I agree completely with Andy McCarthy’s weekend piece on Syria. We have no interest in helping the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the Assad regime. But I would go further. Civil war in Syria is actually the best real-world scenario for us in the coming years — the longer, the better.
If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over relatively quickly, they’ll patch things up with Iran, based on their mutual hatred for America and desire to exterminate the Jews. But a long, drawn-out civil war between the Brotherhood and the quasi-Shia, Iranian-backed Assad regime will embitter the whole Sunni world against Li’l Squinty and his cohorts and tie down Iran in a messy distraction — the Ayatollahs’ Vietnam, as it were. Hezbollah will either have to disavow its masters in Tehran or risk losing legitimacy. And the already acute tensions within the Iranian ruling elite will only get worse, potentially even contributing to the fall of the regime, as the Afghanistan disaster did in the Soviet Union.
It will be terrible for the Syrian people — especially for the Christians who, unlike in Lebanon, are a smaller share of the population and more dispersed, so they are likely to be able to organize militias and defend themselves. But I’m afraid their fate was sealed with the fall of Antioch in 637; so it’s a little late to worry about that now.
Our national interest lies in ensuring our enemies focus their savagery on each other, not us. I would disagree slightly with the Kissinger quote about the Iran-Iraq war that Andy cites: “It’s a pity they both can’t lose.” But they did both lose — half a million dead in eight years of vicious but inconclusive war. While the ideal outcome for Syria would be stable, pluralistic democracy, that’s pure fantasy in the foreseeable future. Among the actual possibilities, a protracted civil war, à la Lebanon 1975–1990, is the best outcome for the United States.
"To the gas chambers, go!", eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's that supposed to mean? In your mind, the Jews of Europe were in a violent uprising against the Nazis, with both sides teetering on the brink of collapse?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Civil war in Syria is actually the best real-world scenario for us in the coming years — the longer, the better."
Wow. This sounds like a Noam Chomsky characterization of American foreign policy.
"It will be terrible for the Syrian people....But I’m afraid their fate was sealed with the fall of Antioch in 637; so it’s a little late to worry about that now."
I was wondering if Krikorian would mention the human beings who would be affected by the mess he's advocating. Usually people who talk this way act as though no humans whatsoever are involved--it's easier on the conscience--but if you're the sort of individual who can write off an entire group of people based on an event that occurred nearly 1400 years ago, then I suppose conscience isn't much of a problem for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps not coincidentally, it seems our mortal enemies are always human beings.
The human beings in Syria have done a very great deal of harm to other sorts of human beings over the past 70 years in particular. Having them instead doing a great deal of harm to one another is a welcome development.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree completely. The sooner and more brutal the civil war between Shia and Sunni the better for the world. A pox upon both their houses. Further. Any Imam/Mullah issuing a fatwa for the killing of any westerner should immediately be targeted and eliminated using any means necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt may be there's a sub-maximal level of brutality that would be even better than maximum brutality.
Maximum burtality might tend to bring the thing to an earlier end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust so, sir.
If we must lay hands on, then our policy should be to review the situation in Syria on a weekly or monthly basis, and then send a little help to whichever side ( may there soon be more than just two!) is losing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI also agree. Let Arabs, Persians and Turks all bleed each other for ten years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But I’m afraid their fate was sealed with the fall of Antioch in 637; so it’s a little late to worry about that now."
History puts you in a bad position so no one should worry about you anymore? I wonder if Mr. Krikorian takes the same view of the Armenian genocide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLorraine and Readin,
Clearly you're not thrilled with Mark Krikorian's realpolitik take on what's best for the U.S. vis-a-vis Syria. What would you suggest American policy ought to be?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStay out or actively support the rebels. We may not like the rebels, but the Syrian government sent weapons to our enemies in Iraq - we owe the government.
The attitude that we should hope as many people get killed as possible with no objective for the outcome is immoral. War may be a necessary means to an end, but it should not be an end in itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBefore you trot out the German invasion of Russia in WWII, I should point out that both Germany and Russia posed an existential long-term threat to us and a short-term existential threat to our allies. This is not true of the Syrian government or the rebels.
Second, consider the Iraq-Iran war example provided in Mr. Krikorian's comment. A lot of people died. A lot of them civilians, a lot of them children. And what did the US get out of it? Iran is still an enemy - it is still threatening to build a nuclear bomb. We still had to invade Iraq not once, but twice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Readin. Help the rebels or--better yet--stay out *entirely*. The latter would involve not helping either side, not acting to prolong the conflict, and not spending any blood, treasure or time on it (aside perhaps from some humanitarian aid).
Hoping for a long, drawn-out war is, well, psychotic, as it involves hoping that the prisoners of authoritarian regimes will continue slaughtering each other for no reason. That sort of thing didn't do much for Iraq, Iran, or the United States, and I doubt it'll be of much use here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks to you both for your thoughtful comments. A few years ago, I probably would have agreed with you that we should at least consider siding with the rebels. Knowing that there are certainly innocent people caught up in the madness is painful to consider. But now that we see the outcome of the "Arab Spring" in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, I simply have no faith that a clear choice can be made between the various factions and conclude, with regret, that our interests would be best served by a long internal conflict. It doesn't mean it's the ideal choice, nor that there aren't risks to us regardless, but I'm with Mark Krikorian on this one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen war breaks out, we Americans typically support the side that is fighting for self-determination, freedom and democracy. We hope that the oppressors are vanquished. I challenge anyone here to ascribe those characteristics to either side engaged in the ongoing fighting in Syria. Therefore, we have no dog in this fight, at least on the surface. While Krikorians perspective may seem harsh, what potential outcome in Syria could we actually hope for or support? It certainly isn't a clear choice and therefore our engagement in this should extend to UN resolutions, nothing more. You want the fighting to stop, you want lives saved? Thats another matter, unrelated to the geopolitical impact from this ongoing war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActively desiring that people slaughter each other is evil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing indifferent to the fate of the warlike is evil, for it is indifference to the fate of the peaceful. The Syrian Army has committed great slaughters in Israel and in the Lebanon. It recruits its soldiers from the general population. The more they slaughter each other, the less they'll slaughter peaceful neighbors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on, Mark! I think the one redeeming rationale our operations have had in Afghanistan and Iraq has been to 'take the fight to the enemy,' to fight them 'there' as opposed to 'here.' It is even better - if they are intent on murder and mayhem, which they have proven themselves to be - if they fight each other 'over there' and we involve ourselves as little as possible. This is especially true if we are not going to actually fight them and kill them when we go 'over there,' but instead coddle them and apologize to them.
Also, I do not read your post as wholly unsympathetic to the Syrian Christians as some commenters have suggested. I read you as more or less posing the question: what can and should the U.S. Government do about it now? They have been in a pretty precarious position during much of the last millenia and a half - at least.
Personally, I am holding out for Andrew Klavan's version of the 'one state solution.'
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse