The significance of Zarqawi's death

[Pindar]

What significance do you see in Zarqawi's death?

[solypsist]

nothing beyond a press opportunity.

which is unfortunate, because this has got to stop. especially the AQ policy of going after Iraqi civilians.

but remember what we're dealing with here:

http://static.userland.com/images/prionboy/hydra.jpg

[Tribesman]

nothing beyond a press opportunity.

which is unfortunate.... because there was a really important news item from Iraq that isn't getting as much coverage as it deserves .

[Pindar]

but remember what we're dealing with here:

http://static.userland.com/images/prionboy/hydra.jpg

That looks pretty nasty.

[Papewaio]

Popping pimples is satisfying but it is only a symptom.

[rory_20_uk]

Terrorist organisations are nothing if not Hydras. Unless they are insanely optimistic enough not to expect this type of thing there will already be a replacement doing his job. Unless enough deaths are caused to dislocate the command structure it will quickly heal.

~:smoking:

[littlelostboy]

Terrorist organisations are nothing if not Hydras. Unless they are insanely optimistic enough not to expect this type of thing there will already be a replacement doing his job. Unless enough deaths are caused to dislocate the command structure it will quickly heal.

~:smoking:

True, there will always be someone to take over the leadership vaccum. There's no point in this publicity, true, a leader has been taken down but then someone will take over and may be a more terrible one.

[Reverend Joe]

What significance do you see in Zarqawi's death?

It would have roughly the same significance as shooting Mikael Kalinin would have had: a symbol has been destroyed, but no worries, because everything will keep on rolling along just fine. (For the organisation in question, not necessarily for the rest of humanity.)

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm giving it about two weeks of down time for the terrorists before they regroup and we get more of the same.

The US should spend that time wisely.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't think it can hurt. Probably played up a little too much, though.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One less terrorist.

[Incongruous]

One Hundred new recriuts

[discovery1]

Well, since if my gov is to be believed then this was done with the help of someone inside the insurgency. Now if this mole has been caught then it won't matter much, unless those 17 safe houses hit were the majority of there in which case it will take many months to reorganize. But if he hasn't then he has the potential to do alot of damage, especially if he gets promoted. And even if we have pulled him out hopefully the effort to find him would shut down their offensive operations of at least a month.

Comments?

Edit:
I don't think I addressed the topic. The direct impacts will likely be a disruption of his organization for a few weeks, posssible much longer depending on how sucessful his sucessors are at filling his shoes. Maybe some other high ranking foreign fighters will also bail since they figure they are next and too valuable to waste, maybe.

[Xiahou]

It's certainly nothing to sneeze at. He was their leader, planner and moneyman- plus several of his top advisors died with him I understand. Given time they'll obviously recover and find a new figurehead. But, in the short-term this will have an impact and hopefully we can exploit it.

As mentioned, its also important if he was ratted out by someone on the inside. If people that close to him are starting to flip sides, it could be a good sign. Time will tell.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As others have noted, the main significance is the contacts that appear to be developing between the coalition forces and the insurgency. Remember, the insurgents are a very diverse group of people with quite different aims - it is a real mistake to think of them as a united 'al-quaeda' (as much as that organisation would like to be regarded that way).

If the coalition forces can talk with insurgent leaders, and encourage betrayals like this, progress can be made. Zarqawi was also a big influence in the attempt to divide Sunni from Shia, and the brutal attempts to drive a wedge between the communities may lessen.

As GC noted, the symbolism of the killing will not be lost on many insurgent leaders. Nonetheless, the militas are still strong, and the Iraqi government still corrupt and incompetent. The road ahead is yet long.

EDIT: The news this morning is reporting that significant intelligence has been found in the 'safe' house which has led to more arrests. This is likely to be real intelligence of major use, rather than nonsense gathered through torture or sycophants. Good work.

[KafirChobee]

When Father Ho died, the Nixon Administration said the war was at end, for it had lost its founder, and purpose. In this case, as in thats, just a small insignificant speed bump.

As someone stated, just another dead terrorist. And that is, that.

To those in the clouded moral beliefs of the Cube, that by a snake can be killed by running over one part of it? Well, sounds real familiar - like if we own the majority of property during the day, but the enemy does at night ... some how we are winning. As for "symbolism", well we been living with that since 09/11/01. Time to get over that and back to the realities history has taught us about guerilla warfare.

When the head, or in this case the man we determined to be the chief protaganist, dies ... no vaccume is created .... because, the cells are taught to act independantly of one another in defined areas.

The only possitive thing about this is that we took out some of his key members as well. That might be significant, except that an hour after the announcement in Iraq, there were like three bombings. So, what was accomplished is .... we killed a terrorist with a big name. A big name, because we made it so.

Symbolism has no place in actual warfare. In this case, it will probably bring in more recruits than less. It is the Che' Gueverra syndrom, those that didn't believe his rhetoric before his demise now realize his prophesies as being some kind of holy absolute - after all he is a mortor .. er, martor... er marter, er manwithoutadoor, er masterbator, er ... hero of the _________. Well, is just one of those words I never can get right. Understandably, because anyone ignorant enough to believe a cause exsists worth their life ... deserves to lose it. And, I do mean any cause.

This event is as meaningless as the 50 Iraqis that lost their lives today after the announcement of Z's death. It is, what it is ... the inability of man to reason with the differences of others that don't understand THEIR GOD. Or, their plan for a new and perfect world (realigious one that is).

The death is less significant then Lance Cpl Miguel Terrazas. Killing a terrorist is the mission ... killing them all ... is a cause. Or, because ...

All in all, a good day - a bad guy is dead. In the end? Meaningless, there are a million+ Z's out there and more growing by the day because of our politicacl selfinterested policy (share no wealth, greed is good, give to the wealthy, trickle down .. or piss on the poor, be all you can be as long as a rich boy don't have to waste a day in the military).

Still, it was a good day. One nut job gone, 10 million to go.

[Bartix]

:2thumbsup:
Hoping it will make them scared and disorganizing!
May be distrust each other?
It should not lessen motivation for terror, but hopeful it can reduce ability and effect.
Can be turning point...
Hoping!!:2thumbsup:

[Geoffrey S]

Depends. Personally, I'm glad he's dead. That said, it will be interesting to see how much of an actual effect his death will have. As a figurehead he was very useful to the Coalition to show that foreign terrorists were causing trouble in Iraq, not the Iraqis themselves. It does mainly depend on how much influence Zarqawi wielded amongst the homegrown resistence and how large a part al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists actually play in Iraq.

[spmetla]

It doesn't really have any tactical value. Another leader will fill his place. The best we can hope for is that his organization isn't as tight knit as we imagine it is. Infighting in his organization is a hope and if that happens hopefully some members will become disillusioned and leave.
The real value is presitge. Zarqawi openly defied the Americans, he made videos of himself and showed his face to the world to show his lack of fear and confidence in his safety. He is a hated terrorist by most Iraqis because he doesn't care about civilian causalites and has actually encouraged sectarian violence. But the US was able to deliver a violent justice upon him from without his even knowing about it. It showed his venerability and the internal dissent in his organization. Other terrorists groups will probably hole up for a few days and evaluate whether they can trust those around themselves and maybe even try a purge of ify people.
The violence will continue and a new leader will take his place but probably not with near the sense of security that Zarqawi imagined he had. I'm curious as to how long a new leader will emerge in his home movie.

[Fragony]

If it didn't have any significance it wouldn't be such a big deal.

[rory_20_uk]

Merely the fact that there are several groups does not mean that they are not individually well organised.
Yes, the total number of people involved is smaller, as is the backing of the groups, but the losses the Viet Kong suffered were vast compared to Iraq, as was American firepower.
Many of the insurgents have religion, and that properly used is the equal of political fervour.
Bieng the oppressor in modern times is more difficult than previously as with news coverage the potential for new converts is now global and not confined to a small area.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

This thread seems like a dupe (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65632).

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's certainly nothing to sneeze at. He was their leader, planner and moneyman- plus several of his top advisors died with him I understand. Given time they'll obviously recover and find a new figurehead. But, in the short-term this will have an impact and hopefully we can exploit it.

As mentioned, its also important if he was ratted out by someone on the inside. If people that close to him are starting to flip sides, it could be a good sign. Time will tell.


this is a fair statment. with all of the "nothing that happens is ever of significance" comments, it's amazing that things change at all through time. I say good job. we've created a slightly more favorable situation for us and can maybe gain some ground.

[Hurin_Rules]

A significant victory for American forces. Good for American morale; bad for the foreign Jihadis.

The overall effects on the war will, IMHO, be somewhat more limited. Zarqawi had created many enemies for himself amongst Iraqis, even sunnis, for his brutal tactics. His death reduces the influence of the foreign fighters, but does nothing to quell the baathists and sunni resistance; in fact, it may help unite the opposition (with a major irritant gone). The latter suppostion is, however, perhaps a bit too pessimistic.

A short term victory for the Americans, with some moderate long term benefits. Overall, a good day for Americans.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Symbolism has no place in actual warfare.

You make some interesting points, but I have to disagree with this. Symbolism is a very key part of morale - the sense that the coalition has 'scored one' against the bad guys will be very inspirational to the troops, and deflate some of the enemy.

Soldiers need to believe they are making progress - a symbolic killing of a figurehead means a surge in morale - I bet a few beers are being sunk in celebration.

Tomorrow, the nightmare may continue, but there will be newly steeled hearts. When we 'got' an important player in Northern Ireland, we knew it wouldn't solve the political issue as there would always be another, but we knew they were panicking and re-organising, and we were drinking beer. Eventually, the IRA ran out of decent operatives and the peace process could begin in earnest.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that they found more money in crime than politics, and of course America finding first hand what terrorism felt like also helped dry up funds for them.

I am sure that if there was the will, the means would be found.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I thought that they found more money in crime than politics, and of course America finding first hand what terrorism felt like also helped dry up funds for them.


Up to a point. The modern provos were always mainly crooks and thugs using sectarianism as an excuse, but there was a core of politically motivated terrorists. These got thinned out as time went on. It became apparent to the few leaders with acumen that they were never going to win by the bullet.

The IRA is actually still well funded despite the drying up of funds from the US. Not just from criminal activity, but from shrewd investments of thier ill-gotten gains. The US led throttling of terrorist financial affairs concentrated minds - even though the IRA weren't explicitly included in the original sequestrations.

[Tribesman]

Some good points there banquo , but initially the severing of the heads of the Hydra created a huge upsurge in support , support that went on relatively unabated for decades.
But this is a different situation , Zarwhatever wanted to be a "martyr" , now he is , to a nutcase the maryrdom can be a galvinising factor . so the question is really , how much influence did he have , both in Iraq and within Al-Qaida . The Sunnis despised the foriegn fighters after Fallujah , Al-Qaida despised his influence , hell he wasn't even in Al-Qaida until long after the invasion .
So will we see decades down the line loads of "really radical man" students with Al-Zarqawi T-shirts and posters ?
So fair play , the forces have eliminated one seriously sick bastard .
So what ? Is it a blow to Al-Qaida ? No he wasn't linked until a long time after so all they have done is sever a link that they themselves created .
Is it a blow to the insurgency ? Yes and no , the insurgency is diverse and at war with each other anyway , it has removed a rotten joist , but the whole floor is riddled with woodworm .
What would be significant news would be to get electricity working , get water flowing , get sewage treated , get people working , oh and get that oil pumping to pay for it all .
Until that happens this has as much significance as the killing of the Saddams sons . Remember that , a significant event that would change things.....not .:shrug:

[Hurin_Rules]

Looks like Iraqis are fearing Zarqawi's death will inspire more violence: they're imposing a curfew.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/iraq.main/index.html

[Banquo's Ghost]

What would be significant news would be to get electricity working , get water flowing , get sewage treated , get people working , oh and get that oil pumping to pay for it all .

:2thumbsup: Very well said.

[Kralizec]

What significance do you see in Zarqawi's death?

More a potential morale boost for coalition troops then anything else. The international media has overexaggerated his importance, probably due to Powells that used him to link Saddam to Bin Laden. He's not even an important symbol for the Iraqi insurgents, IMHO.

[Tribesman]

Very well said.
Hey , I have my moments occasionaly .
Now for some more significant news $2.4billion cut from the budget request to fund projects to.... get electricity working , get water flowing , get sewage treated , get people working , oh and get that oil pumping to pay for it all . .Oh well we shouldn't expect too much in the way of good headlines from Iraq should we :shrug:

[econ21]

Zarqawi seems to have been a kind of outrider for the insurgency - orchestrating or inspiring the most outrageous and destructive attacks (the beheadings and the destruction of the Shiite gold domed mosque etc). So maybe with him gone, things may get better. Sometimes individuals matter - for example, history would probably have been different if Lenin, Hitler, Stalin or Mao had died in childhood.

But I find it hard to believe that a foreigner could have been so important in the Iraqi insurgency. If the vast majority of the population despised him, as seems to be true, why did they not take him out? (Maybe they finally did? Reports say an Iraqi in his organisation betrayed his whereabouts.) The recent US Department of Defence report to the Senate says the biggest current problem in Iraq is the group insurgents they label "terrorists and foreign fighters" - they contrast them with two other groups insurgents they label "Sunni rejectionists" (said to be on the rise) and "ex-Baathists" (said to be no longer an identifiable faction, but merged with the others two). If so, it sounds like good news, but again I find it hard to believe and wonder if the report creates a phoney category (any Sunni or Baathist who plants a bomb gets labelled a terrorist and lumped together with the foreigners).

I suspect the insurgency is largely homegrown. If so having Zarqawi out of the picture may not change much. Ironically, Zarqawi was trying to make his movement more Iraqi based - he'd merged with seven Iraqi outfits and appointed some Iraqi as the leader of the new umbrella group. There was debate about whether the Iraqi leader was just a front, or even fictional. But with Zarqawi dead, maybe his posionous brand of insurgency will be more able to enter the Iraqi mainstream. :sweatdrop:

On balance, I think Zarqawi's death will make the insurgency a more solely Iraqi affair. As such, I can only hope his Iraqi replacements eventually realise that sooner or later they have to reach a modus vivendi with the Shiites. A foreign nutjob may want to stirr up civil war as part of his global jihad. But I can't really see many Sunnis thinking that such a war will benefit them - what with Iran willing to step in to back the other side when the Coalition pulls out.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But I can't really see many Sunnis thinking that such a war will benefit them - what with Iran willing to step in to back the other side when the Coalition pulls out.

I believe that many feel such a war will benefit them. Remember, the majority in Iraq is Shia, and naturally tends toward Iran. The Sunnis feel isolated - no longer the ruling faction, they fear what might come next. Destabilising the country is both a reaction against their dethronement and an attempt to deprive the Shias of an effective government.

Perversely, one or two of the Sunni insurgent leaders may have realised that destabilising the Shia-led government is the best way of keeping the coalition forces in the country, thus neutralising Iran's ambitions for the time being, since they can't act overtly while the coalition is in occupation.

Uncomfortable thought, isn't it?

[x-dANGEr]

I haven't read the whole topic, so excuse me :)

Answering the main question, I say it will bring more 'fighters' to their side.
Why? Al-Zarqawi had made more enemies than friends, to his 'fighting foundation', me being one of them. For instance, the She3a are terrorized from his operations (The media says he kills them, but the honesty of those news is really unseen for me, for war is media, and media is a lie. "In peace, people want to advertise. In war, people have to." So, the media isn't really the most reliable source of info in the war. Though, I do think that some of the 'West' media is even more reliable than the 'East' one.), and he also made a big enemy of all Jordanians with his sick operations here (I live in Jordan), and with his death, the operations against al She3a might stop, and with that more people joining in the foundation's ranks, and hate erased from people's minds.

Though, on other terms, and maybe off-topic, do you consider the Iraqis fighting the army terrorists? Is 'Terrorist' the new word to describe a person who defends his country? You might say "We freed their country, just look at the elections..", but isn't the main goal of this invasion to plant a 'loyal' government to US, and maybe gain loads of oil? Was this invasion justified? Now, I understand I will get replies like "If US withdraws, civil war will erupt", but really, I'm a muslim, and I know muslims, and believe me, a civil war between 2 muslim teams won't erupt without a person who tries to stir it up, as so goes the term, their is no smoke without fire..

P.S. With She3a, I mean the team other than Sunnis.

P.S.S. I have my total respect to both the US army, and those who fight for the 'freedom' of their country (Be that negotiable), but disrespect to both their leaderships for making them fight.

[Banquo's Ghost]

x-dANGEr, there is an old truism: One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Terrorism is a very complex phenomenon, and the more so because it is viewed through many different lenses. Sadly, it is a word now appropriated by politicians to manipulate the sheep unwilling to understand complexity.

To personalise the issue, my grandfather was under Michael Collins' command in my country's struggle to gain independence from the British. He committed acts of brutality in the name of freedom that today (and then) would be called appalling - if done by a Muslim. Collins practically invented modern urban terrorism, and he is a hero in our country (not to all, I should add).

Is what he did justified in light of the atrocities visited on my people by the British over 800 years? (My grandfather's great uncle starved to death in the Famine, for example, and I have a litany of ancestors executed by the British for rebellion).

I'm proud of my grandfather and his role, but deeply uncertain that I would have done the same thing. And I served in the British Army (which would have made him spin in his grave) and fought against the modern IRA.

I told you this stuff was complex. The insurgency in Iraq has many, many more strands than the Irish one. So the answer to your question is no: calling people there terrorists is to over-simplify and therefore to make mistakes.

[x-dANGEr]

Thank you.

[Brenus]

“ a civil war between 2 muslim teams won't erupt without a person who tries to stir it up,”:
I liked what you wrote but that is a little bit fetch.
It happened all the times, during the History. Kar’bala wasn’t against Christians. The fight for power happened in all civilisations and cultures. Have a look on how the issue of succession was resolved during the Ottoman Empire…:laugh4:

[x-dANGEr]

But it is told in Islam how to resolve them. All it takes is an Imam, and the 2 teams sitting near him. (Those revolts all happened with the support of the public as a whole, it is said that if the public elects 2 Khalifas, they both fight and one of them must be killed, to resolve such situations. And it happened repeatedly in the Islamic nation, and it always was for the good, till the last one, when France and the UK stabbed the arabs in the back and separated the Islamic nation into scattered countries (Scattered as oppose to united, not scattered as far away of each other).

[Brenus]

“the Islamic nation” doesn’t exist. It is a dream, the “Community of the Believers”. And Civil wars between Muslim existed even before France and UK “stabbed the Arabs in the Back” (do you mean that only Arabs are Muslims by the way?), even before France and UK exist. The battle of Kar’bala happened the 10th of October 680 between the Muhammad’s grandson Husayn ibn Ali and a military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph.
Most of the Historian put the start of the building of France with the reign of Philippe II August (1198-1216).

You seem to forget that Muslims are also belonging to Nations and a Moroccan is proud to be different of an Algerian. A Kabil even refuse to be an Arab. Turks and Iranians are certainly Muslim but not Arabs. These nations thought against each others with the same enthusiasm than the Christians did.

I don’t know if Islam gives the solution but I know it didn’t work.:inquisitive:

[Avicenna]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5065468.stm

The guy is hailed as a hero. Ugh.

[x-dANGEr]

“the Islamic nation” doesn’t exist. It is a dream, the “Community of the Believers”. And Civil wars between Muslim existed even before France and UK “stabbed the Arabs in the Back” (do you mean that only Arabs are Muslims by the way?), even before France and UK exist. The battle of Kar’bala happened the 10th of October 680 between the Muhammad’s grandson Husayn ibn Ali and a military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph.
Most of the Historian put the start of the building of France with the reign of Philippe II August (1198-1216).

You seem to forget that Muslims are also belonging to Nations and a Moroccan is proud to be different of an Algerian. A Kabil even refuse to be an Arab. Turks and Iranians are certainly Muslim but not Arabs. These nations thought against each others with the same enthusiasm than the Christians did.

I don’t know if Islam gives the solution but I know it didn’t work.:inquisitive:
Have you read my last post? Civil Wars between muslims did exist, and they were always resolved. The battle of Kar'balá is just an example of that, the Umayyad khlifa has killed the other 'elected' one and so he was the khalifa, and you can fight that in my previous post:

it is said that if the public elects 2 Khalifas, they both fight and one of them must be killed, to resolve such situations.
And as you can read, I in no way said that they didn't happen before France and England interfered, I said that they always happened and got resolved, but in the last time (When Arabs started it, which's why I referred to Arabs, not all muslims), England and France stabbed the Arabs in the back after being allies to them against the Ottoman empire.

[Brenus]

“they were always resolved”. Right, they were resolved in the usual way. The victor imposed conditions on the looser.

“England and France stabbed the Arabs in the back after being allies to them against the Ottoman Empire.” That is what we call politic. Unfortunately, Lord Balfour promised the same land to different people.
Some body could argue that the Arabs stab the Ottoman Empire in the back. So, again, Muslim against Muslims.
The problem I have with your post is you speak of Muslim as one nation and deny Muslim Countries Nationalism. Kar’bala was also a fight between Iranian (Persia) and Arabs.

[x-dANGEr]

Right, they were resolved in the usual way. The victor imposed conditions on the looser.
Not really, the victor would kill the other eleced khalifa and would rule the people with no diffrenation.

That is what we call politic. Unfortunately, Lord Balfour promised the same land to different people.
Not just that. He had agreed with France on deviding the countries between them, and no, I don't call it politic, I call that betrayal ---> dishonour.

Some body could argue that the Arabs stab the Ottoman Empire in the back. So, again, Muslim against Muslims.]So every revolution is a stab in the back? You know they don't just pop up. The Ottomans last rulers were quite unfair when it came to the west part of the country..
[quote=Brenus]
The problem I have with your post is you speak of Muslim as one nation and deny Muslim Countries Nationalism. Kar’bala was also a fight between Iranian (Persia) and Arabs.
Clarification?

[Brenus]

“Clarification”: Ok, I will try. You first speak about a Muslim Nation, blaming France and UK for what happened after, denying in doing that their intentions, aims and will power. Fair enough, it is a known symptom. Why no Arabs countries re-negotiate the borders? Well, except Saddam who tried in invading another country, I mean?
Civil war in Yemen, Sudan, war between Libya and Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, do you really want all the list of Muslim Country fighting another Muslim country for NATIONALISM? And AFTER the decolonisation, without any interference of Western Countries, exception of selling weapons…
You refuse (at least, it seems to me) to acknowledge the fact that Muslims Countries are normal Countries.

You came with “ (They) separated the Islamic nation into scattered countries”. The allies separated Germany. Germany is reunified now. Why the “Islamic Nation” is NOT able to do that? They had even more time than Germany. Germany’s experience of democracy is new, even probably later than most of the Arabs Countries (and I don’t mix up Independence and Democracies).
Again, the components of the Islamic Nations are also Nationalities, cultures, entities and ethnicities. And they fought each others for this reason.

“He had agreed with France on deviding the countries between them,”: And the Jordanian, Saudis and other dynasties didn’t agree? :inquisitive: They did. It was their share in reward to fight with the Allies against the Turks. So, in doing that they made a “betrayal ---> dishonour” which was also a political act.

“So every revolution is a stab in the back”. Wellllll, yes. :shame: Against your King, your old Country, your leader, whoever or whatever you cut from, the old order…:embarassed:

“The Ottomans last rulers were quite unfair when it came to the west part of the country” Nothing compares with what they did in the Balkans…

[x-dANGEr]

Hmm.. A clarification indeed; showing how silly (Got a little heated up, sorry for that :) ) your ideas are.

Why aren't the Arabs re-united? Because each leader is more willing to keep his chair than getting rid of it in a case of union.'


“He had agreed with France on deviding the countries between them,”: And the Jordanian, Saudis and other dynasties didn’t agree? They did. It was their share in reward to fight with the Allies against the Turks. So, in doing that they made a “betrayal ---> dishonour” which was also a political act.
I take it you live on another earth?

“So every revolution is a stab in the back”. Wellllll, yes. Against your King, your old Country, your leader, whoever or whatever you cut from, the old order…
What's your definition of 'stab in the back'?

[Brenus]

“Because each leader is more willing to keep his chair than getting rid of it in a case of union”: YES!!!!

“I take it you live on another earth?”
In central Arabia, there was a standing British alliance with Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud, the Wahhabi Emir of Riyad who was subsequently to become the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism was a movement of militant Islamic religious revival which had appeared in central Arabia in the middle decades of the eighteenth century, and the house of Saud had been politically associated with it since that time. In conflict with this British-Saudi alliance was the wartime alliance reached between Britain and Sharif Husayn, the Emir of Mecca, who enjoyed a special Arab and Islamic prestige as a recognized descendant of the Prophet, and whose family were called the Hashemites.
During the last months of the war, as the British drove the Ottoman forces out of Syria, with the forces of Sharif Husayn's Arab Revolt protecting their right flank, the Sharif's third and most popular son, Faysal, was allowed to enter Damascus and establish an Arab government on behalf of his father in that ancient Arab capital. As the Allies met at San Remo to redraw the map of the Arab world, Sharif Faysal was proclaimed King of Syria, with a view to place Britain and France before an accomplished fact. Once the San Remo agreement had been concluded, however, the French, already in occupation of Beirut, made a show of trying to reach an accommodation with King Faysal; they then crushed his forces at Maysalun, outside Damascus, forcing him to abandon his short-lived Syrian kingdom. To compensate their gallant wartime ally for his loss, the British created another Arab kingdom for him out of the old Ottoman vilayets of Mesopotamia, which now became the kingdom of Iraq.Who live on another Planet?:2thumbsup:

“What's your definition of 'stab in the back” A good example could be when you are part of an Empire / State and you fight against it helping foreigners against the power you served before…:inquisitive:

[x-dANGEr]

Do you know what was Faysal doing near Syria?

A stab in the back - in the way I understand it - means: To betray a person/group/nation after trading gratitude between the 2 parties, and doing that in the most vulnerable times for that person/group/nation.

And basically, the revolution was on stake, and surely expected. And since the last Ottoman rulers weren't fair, their was no sign of gratitude, and a revolution was expected sooner or later.

Time to go back to history. The history of the hashemite family starts in the arabic zone through what's known as 'The huge arabic revolution', led by El-Sherif Al Hussein bin Ali, hoping to achieve the dream of an Islamic country binding all the cultures together fairly. El-Sherif Hussein bin Ali received support from Britain, which worked for the immobility of the Ottoman army in the east. With the condition of giving the whole Arabic Island + Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon to Hussein bin Ali as his reward in the war. After that, the deceive of Britain had appeared, as it went off redrawing the map between itself and France, as it put Palestine under the British rule, and Lebanon and Syria under the French rule. About Mecca, it was defeated by companions to Al Saud after it had been held by Hussein bin Ali in 1918, and he had to give up the rule to his son Ali Mua'kel in 1924, then it hasn't been long till the rule of the Hashemites was ended by the defeat of Jeddeh, and it all went to the prince Abd Al-A'zeez bin Abd Arrahman bin Saod, so the rule would move into Saud's hands. Back in Iraq, Faysal was elected to be the ruler of Iraq, after the revolution against Britain (Augustus' revolution), that resulted in difficulties for Britain to hold order in it, resolving to a national temporarily government, that after long negotiations with Britain, had been given independence. That of course happened after Faysal he declared himself a king on Syria (1918), and got kicked out of it under the pressure of the French, and so he declared himself a king on Iraq (1921). Prince Faysal was headed to Palestine to fight the British their and free it, though he was demised by the huge forces of the British added to their allies the French, and so he settled for Syria.