Syria: The Sophie's Choice that Isn't

[patton]

Ever since the days of the Cold War, the foreign policy of the United States has oft been compelled to take sides between the scylla of despotic authoritarianism and the charybdis of international — and, needless to say, equally despotic — communism or, since the fall of the USSR, jihadist islamism. Clearly, this is no simple choice, and no one principle can be applied to situations that call for us to take sides; it’s an area in which our statesmen and diplomats must constantly re-evaluate and tread carefully to represent the best interests of the country. But, largely, the United States has, understandably, chosen to prefer authoritarian leaders who serve as a source of stability in regions that may otherwise fall to more dangerous, more exportable ideologies. The theory goes like this: despotic authoritarianism may be bad, but it’s often intrinsic to the country in which it’s practiced. Leaders of these countries derive their power to rule by appealing to patriotic and nationalistic sentiments amongst the populous — sentiments that, if properly manipulated, can be powerful enough to make people overlook even the most flagrant abuses of human rights. Communism and Islamic Jihadism, on the other hand, aren’t like this. They both claim to be universal, even “final,” ideologies. Lenin envisioned an international workers movement resulting in a proletarian revolution, hence the Soviet Union’s active attempts to push the Iron Curtain further and further into Europe; Bin Laden envisioned a twenty-first century recreation of the dar-al-Islam and eventual establishment of a new and everlasting caliphate. Islamism, then, much like communism before it, very much lends itself to George Kennan’s theory of containment: it is an evil to be guarded against, and often authoritarian leaders provide the best bulwarks.

Thus, it is very easy to understand the hesitancy of the US to act decisively in the Arab Spring conflicts. It’s tempting to get behind what claims to be an uprising of a people who want nothing more than free, fair elections, but, still, we must always be wary of precisely who it is that is organizing this uprising. As Christopher Hitchens writes: “[unreflective devotees of Islam or unquestioning believers in Communism], in my judgement, do not really deserve the name of dissident of oppositionist, because one can see the future oppressions already inscribed in their thought patterns.” This, after all, is exactly what happened in Iran after the Islam revolution of 1979 which, on its surface, was simply about overthrowing the admittedly tyrannical Shah Pahlavi. And this is what appears to have, unfortunately, happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood — a quasi-political, terrorist group that advocates for the immediate implementation of Sharia law — has recently taken more control of the new government. Again, Hosni Mubarak isn’t the ideal head of state, but, sometimes, the evil you know truly is better than the one you don’t.

But the current conflict in Syria, in which President Bashar al-Assad continues to maim and slay his own people (or, should I say, people whom he claims to be his), quite simply evades this type of classification. President Assad is certainly an authoritarian despot and an evil we know, but not one who’s stood as any type of bulwark against the dangerous, bin-ladenist, jihadist Islamism which we currently find ourselves at war. Quite to the contrary: Syria under Bashar al-Assad has been Iran’s closest friend in the Middle East as well as a sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Syria has directly aided Hezbollah, the lebanese terrorist organization and Iranian proxy group, by helping to smuggle weapons across international blockades, which are then emplyed by Hezbollah in their attacks in Israeli citizens. Ever since the Iran-Iraq war, in which Syria allied itself with Iran, the two nations have maintained a strong strategic alliance, based largely off their common hatred for Israel and the United States. In 2006, after Iran and Syria signed a common defense pact under which Iran has invested significantly in Syria’s military infrastructure, Syrian defense minister said that “Iran considers Syria’s security its own security.” To that end, the Iranians have provided President Assad with personell and well as expertise to aid him in quickly quashing all those Syrians who dare challenge his right to rule — an area in which the Iranians are certainly an expert.

So, what, then, about the fear of provoking the Iranians, who have already threatened to close the straits of Hormuz as well as docked a warship in the ports of Damascus, in a public show of solidarity for President Assad? Well, the undeniable reality is that America already has a potential Persian conflict peering down our throats as we speak. The Israelis regard the Iranian nuclear program as a severe existential threat, and they have already demonstrated that they will not fear to take pre-emptive action against countries who dabble in uranium enrichment with the express purpose of wiping Israel off the map. (The last time the Israelis had to engage in such a situation was –shocker!– in Syria). And President Obama, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, may have urged us to stop beating the drums of war, but he also made clear that our friendship and alliance with Israel is of primary concern, as well as that he does not bluff on issues of core national security.

Syria, then, provides us not with the type of impossible Sophie’s choice with which we’ve found ourselves faced in the past, but, rather, an opportunity to engage the Iranians via proxy before we actually have to engage the Iranians on their soil. I am by no means strictly opposed to unilateral action, but there is no reason to prefer unilaterialism for unilateralism’s sake. As long as there is multilateral support for foreign intervention in Syria due to flagrant human rights violations, the US may as well use this as a pretext for what will undoubtedly be direct engagement against Iran.

At the very least, we will have helped to rid the world of a tyrannical nut, which in and of itself is something to be regarded as good. US intervention may not provide Syria will halcyon days to come, but it seems unlikely that things can get much worse.

[benny vader]

subbbed for future reading ....

[L33tz]

Originally Posted by patton

but it seems unlikely that things can get much worse.

never say this

[L33tz]

also from reading what you wrote I can tell you have little real understanding of middle eastern politics.

calling the muslim-brotherhood a "quasi-political, terrorist group that advocates for the immediate implementation of Sharia law"

lol.

[benny vader]

Originally Posted by patton

.....
.... As long as there is multilateral support for foreign intervention in Syria due to flagrant human rights violations, the US may as well use this as a pretext for what will undoubtedly be direct engagement against Iran.

At the very least, we will have helped to rid the world of a tyrannical nut,

If we already see this

This, after all, is exactly what happened in Iran after the Islam revolution of 1979 which, on its surface, was simply about overthrowing the admittedly tyrannical Shah Pahlavi. And this is what appears to have, unfortunately, happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood — a quasi-political, terrorist group that advocates for the immediate implementation of Sharia law ......

in Iran and Egypt and nearly happened in Iraq ..... what makes you so sure it won;t happen oin Syria if US ever intervenes ????

Do you have a puppet ready ???? What about exit strategies ???? What are you trying to achieve there, in Syria ???? Bring democracy to Syria ???

Democracy is good only if the majority of a country ... or any country for that matter wanted a good and benevolent government. Not when the majority of its populace sees the rest of the world as darr-al-harbb.

[Cory]

Well the idea isn't necessarily to bring "Democracy" to Syria (officially, yes, but that's just for public consumption), but to remove a key Iranian ally in the region. Even if an Islamic government rose up in Assad's steed, it wouldn't be in bed with Iran. The Sunni's leading the uprising aren't exactly friends with the Shia Iranians who are helping to oppress them.

Keep in mind that we would also be removing a Russian ally in the region as well. The only reason we don't do it is because the public doesn't understand Geo-politics and is against the idea. Look at it this way; Assad is already and enemy of the West and Israel, but even if Islamists took over they would still be an enemy but:

-They won't be allied with Iran or Russia.
-Their military will be disorganized and they will need to rebuild their economy.

So it's win-win really. Even if they still are our enemies they will be much weaker and less of a threat then the current Baathist regime in Syria.

[patton]

Originally Posted by Cory

Well the idea isn't necessarily to bring "Democracy" to Syria (officially, yes, but that's just for public consumption), but to remove a key Iranian ally in the region. Even if an Islamic government rose up in Assad's steed, it wouldn't be in bed with Iran. The Sunni's leading the uprising aren't exactly friends with the Shia Iranians who are helping to oppress them.

Keep in mind that we would also be removing a Russian ally in the region as well. The only reason we don't do it is because the public doesn't understand Geo-politics and is against the idea. Look at it this way; Assad is already and enemy of the West and Israel, but even if Islamists took over they would still be an enemy but:

-They won't be allied with Iran or Russia.
-Their military will be disorganized and they will need to rebuild their economy.

So it's win-win really. Even if they still are our enemies they will be much weaker and less of a threat then the current Baathist regime in Syria.

Definitely. I didn't touch on the Russian piece of the puzzle quite as much because I regard the US relationship with Russia as significantly more complex than the US-Iran relationship (or, more accurately, lack of a relationship). On the one hand, Russia is officially an ally of the US. But, on the other hand, it would be a good idea to start applying more diplomatic pressure to the ever-increasingly authoritarian Putin regime. Maybe Syria would be a good place to do this, I'm not sure. It certainly seems like a good place to put pressure on Iran, though.

[da teacha]

I'm now living in Egypt, and have many friends who are interested in Middle Eastern politics here.

I read the other day on Facebook that Turkey wanted to take action in Syria, but the US stepped in and prevented them from doing so. Did anybody else here of this?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by da teacha

I read the other day on Facebook that Turkey wanted to take action in Syria, but the US stepped in and prevented them from doing so. Did anybody else here of this?

It wouldn't surprise me. Prime Minister Erdogan has "Neo-Ottoman" aspirations and has been working on expanding Turkey's sphere of influence for some time now. That and he's more or less openly supporting the rebels with arms and supplies and even allowing them to have staging areas in Southern Turkey.

[L33tz]

I foresee Russian and Western relations degrading seriously over the next few years. Putin is very nationalist, a proxy war may become a near reality.

[The Pat-Man]

good for turkey better them than muslim brotherhood etc etc.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by L33tz

I foresee Russian and Western relations degrading seriously over the next few years. Putin is very nationalist, a proxy war may become a near reality.

I'd say we're already at this point. Any kind of cooperation is almost purely for public propaganda consumption.

[patton]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'd say we're already at this point. Any kind of cooperation is almost purely for public propaganda consumption.

I wouldn't take quite so sour a view; the Russians have shown some limited willingness to cooperate over international nuclear issues.

But, things are rapidly getting worse as Putin strengthens his grip on the entire political establishment.

[Oink The Pig]

Delusional american.... newsflash the media in your country does more than just a little bit of playing around with information. This post is so full of crap it hurts thought. And inside your head you probably think you have a really good solid opinion on the situation. I honestly think that if certain people came by this text it would be just like comedy.

[Captain Falcon]

[benny vader]

Originally Posted by Cory

Well the idea isn't necessarily to bring "Democracy" to Syria (officially, yes, but that's just for public consumption), but to remove a key Iranian ally in the region. Even if an Islamic government rose up in Assad's steed, it wouldn't be in bed with Iran. The Sunni's leading the uprising aren't exactly friends with the Shia Iranians who are helping to oppress them......

God ... even the brain damaged LSD understood enemy dynamics : Females stick together.

And even if you have never heard of that, I'm pretty sure you'd came across adages like

"Common foe makes unlikely enemy friends", ... or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thingy.

They might be shitte and they might be sunnis .... but they are both darr-al-essslam.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by benny vader

They might be shitte and they might be sunnis .... but they are both darr-al-essslam.

So what? Read my post. Even if they are still enemies afterward they will be weaker in general and not allies of Iran or Russia.

[benny vader]

Originally Posted by Cory

So what? Read my post. Even if they are still enemies afterward they will be weaker in general and not allies of Iran or Russia.

Yes, and weaker enemies are usually more prone to ally themselves to gain their former strength, and may even make alliance with russia, or china or even india more likely.

Now the only reason russia is being not too friendly with those in the middle east is because russia stands to benefit more by being friendly with the US and a alliance with US's enemies migh piss US some ..... and when that changes ....

well .....

[Duke Zion]

Originally Posted by Captain Falcon

LOL that pic had me rollin nigga

[Jeff Gatherer]

Democracy: we deserve it, they don't (unless we let them)

[Dichromate]

Pretty much agree with the OP, but as we all know there's no political will for such adventures now. If there hadn't been an Iraq war then perhaps the USA would be in a different position.

If it's true that Turkey is being restrained, there's probably good reason - during the Cyprus crisis the Turks were pretty much told that if they pushed the envelope further they'd be on there own against any Soviet response (since Cyprus was neutral, Turkish annexation or NATO intervention in the crisis was a big issue)
This could very well be similar - Russia did kinda dismember a western satellite state a couple of years back during the Olympics after all.

[patton]

Originally Posted by Dichromate

Pretty much agree with the OP, but as we all know there's no political will for such adventures now. If there hadn't been an Iraq war then perhaps the USA would be in a different position.

Obama's actually been surprising hawkish -- or, rather, not as dovish as he could have been expected to be -- on foreign policy. He's continued the use of American drones throughout the Waziristan region of the part-time ally, part-time foe that is Pakistan, which has been an effective and acceptable projection of American power concentrated against radicalists. His ending of the Iraq war was conducted in a responsible manner that gives Iraq a good chance at becoming a functional democracy in the near future. And, despite charges of him "leading from behind," the US did play a large role in aiding the Libyan rebels, but it was done with the kind of multilateralism that Bush had eschewed.

This is why I just don't understand the administration's restraint on Syria.

[benny vader]

Originally Posted by patton

Obama's ..... functional democracy in the near futur......

either your srsly retarded or you dont know shit about democracy.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by patton

This is why I just don't understand the administration's restraint on Syria.

Honestly, the reasons we don't intervene are three-fold:

-After Iraq, the growing unpopularity of Afghanistan, and the intervention in Libya, the domestic political will for intervention doesn't exist. This is an election year.

-Russia has already deployed special forces to aid the Syrian government' crackdown. This creates obvious issues with targeting of Syrian forces.

-The Syrians could attack Israel to draw them into the war in an attempt to paint the Allies up as "Zionist imperialist crusaders". Similar to how Saddam tried to bring Israel into the 1991 Gulf War. It would fracture the anti-Assad coalition because the Islamic states don't want to be seen as siding with Israel. Keep in mind that this escalation would surely draw Hezbollah into conflict with Israel.

[The real slim spud]

Originally Posted by benny vader

either your srsly retarded or you dont know shit about democracy.

You are such a fail troll just give up

-Russia has already deployed special forces to aid the Syrian government' crackdown. This creates obvious issues with targeting of Syrian forces.

Source?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by The real slim spud

Source?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/russia...3#.T4BfQdl8rAY

[patton]

Originally Posted by Cory

-After Iraq, the growing unpopularity of Afghanistan, and the intervention in Libya, the domestic political will for intervention doesn't exist. This is an election year.

True, but it's an election year for a Democrat, not a Republican. It's in Obama's interest to prove to the conservative democrats (one of the largest "swing" electorates in the country) that he's tough on foreign policy. I would understand if, say, George W. Bush (or even John McCain) was up for re-election, and he wanted to soften his image as a militaristic American hegemon.

[Dichromate]

Originally Posted by patton

True, but it's an election year for a Democrat, not a Republican. It's in Obama's interest to prove to the conservative democrats (one of the largest "swing" electorates in the country) that he's tough on foreign policy. I would understand if, say, George W. Bush (or even John McCain) was up for re-election, and he wanted to soften his image as a militaristic American hegemon.

This would be reasonable logic if you had our electoral system - compulsory voting + mandatory preferential voting, so you:
A: have to vote
and
B: eventually have to put a one major party above the other.

Unfortunately that's not the system you're dealing with - Obama has already failed to live up to expectations, if he goes and starts a new war in the middle east 6 months out from an election, a decent portion of his core supporters will be so disgusted that they'll simply stay home (or throw their vote away).

It's kind of funny though - Libya and this were prime opportunities for the US to actually unambiguously play the good guy, but there's zero possibility politically because of Bush's clusterfucks.
- the only reason there was any intervention in Libya at all was because the French took a leap of faith, recognized the rebels as the legitimate government far too early.
The rebels then started losing and the French had to find a way to bail them out quicksmart (or face the likely expropriation French interests in Libya in the aftermath) Americans really weren't the prime-movers there.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by patton

True, but it's an election year for a Democrat, not a Republican. It's in Obama's interest to prove to the conservative democrats (one of the largest "swing" electorates in the country) that he's tough on foreign policy. I would understand if, say, George W. Bush (or even John McCain) was up for re-election, and he wanted to soften his image as a militaristic American hegemon.

That's a good point. However, I would argue that Obama needs to save that card for the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran. If they did that I suspect Obama would feel compelled to join the attack for two reasons:

-The only the strike can really be successful is with American support, to the point where the USA would actually be carrying the primary burden. You see, the Iranians are a great spot defensively against just an Israeli strike. They know exactly what the targets will be and probably have dedicated airfields for the facilities defense and a large depth of SAM's. The Israeli's would be outnumbered massively and face a barrage of ground-based fire. Keep in mind that the Israeli planes will likely not have enough fuel for sustained engagements with Iranian aircraft, they can't waste flight time.

But if America attacked as well we could strike a good many of the Iranian air & naval assets (we would have to decimate their navy to prevent the blockading of Hormuz). So basically in order for a strike to be really successful you would have to hit Iranian air assets/SAM/radar as well.

-If the strike fails or America doesn't act then Obama's Republican opponent will utterly hammer him on it and turn out those Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats you mentioned. They hold the fate of States like Virgina and North Carolina. Not to mention the Iranian counter-attack could damage the economy just in time for the general election and against a candidate with a "economic specialist" narrative. The parallels to Carter would be palpable.