and that undermines the Syrian government specifically.
So even then, you know, there was the indication that, again, Saudi intelligence was going to get involved, or was already involved, that Prince Bandar was at the head of it, and that there would be, you know, a Salafist insurgency.
And again, that was already going on, but it just wasn't acknowledged in the press.
But John Hanna, again, in that article basically alluded to that.
And of course, years later, those admissions were made.
You know, John McCain famously said, thank God for Bandar.
And at the time, too, you know, the CIA, the Obama administration was asking Qatar to, Qatari's intelligence, to send weapons to al-Qaida affiliated fighters in Libya.
I know your listeners probably know this story, of course, about the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
So that was all going on at the same time in the spring of 2011.
You know, it was going on in both Libya and Syria.
But in both places, you know, the press tried to essentially obscure all of that, and go with the narrative that there were secular, peaceful protesters.
Clearly, there were many people like that, that were protesting.
But the Salafists were there from the beginning.
They were, you know, chanting these sectarian and even genocidal slogans at times, like Alawites to the grave, Christians to Beirut.
So the signs were all there.
But again, the narrative, as you know, just tried to obscure that and just make it seem like the Syrian government was just for no reason cracking down on peaceful protesters, even though actually they were responding to an armed Salafist insurgency for that entire time.
Which again, doesn't mean that the Syrian government didn't, you know, kill any protesters.
Most governments do that, sadly.
I mean, we saw that in Iraq in the recent protests over the last six months, lots of protesters getting killed.
So it's not to say that the Syrian government never killed anybody.
But definitely the narrative that was promoted was totally distorted.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from Amazon.com.
Well, that makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
So what you do, though, is click through from the link in the right hand margin at ScottHorton.org, and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at ScottHorton.org.
Hey, y'all, check it out.
The Libertarian Institute, that's me and my friends, have published three great books this year.
First is No Quarter, The Ravings of William Norman Gregg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone.
But this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is The Great Ron Paul, The Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years on all the wars, money, taxes, the police state, and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
Find them all at LibertarianInstitute.org slash books.
You need stickers for your band or your business?
Well Rick and the guys over at TheBumperSticker.com have got you covered.
Great work, great prices, sticky things with things printed on them.
Whatever you need, TheBumperSticker.com will get it done right for you.
TheBumperSticker.com.
Well, and I'm glad you brought up John McCain.
He famously crossed the border into Syria to go and meet with the Northern Storm Brigade.
And they were already known as being kidnappers of Lebanese Shia who were pilgrims on a religious trip.
And you know, you can check the dates.
It was, I'm almost certain it was in April of 2012 that he went over there when in March of 2012 the Northern Storm Brigade had talked to Time Magazine on video and had bragged that yeah, we fought in Iraq War II against the Americans, what of it?
And this was a month before McCain went and met with them.
And then it was after that that we found out that the Northern Storm Brigade were the ones who had kidnapped Stephen Sotloff and then sold him to ISIS for $25,000, or was it $20,000, who then cut his head off as one of the reasons that got the war started was the murder of Sotloff by John McCain's friends, well, by John McCain's friends' friends in the Islamic State.
Yeah, it's obviously pretty disturbing and infuriating, but that's kind of an indication of how it went, where when the Salafist insurgency started, again, all the early armed groups were Salafist, even those fighting under the moniker of the Free Syrian Army.
Not that there weren't any secular brigades, but they were just totally fringe and minor in influence.
All the biggest Free Syrian Army groups were Salafist militias.
Jaysh al-Islam, led by Zahra Nalouche, was one of the most notable examples of that.
Obviously, Ahrar al-Sham, which didn't fight under the Free Syrian Army moniker, but they were a Salafist group, and they were the first armed group to begin with.
But the Syrians that had fought in the past in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of these guys were still around, and they basically provided support to the newly formed Salafist militias that were getting a lot of money from the Gulf, and again, presumably from intelligence agencies.
Also the Future Movement in Lebanon was sending a lot of weapons, the political party led by Sa'ad Hariri.
So all these groups are popping up because all the money is just funneling in, created a lot of entrepreneurs, right?
If there's a ton of demand for armed groups because the money's flowing in, then lots of groups will be created.
But again, it was these veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, or sorry, in Iraq, that were there to provide training, logistics, and things like that to the newly formed groups.
And that was originally why the Nusra Front had its name.
Nusra means, in Arabic, it could mean victory, or it could mean support.
But in the case of Jabhat al-Nusra, it was meant as the support group for these Syrian armed groups on the ground.
And so that's why there was so much easy collaboration and cooperation between Jabhat al-Nusra when it formally announced itself and all of the other armed groups, because again, before Nusra announced its involvement in January 2012, I mean, there were still a lot of these jihadi veterans that had already been there providing training and support, bomb-making capabilities, teaching bomb-making skills and things like that to the newly formed, armed groups.
And that's, you know, I've got another article that, it's not going to be too long before I get it done, I think, that talks more about that and how, you know, the Free Syrian Army, for example, it's always assumed that the fighters for the Free Syrian Army were army defectors.
But there are lots of admissions by pro-opposition figures that suggest actually that's totally false.
It's just a myth that they were mostly defectors.
In fact, if Syrian soldiers tried to defect to the opposition groups, a lot of times they would be investigated for allegedly having blood on their hands, and they would probably be killed in a lot of cases, because again, the Salafist armed groups, including the Free Syrian Army groups, looked at them as, you know, Ba'athists, atheists, as their enemies.
So there really were hardly any defections from the army.
A lot of people deserted and left, but if they did desert, they didn't join the Free Syrian Army, because these were Salafist groups that were, again, getting help and support from these jihadi veterans.
Now, ISIS got the worst publicity because, again, the beheadings and, of course, their conquering of all of Western Iraq in 2014.
But when they split from Nusra, it was really Nusra staying loyal to al-Qaeda.
And Ayman al-Zawahiri, while ISIS was breaking off to go ahead and do their own thing, against Zawahiri's wishes and advice, going ahead and creating the caliphate now, which he warned won't work, because the Americans will just bomb it off the face of the earth.
That was why they were picking on the far enemy in the first place anyway.
But the al-Nusra front, which is now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, they're still blood oath loyal to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the butcher of New York City, correct?
Yeah.
But maybe the only place I would differ with you is that I don't think the split happened as a result of loyalty to one group or another.
If you want, we could talk about this maybe a little bit off the subject.
Just fighting over the oil in the east of the country there?
Yeah.
So Theo Padnos, he'd be an interesting guy for you to interview if you haven't already.
Maybe you did and I missed it, but he was kidnapped.
Who's that?
His name is Theo Padnos.
Okay.
No, I don't know.
He was a journalist.
I think he had a PhD in literature and he studied Arabic in Yemen.
And then when the Syria war started, I think sometime in 2012, he went to southern Turkey like a lot of people and wanted to become a journalist.
And he found some free Syrian army guys that would smuggle him into the country, give him an interview and he could start writing and pitching pieces to get published in the Western press.
It turns out the free Syrian army guys were basically Al-Qaeda guys and they kidnapped him, they handed him over to the Nusra Front, and then Theo Padnos was kidnapped for two straight years.
And he traveled with a lot of top Nusra commanders as their captive.
And he says that when there was a split between Nusra and ISI, between Jolani and Baghdadi, this was right as the Nusra Front was capturing the oil fields in Eastern Syria, the Al-Omari field, the fields that the United States is occupying now with Kurdish forces.
But Theo Padnos makes clear that the reason that Jolani and Baghdadi had a falling out and that Jolani didn't want to acknowledge being part of the Islamic State of Iraq and have the two organizations merge into ISIS, the reason Jolani wanted to keep Nusra separate was that Nusra had just barely, with the help of the free Syrian army, taken over all these oil fields.
And so that was just a massive amount of revenue that Jolani was going to get.
And if he merged officially with Baghdadi to become ISIS, basically he would lose all of that revenue and all that power and all that would go to Baghdadi.
So rather than there being some fight over who should we be loyal to or ideological differences or anything like this, it was really just a fight over oil revenues and oil fields.
Baghdadi lost initially, but later ISIS was able to take over those oil fields from Nusra and helped establish the caliphate in Eastern Syria.
But it was really just that struggle over oil.
But again, ever since ISIS emerged on the scene and they're murdering these hostages and doing all these terrible things on video, there was in the media this idea, hey, you can demonize ISIS, but then Nusra was treated as moderate and revolutionaries and blah, blah, blah.
Even though, I mean, they were the same, the same ideology, the same organization.
Maybe ISIS was a little bit crazier, but just because ISIS is 300% crazy doesn't mean the Nusra guys are moderate, you know, maybe means they're 200% crazy.
I'm sorry, we're all out of time and I got to run right now.
But this is such a great piece.
Thanks everybody.
Please go and look at this at the Libertarian Institute, LibertarianInstitute.org, the solifist roots of the Syrian uprising.
We only touched on about 5% of the thing here.
It's really great.
So please go and check it out.
That's William Van Wagenen.
Thank you again, sir.
Hey, you're welcome.
The Scott Horton Show, anti-war radio can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in LA, APSradio.com, www.kpfk90.7.com, www.scotthorton.org, and www.libertarianinstitute.org.

Listen to The Scott Horton Show