Open Post

Author of Prayers

Robert Ferrigno

Our present predicament with Iran revolves around the Twelfth Imam, or Hidden Imam, believed by Shiite Muslims to be the last in the line of spiritual/political rulers. The Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, ascended to his position upon the death of his father, the Eleventh Imam, in 874 AD. Al-Madha at that time was five years old. Shortly after the funeral of his father, al-Mahdi disappeared, believed by Shiites to have been hidden by Allah until his return at some future point. The easiest way for westerners to think of the Hidden Imam is as the Islamic Messiah, Except the Islamic Messiah is to come at the hour of greatest peril for Muslims, come to battle the forces of evil and unite the entire world in an Islamic Caliphate.

Okay, let’s call it a difference of opinion. Armageddon under any other name… However, Ahmadinejad belongs to a small sect of Shiites, called Hojjatieh, who believe that they can hasten the arrival of the Hidden Imam.. Even more threatening for the west, the Hojjatieh believe that it is chaos that will induce the Hidden Imam to reveal himself. They have a spiritual investment in destruction. The worse things get — the worse believers can make things get — the more likely it is for the Hidden Imam to return. None of which would matter much except that Ahmadinejad is adamant about the right of Iran to develop its own nuclear program.

When Khomeini took power after the revolution in 1979, he banned the group, since they opposed the creation of an Islamic state, believing that the peace and tranquility of the new Iran would delay the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

I'm torn between wishing he would blog more and wanting him to finish his next book faster.

On Networks

Over at MilBlogs, an interesting discussion of Network-Centric Warfare. (See the comments there too.)

The fusion of the latest corporate management buzzwords to the latest techno geekspeak to the world of military purpose (acronyms and all) creates a language that few can speak (though many can fake) and a different sort of battlefield where no sane man would tread. (That being the planning sessions for the whole thing.)

For good or bad, if the concept were ever fully realized there will be virtually slim chance of the US military functioning (combat-wise) in close-quarters with "coalition partners". (Integration of the various components of the US military into a 'total force' is difficult enough without the concern for technology sharing with "allies".) Conceivably, the added edge in combat might render the presence of other forces on the battlefield superflous anyway (friend and foe alike) in all but a political sense.

It could be argued the political edge gained is probably not worth the effort either. It seemed like a fine idea to build a coalition back in '90, but that was driven as much by the desire to avoid the "Crusader" tag as it was from concern about the martial power of Saddam's armed forces. So in return for $7 billion in debt relief, Egypt sent three goatherds and a camel. Who could blame them? Meanwhile, down in Saudi, some guy named Osama bin Laden started shouting about Crusades, and Arab leaders who were subservient to the decadent West...

So if the goal was to avoid the Crusader tag, we lost - big time, long before round two of the ground war in 2003. But not surprisingly, in the lead-up to the re-invasion of Iraq, "some" chose to insist on the whole coalition-building exercise - then promptly heaped scorn on the coalition that did form.

But truly I've digressed. In reality, the very real possibility is that future technological advances will limit allies in a combat "coalition" with the United States (with very few exceptions) to support roles. That's actually been the case for years, but given the expected advances it will be interesting to see just how much longer we will pretend it's not.

It's May 17th...

If John Kerry had his way, all the troops would be home now.

Meanwhile,

The 2004 United States presidential election would have a different result this year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 48 per cent of respondents would support Democrat John Kerry, while 41 per cent would vote for Republican George W. Bush.