Democracy Biggest Loser of Bloodshed in Egypt

It is unclear who attacked whom or who fired the first shot. But over fifty people are dead, most of whom were supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists organizations in Egypt protesting the ouster of Mohammed Morsi from power.  Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have called for more demonstrations and even turning to violence—the method of choice for radical Islamists and jihadis. It is at this critical juncture that the Egyptian military needs to show leadership, political maturity, and restraint.  Further bloodshed will only strengthen the case of radical Islamists and jihadis who thrive on violence, benefit greatly from being viewed as the ‘oppressed,’ and have both the weapons and ideological zealotry to  return one bullet with a hundred.

History is our best witness. Radical Islamists have never shied away from violence.  In fact, they have welcomed bloodshed in order to destabilize the political landscape, and to recruit young, passionate men as new fighters (read sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered).

Radical Islamist militants carry out weekly, if not daily, attacks in Iraq to foment a sectarian conflict modeled after the Syrian civil war, in order to destabilize the Iraqi political landscape. Dozens have been killed in Iraq just in the past two days.  Waves of suicide bombings have hit Shiite neighborhoods and in retaliation, Shiite gunmen and government forces have attacked and killed opposition Sunnis. Killings and retaliations took the lives of more than 700 Iraqis in June. The Islamic State of Iraq, an Al-Qaeda affiliate fighting to turn Iraq into an Islamic emirate, claimed responsibility for many of June’s attacks, but more importantly, solidified its position as the main armed Salafi group that has carried out potent operations since the mass flow of jihadi forces into Iraq starting in 2003.  As radical Sunnis and Shiites duke out their centuries old disputes, and as Al-Qaeda affiliates gain more ground, secular and democratic forces in Iraq become less and less relevant, and struggle for survival.

Jihadi fighters in Syria, Jibha al-Nusra chief among them, have benefitted greatly from Assad’s brutal crackdown of protestors, the opposition’s fractured leadership, and all out chaos.  Islamist fighters, seeking the establishment of an Islamic state, fight the Assad regime with unparalleled discipline.  But their unparalleled brutality – summary executions for drinking and adultery, beheading Assad soldiers or even other rival opposition fighters, cutting off hands for theft, and infamously carving out a soldier’s heart and eating it—is yet another sign that picking a fight with radical Islamists will be very bloody. While Assad regains control of previously lost territories one after another, and while Islamist forces solidify their position through unimaginable displays of brutality, the secular-democratic opposition in Syria becomes more fragmented and loses more support.

In Algeria, the military intervention to nullify the victory of the Islamic Salvation Front in parliamentary elections of 1991 quickly turned into a full fledged civil war.  The Islamic Salvation Front sought constitutional changes in order to set up an Islamic state and the secular establishment did not want to have any of it. The Salvation Front became the Islamic Salvation Army, and a decade-long civil war consumed many lives in Algeria. Secular democrats were wiped out, and their return to the political landscape became an almost impossible dream for many years.

In Iran, the radical supporters of Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini welcomed the armed uprising of a radical Islamic cult, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization,  in 1980  and began a decade long campaign of terror that left thousands dead while thousands more fled. In the meantime, a devastating war with Iraq broke out which gave Iran’s Islamic radicals even more ammunition to quench the domestic opposition.  The results were consolidation of power by Islamist forces in Iran led by Ayatollah Khomenei and the annihilation of secular and democratic forces.

Islamist radicals welcome violence. The military intervention in Egypt was meant to deliver stability for a smooth political transition.  If violence erupts, and in the Middle East it erupts in full forces, secular and liberal forces will not be the winning end. After all, middle class urban dwellers with democratic tendencies lack the Islamist’s lust for martyrdom.

This opinion piece was written by Arash Aramesh, a National Security Analyst and Juris Doctor candidate at Stanford Law School. He has published in the International Herald Tribune, the Huffington Post, the Majalla, the Stanford Lawyer blog, and The Diplomatic Courier, among others. He appears frequently on BBC, AlJazeera English, and Sky World News.  His can be found on Twitter at @ArameshArash.