Gwynne Dyer: ISIS, Terror and Today’s Middle East – Don’t Panic

Gwynne Dyer is a Middle-East expert and long standing owner of the most ghoulish head shot in print media. Seriously, they can’t find a better picture? Guess not. Makes Rex Murphy look handsome.

Like practically everyone I’m a bit Jihaded out. It’s like reading a comic and no longer caring that Nick Fury is about to go back in time to kill Hitler. The invisible woman and the guy with super long arms, you had me, but this is too much! Osama Bin Ladin wanting the United States out of Saudi Arabia, fair enough, but the messiah riding in on a white horse to drive back the anti-christ, after defeating the Roman Empire? Really?

Or, as a dude (it has to be a dude) that maintains wrote about serial killer BTK wearing his victims underwear: “Normally, I try not to pass judgment on the people I write about, even killers. However, this is just too disgusting…I don’t understand it, and I hope I never do.”  Whatever the reason for shooting teens at an Ariana Grande concert, I take the approach that sometimes something is so odious that you know it’s sick and the particulars of why are irrelevant.

If I have to keep up on something so odious, I’d rather read a detached and contextualized account, as Dyer presents here. It isn’t sensational like your average CNN ISIS update on some poor hostage getting his head cut off or threat #1592 to slaughter the infidel.

Gwynne Dyer senses that there is a need for some perspective rather than daily insanity and Don’t Panic, a short history that traces the origins of ISIS from the Iraq War (II) up until 2015, provides this.  The central thesis is that the Islamists require a foreign intervention or hatred of Westerners to inspire Muslims to take up their cause. Whether it’s Russia in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq or Jews in Israel, he argues convincingly that the Jihadists want and need infidels to meddle so they can rally the population to their side.

I think there’s obvious truth in this argument and it is important not to take the Jihadist bait at every cast. Still, even if the West basically ignored them and stayed out of the Middle-East, the Jihadists will always manufacture some sort of grievance, legitimate or not, and attempt to kill and antagonize. After the first Iraqi war the Americans did not occupy Iraq for Dyer’s stated reasons and they defended Muslims in the Balkans. In return they got 9/11. So the question is how to slow down the Islamists without also inspiring more people to join their cause? The best argument I’ve seen is to allow secular thugs like Sadaam or Assad to suppress them. Not an admirable position, but as Obama learned in Syria, there’s no third option available. Maybe provide an air strike if things get real bad, but that’s about it.

Personally I think the battleground is one of ideas and I think the West has done a horrible job articulating the merits of liberalism. Liberalism is not about iphones and strippers, it is about freedom.  George Bush II attempted to make this argument and I think he was sincere, but the freedom he preached was hard to square with a massive invasion. Likewise Steve Bannon sees a war between Christianity and Islam, but there is nothing underpinning his side of the war, since the majority of the West is no longer even Christian. Trump himself isn’t Christian and he is a manifestation of everything rotten that liberalism allows: materialism, ego-centrism and vacancy of mind and purpose.  Suicidal post-modernism is also not useful as shooting teens at a pop concert or removing girls genitals isn’t alright and believing it is amounts to suicide.

This is where I think Dyer goes astray. His argument is that the Middle-East is a tiny portion of the Earth and insignificant to the West. We should just ignore it like you’d ignore a bee and it won’t bother you. Even if you get stung, best just to move on. Terror attacks aren’t car crashes or bee stings though, they are political acts.

If it is a war of ideas you need to offer up a strong counter-point and some of the ideas, for example, held by British Muslims, population 2.7 million, are horrific.  Terror attacks stemming from such ideas aren’t meaningless like a car crash, they are the outward manifestation of political beliefs. If these ideas gain sway there will be sectarian violence, as we see in the Middle-East and now frequently in France and Britain.  To call out these ideas, as citizens do, is derided as racist, but I’ve yet to see a Western politician articulate their side of the argument with conviction. Dyer doesn’t seem to see this as necessary either.  It shouldn’t then be shocking that, when this responsibility is abdicated, the worst manifestation of liberalism, who happens to be speaking truthfully on this issue, is elected.

George Orewell: Homage to Catalonia

I’ve known that Orewell fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Republicans, but my knowledge basically ended there. It was mostly a historical tidbit to me.  Homage to Catalonia, a recounting of his time in Spain, fills in the blanks, both for this period and as explanation for 1984 and Animal Farm.

A memoir of his time spent in Spain fighting on behalf of the Republicans in the Civil War, Orewell’s time is split between the front and behind the lines in civilian Republican Spain, mainly Barcelona.

Orewell rates his own time at the front as nothing but boredom and drudgery; at best he shoots fruitlessly at a fascist over no man’s land, more to ease his own boredom than with a hope of actually shooting a fascist. You’d think someone as insightful as Orewell would spend his time in deep thought, but he notes that “when I get mixed up in war or politics – I am conscious of nothing save physical discomfort and a deep desire for this damned nonsense to be over.”

The most interesting part of the war to Orewell and the reader is the internal strife on the Republican side, which was a hodge podge of different left-wing factions.

At the beginning when Orewell arrives Spain is viva la revolution! Women fight with men, all dress identically, military ranks are abolished. Comrade is the only available title. There was a “feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.”

This unity of purpose begins to splinter. After the Republican side loses a position Orewell notes that “it was the first talk I had heard of treachery or divided aims…hitherto, the rights and wrongs had seemed so beautifully simple…it set up in my mind my first vague doubts about this war.”  This reminded me of the Great Gatsby and the exact moment when infidelity is suspected, in horror, by an aggrieved spouse.

As the war progressed the Stalinist and conservative elements within the Republican side ultimately banned their own “comrades”, the anarchists and the far-left Trotskyists, which Orewell was a member of.  Upon returning to Barcelona from the front Orewell is visibly struck by the change as it becomes clear the bourgeoisie were mostly feigning revolution out of fear of the proletariat, not solidarity. As time ticked forward and they felt safer, the wealthy reasserted their status. The worker’s revolution was not a new beginning, just a fleeting jubilant moment in time, like a drunken escapade.

At the end of the book Orewell reflects on the propaganda used against the Republicans and to justify crushing the far-left. The reporting on the war, fed by the fascists, labels the Republicans as traitors, murderers, cowards and spies.  The Republicans then spread the same lies about the anarchists, calling them traitors, fascists, saboteurs and enemies of the people, arresting them en masse. These are men, some as young as 15, that Orewell has seen killed or horribly wounded fighting for the people.

Lie after lie is told retold, to the point where it becomes truth. A man fighting for the poor is called a fascist, a man wounded in battle a coward. It “gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”  A history of the war, given the volume of lies, would be “unreliable on every minor point.”  A basic sense of fairness is destroyed as as “practically the law was what the police chose to make it…it was no use hanging on to the English notion that you are safe so long as you keep the law.”

A world without truth, without reality, where up is down and left is right, supposing it fits ones agenda, is madness. The aim of mankind, since the earliest philosophers, has been to uncover truth. To say that it no longer exists or to divorce oneself from it is to deny the main benefit of being human. We see this in the United States, where inconvenient information is labelled “fake news” or a conspiracy.

The most disturbing part of Trump is that there is no pretense of truth. Watching the Republican convention the volume of lies being spouted was obvious. More sickening was to see these lies given credence as CNN attempted to provide “balance.” Trump stating that Obama bugged his home, with no evidence, is given equal weight to Obama stating he hasn’t. Those who know the truth, which ought to be the entirety of the Republican Congress, cast the truth aside in favour of propaganda and personal gain.

The US left is better, but not without fault. As Orewell notes “one feature of the Nazi conquest of France was the astonishing defections among the intelligentsia, including some of the left-wing political intelligentsia. The intelligentsia are the people who squeal loudest against Fascism.” Just yesterday in the wake of a shooting by a madman who was once part of Bernie Sanders campaign, the NY Times, as Glenn Greenwald noted, were quick to defame Sanders’ ideas and campaign (

As Orewell states, the lowest class of society is the only one that can’t be permanently bribed. To win the working class the standard of living has to be improved, something fascists and sometimes capitalists can’t do. Eventually the lower classes will (or should) see through the trick that has been played on them, no matter how ignorant.

In the context of the USA the Trump lies were meant to appeal to the lower classes, though without any realistic way of delivering. These people were too ignorant to understand this. The Clinton candidacy didn’t try to appeal to them in any meaningful way, so it isn’t shocking that she lost. The only candidate honestly trying to solve their problems, Sanders, was castigated by the establishment.

As Orewell notes, what the working class wants is a “fight to win a decent life they knew to be their birthright.” Whomever offers this most convincingly stands to reap a reward, but if it is an authentic attempt it will be opposed by elites that rule the parties, media and money. So it seems the only path to equality is through some sort of perverted double-cross intended to trick the disenfranchised and the rich simultaneously.

Thinking of my own province, the Liberal party, uncaring towards the poor for years, have tried to save their political hide by offering, only after more than ten years in office and the impending prospect of being voted out of power, a 30% increase in the minimum wage and subsidized electricity. It remains to be seen if this bribe will be accepted.

I didn’t mean to write so much on this, but Orwell packs a mountain of ideas into a small space. The other things that struck me were:

  • The homogeneous nature of journalists. Compare your average “personality” on TV or in print, nearly all of whom have similar views (or parrot party lines to a tee in faux disagreement), to an Orewell, later a journalist, who served in the police, taught at a school and fought in a war. Whether you agree with them or not some of the best journalists today are Glenn Greenwald (civil rights lawyer), George Monbiot (zoology) and Malcom Gladwell (barely graduated university). I also consider Mark Styen (disc jockey), though often deliberately disingenuous, a brilliant writer. Monbiot himself makes such an observation about broadcasters here:
  • The level of inequality in Spain was striking (the poor were almost completely illiterate), as was the absence of any concept of due process or rule of law. Recently on a Freakonomics podcast (Earth 2.0) on income inequality it was argued that this is in large part an explanation for the differences between North America, based on the British system, and South America, colonized by the Spaniards. The English tended to integrate workers into their systems of production and trade, whereas the Spanish sought solely to extract as much wealth as possible. I find this argument compelling as in the absence of basic fairness and opportunity, society devolves into warfare for control, as we saw in 1938 Spain and in much of modern Latin America. Aside from warfare the only other option is a depressed form of nihilistic fatalism.  Say what you want about the British, but if you have been aggrieved you at least have a chance for a mostly impartial hearing, governed by laws.  See:

Orewell demonstrates powerfully the need to pursue truth, freedom, fairness and equality. None will ever be realized, far from it, but it is far more advisable than not trying at all.