Occam’s Razor in the Middle East

Here’s a big scoop: the political phenomenon known as Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion.

You heard me right — nothing at all. Islamic fundamentalism is a radical political movement that aims to topple governments and redistribute wealth, and if we want to understand the conflicts in the Middle East better we need to take a serious look at what really motivates believers in this cause. Hint: it’s not about virgins in the afterlife. It is about power, territory and money.

Radical political movements occur when the fault lines between the “haves” and “have-nots” in any society grow too vast, and when large segments of a population feel disenfranchised and abused by their leaders. Let’s take a look at some examples from history:

The French Revolution

In 1789, hungry mobs began rioting in Paris, spurred on by intellectuals and progressive politicians in their midst. The “enlightened” new government famously killed King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, but in fact their real target was the entire French upper class, which was garroted over the course of several bloody years. More than anything else, the French Revolution amounted to a violent attempt at redistribution of wealth, power and influence.

The Russian Revolution

In 1917, dissenting political parties representing masses of disgruntled Russian citizens finally completed their overthrow of the corrupt Tsarist government. Even more so than the French Revolution (which the Russian intellegentsia had always studied, admired and sought to emulate), the Russian Revolution quickly devolved into state-sponsored violence on a mass scale, as vast numbers of the previous “upper class” were killed or imprisoned. Economic theory and pro/anti-communist propaganda aside, the Russian Revolution amounted to a violent redistribution of wealth, power and influence.

The Iranian Revolution

In 1979, protests by groups of dissenting religious and secular Iranians reached such fervor that the Shah and his entourage fled the country to save their lives, eventually allowing the Ayatollah Khomeini to emerge as the new supreme leader. The ascent of Ayatollah Khomeini was the first major victory of a new phenomenon known as Islamic fundamentalism. A difficult societal transition followed, and the new Islamic government had to fight many internal battles with various population groups that felt disenfranchised by the new government, including the former upper class. Like the other revolutions above. the Iranian Revolution amounted to a violent redistribution of wealth, power and influence.

I know there are many different ways to look at the kaleidoscopic horror show known as war. But we should always look for the simplest explanations, as a medieval philosopher named William of Occam taught us. His formulation, known as Occam’s Razor, states that the simplest answer to any question is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation for the current strife all over the Middle East is that the populations of various Arab countries wish to overthrow their own governments.

A close look at Osama bin Laden’s career as a terrorist, for instance, shows that his primary enemy is actually not the United States of America and not Israel but rather the kingdom that rules the land of his birth, Saudi Arabia.

In Iraq, unbeknownst to the U. S. Department of Defense which figured this out only too late, Saddam Hussein’s long dictatorship was deeply grounded in Iraq’s historic “caste” system. Saddam is a Sunni, a representative of Iraq’s privileged minority class, and a powerful proportion of the Sunni population favored Saddam’s dictatorship because they feared the alternative: an uprising of the nation’s under-priviliged Shiite majority. This is the fault line George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld foolishly tripped over when they took down the guy at the top.

I find that the mathematics of current Middle East politics work out very easily if I use just two variables: greed and suffering. Conflicts happen either because people are greedy, or because people are suffering. Islamic fundamentalism is no different in kind from Bolshevik Marxism, or Robospierrian Jacobinism. I don’t see how anything would be much different in the Middle East if the populations were romantic panthiests, like the French radicals, or austere athiests, like the Russian insurgents, instead of Muslims. It’s not about Allah, despite all the hype we constantly hear by hysterical and shallow political analysts in the USA. Just apply Occam’s Razor, just look for the immediate causes, and a lot of bullshit falls away.

The next time somebody hits you with that familiar nonsense about “Muslims are devoted to taking over the whole planet and making us all wear burkas”, or “Jews will never share Jerusalem” or any of this other mythical crap, just look them in the eye and remind them that the simplest answers are the best ones. The wars in the Middle East are about power and wealth, and that’s all they’ve ever been about.

More on this in my next post!

7 Responses to “Occam’s Razor in the Middle East”

  1. anemone Says:

    yeah — war, fundamentalism, fanatism… they’re about survival and identity. about power and territory. about greed and suffering. about fear.
    they are about humans trying to feel safe by saving food, space, myths, by claiming a piece of earth, a hunting ground, an idea, a truth their own.

    religion and belief systems are merely used as vehicles to get there. they are tools. their deployment and use are symptoms of human factors.

  2. Bill Ectric Says:

    This makes a lot of sense. I’m going to link it to my blog.

    By the way, have you noticed the subtle message that the Bush administration has “leaked” out? Now suddenly (according to them), all the chaos is the Iraqi Prime Ministers fault.

  3. Алекса́ндр Says:

    It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.

  4. Jim Says:

    What does it mean to say that Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion? Islam is a religion. “Fundamentalism” is a term describing religious movements and sects, specifically, “A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.”

    If you mean that the terrorism in the Middle East has nothing to do with religion, I still disagree. To say that greed and hunger for power drive war does nothing to dispute the assertion that there are strong religious connections.

    I also find your axiomatic way of approaching things less than helpful (”Radical political movements occur when the fault lines between the “haves” and “have-nots” in any society grow too vast, and when large segments of a population feel disenfranchised and abused by their leaders.” — um, maybe? maybe not? This is not a self-evident truth.)

  5. brooklyn Says:

    Jim — well, “maybe? maybe not?” is where the world seems to be stuck. I think there’s too much at stake right now to let it rest at “maybe? maybe not?”. The point of this article is that I’m suggesting the world wise up — that we stop allowing dumb ethnic propaganda distract us from the most obvious and most important fact: war is a blight upon humanity.

  6. Stokely Says:

    I have to agree with much of this, both from the practical and theoretical aspects. And I applaud both the formulations and the principles. But let me add some things to Occam & Asher:

    1. By mutual assent, truth has always had to be fairly obvious, for us to acknowledge it.
    2. Was it Trotsky who said - there’s no such thing as a revolutionary with a full belly.
    3. Israelis and Palestinians have a sixty year history of working side by side, as long as there is an equitable economic system in place.
    4. Could someone trace the history of Bin Laden’s disfavor with the US? We created him in anti-Russian Afghanistan. But was his turn against us caused by our selling F-16’s, etc., to the Saud consortium/dictatorship? Was the Carlyle Group-Saud union, a contributing factor?
    5. And finally - the $billion a week we spend in Iraq - couldn’t that be used to fill everyone’s bellies and thus end revolution?

  7. Literary Monthly Says:

    Links to CherryOrchard and more at DailyKos.com. “The Pen is Mightier” by Calico Kid. Add comments to keep the discussion going.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image