On American Intervention in Syria
By Many doomsayers wrote President Donald Trump’s political epitaph on April 14, when a coalition of American, British, and French warships and aircraft bombed Syria in response to a chemical attack in the city of Douma. Pro- and anti-Trumpers alike poured forth word salads about how the man who promised to end America’s never-ending wars in the Muslim world was dragging the United States into the Syrian Civil War.
So far, those fears seem overblown. The Pentagon reports that a total of 105 missiles were deployed over Syria by the Western powers, with most hitting virtually abandoned military research centers in the cities of Damascus and Homs. The Syrian government, which is not averse to inflating statistics, reported that, at best, nine people were injured during the strike. There is even an ongoing argument about whether or not President Bashar al-Assad’s military managed to shoot down several American missiles. More importantly, no Russians have been listed among the wounded, thus bypassing the thorny issue of a Russian response to the strike.
It appears that conservatives, liberals, and all colors beyond the political pale gnashed their teeth over very little. Trump’s decision to bomb Syria will not stop President Bashar al-Assad from winning the war. Indeed, some pundits have even suggested that the Syrian strike was not truly aimed at Assad, but rather at North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Michael Malice, who reported on his journey inside of North Korea in his 2014 book Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Biography of Kim Jong-il, told Breitbart that he believes President Trump is playing the “bad cop” to China’s “good cop.” By cultivating a reputation as a loose cannon, President Trump is allowing China to whisper in North Korea’s ear something along the lines of “Reform your state along our guidelines before that crazy Yankee decides to bomb you.”
While President Trump’s second foray into the Syrian quagmire is not the neoconservative invasion that National Security adviser John Bolton apparently wanted, it still raises the specter of future bombing runs. The case will be made here that:
- A complete removal of all American ground forces from Syria and cessation of bombing campaigns is, without question, the best foreign policy option at this point, and
- Supporting Bashar al-Assad would be a lesser evil than supporting the Syrian rebels.
The US Intervention is Based on Supposition
The stated reason for the April 14 airstrike is the same as for the April 7, 2017 airstrike: to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons on its own people. But this begs the question: why would Assad use chemical weapons when he is winning the war? President Assad is no moron when it comes to geopolitics, so he is quite aware that the West feels obligated to respond to every chemical or biological attack, regardless of where the attack occurs. Therefore, why would Assad willingly jeopardize his military victory by inviting foreign intervention?
There is also the fact that no impartial investigators have conclusively proven that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons in Douma on April 7. Dr. Assim Rahaibani, a medical doctor on the ground in Douma, came to the conclusion that the victims of the attack had actually been hit with conventional artillery, not chemical weapons. He noted that the patients he saw were suffering from hypoxia, a type of oxygen loss that is usually the result of inhaling large quantities of building dust. It is also telling that journalist Robert Fisk of The Independent recorded Dr. Rahaibani saying that the first people to accuse Assad of using gas were the “White Helmets”.
Despite a completely naïve and disgustingly overwrought documentary (which won an Academy Award, thanks in no small part to the global liberalism of Hollywood), the “White Helmets” of the Syria Civil Defense have ties to the jihadist militias currently fighting the Assad regime. Given this, it would not be outside the realm of possibility for the “White Helmets” to either exploit a conventional attack or completely fabricate one in order to draw the West into attacking Assad.
It is also quite possible that the Syrian rebels gassed their own people, for during the early stages of the Syrian Civil War, the rebels used chemical weapons themselves. ISIS has been caught using chemical weapons, and Western military officials have repeatedly claimed that their airstrikes or on-the-ground operations have uncovered chemical and biological weapons facilities created by jihadist insurgents in both Syria and Iraq. Given that the rebels are losing the war in Syria, they have more reason to want American airstrikes than Assad.
Another theory put forward by Gwynne Dyer argues that Assad really did gas his own people for strategic reasons. “Assad doesn’t want foreigners deciding his fate,” Dyer notes, so the chemical attack was done in order to avoid what Assad would consider to be a “premature” peace settlement. The American missile attack did not hurt Assad at all, and Russia and Iran will continue to back his government. As counter-intuitive is it may sound, Assad’s chemical strike would buy him some breathing room en route to total military victory.
In both the 2017 and 2018 chemical attacks, conclusive intelligence reports are lacking. It is not enough for French, British, and American officials to merely say that the evidence is “conclusive”; there is no absolute proof that Assad is guilty of these attacks. After all, these same agencies have lied before in order to drag the West into war. Therefore, striking against his government and military without proof is stupid.
The Case for Supporting Assad
If Washington, D.C. is truly committed to an American presence in Syria (and history shows us again and again that liberal bureaucracies love wars because they legitimize bureaucratic expansion and funding), then President Trump should consider backing President Assad.
Of course, such an action would lead to bellyaching of monumental proportions from the liberal left and establishment “right”. To them, Assad is equivalent to Hitler—a barbaric, genocidal dictator guilty of crimes against humanity. More honest chicken-hawks in the government admit that Assad and his backers should be stopped because they threaten Israel. Both views should be completely ignored by President Trump. Hitler ruled over one of the world’s most advanced nations; Assad is a two-bit president of a failed state. As for protecting Israel, America has done enough of that to last a millennium, and Israel has returned the favor by constantly spying on us, trying to disrupt the democratic process all across the West, and holding our foreign policy hostage.
Even the cuckservatives of the National Review see that supporting Assad is in America’s interest. In a rare moment of clarity, Jay Hallen, a NR contributor and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that American-backed regime change in the Middle East has not brought stability or peace. The uncomfortable truth is that strongmen like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad have been the greatest forces of safety in the entire region. When these Muslim despots are toppled, hardcore jihadists invariably take their place. This leads to increased terrorism in the Middle East and the West, and since 2015, endemic warfare in the Near East has inspired millions of refugees (read: invaders) to flood Europe. Because of boneheaded policies in Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin, The Camp of the Saints will probably come true in our lifetimes.
In order to counteract decades of bad US policy, President Trump should seriously consider taking a page out of the British playbook with regard to installing non-democratic regimes across the Middle East. Following a deadly Arab uprising in Mesopotamia, the British Empire decided to maintain indirect rule in Iraq by installing a pro-British monarch named Faisal I. King Faisal belonged to the Hashemite dynasty of Mecca. The Hashemites still control the Kingdom of Jordan, one of the very few Arab or Middle Eastern states that has enjoyed a prolonged level of peace and prosperity since the end of World War II.
During the Cold War, the US had no problem supporting illiberal leaders all across the world. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US propped up dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Ben Ali in Tunisia, and the entire Saudi royal family. Since the Arab Spring of 2011, it has become clear that US-backed dictators cannot last forever. Tyranny always creates a backlash. Therefore, creating monarchies across the Middle East would be in America’s interest.
The ancients knew that monarchies and hierarchical states are superior to democratic ones, with Socrates and his followers arguing against the democratic Greek city-states as tyrannical entities ruled by the mob. In our own time, disruptive technology and an ill-educated populace make democracy increasingly synonymous with the anarcho-tyranny of the Washington-New York-California oligarchy. America itself could benefit from decentralization into many smaller kingdoms, but if we cannot have this ourselves, at least we could export it elsewhere. The Senussi of Libya, the Pahlavi dynasty of Iran, and the House of Muhammad Ali of Egypt would probably like the chance to make their respective nations as stable as the Kingdom of Morocco.
It is time for President Trump and his administration to do away with the tired American notion of supporting and spreading democracy around the world. Realpolitik should prevail in Syria, with America and Russia negotiating an end to the awful war. If this means leaving Assad in power, then so be it. By supporting Assad, America could also send a clear message to a rising threat: Turkey. Ankara has come to embrace its neo-Ottoman fantasies, and the Turkish military’s recent push into Syria in order to weaken Syrian Kurds violates both Syria’s sovereignty and the Kurds’ liberty. Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan has continually revealed that he sees flooding Europe with Muslim refugees as a part of his geopolitical strategy, and thanks to his well-polished jihadism, Turkish troops have bolstered the worst instincts of the Syrian rebels. Today, Christians in northern Syria are facing the very real possibility of ethnocide thanks to Turkish-backed thugs.
Another possibility in a more pro-Assad foreign policy would be the breakup of the Syrian state. Balkanization has a negative connotation for a reason, but the civil war has already fractured Syria. Formally dividing Syria along ethno-religious lines (Kurds, Alawites, Druze, etc.) or city-states based around urban centers like Damascus and Homs could form new smaller states. President Assad will definitely not like this idea (he is an Arab nationalist, after all), but even in victory, it seems clear that Assad’s failed state will not be able to easily transition to peacetime or a functioning economy. The rebuilding of Syria will require massive foreign aid, and it could be that such aid will only be given if Syria is divided up.
Dethrone the Interventionist Empire
No one has yet answered the fundamental question: how does further American involvement in Syrian affairs benefit the American people? The answer is that it does not. America is already involved in another war in Afghanistan, and it is far from over. American special forces are also deployed all over West and East Africa, Yemen, and Southeast Asia. Fatigue is already an issue, and continuing a non-essential front in Syria will not help.
Conversely, if the United States comes to its senses and works with Russia in order to end the Syrian Civil War, then that good will could convince Moscow to aid President Trump in his one-man war against China. Let us be completely honest here: China, a currency manipulator extraordinaire and the budding architect of a statist New World Order, is America’s primary rival in the world. Russia and Syria do not even come close.
A more clear-eyed policy in Syria, which President Trump seems willing to consider, could (hopefully) show Americans the lunacy of interventionism. Since World War II, America has fallen in love with the idea of using military might to enforce a type of Pax Americana in which the whole world is converted to liberal democratic globalism. This is the origin of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Has the world become safer since 1945? In some ways yes, but international terrorism and ethnic instability in Europe and North America have increased. Yet our elites mostly see both as a way to harm their own native populations. Within America herself, racial and socioeconomic tensions have increased, and our current opioid epidemic is much more deserving of funding and manpower than some civil war in the Middle East.
Conclusion
America needs to be repaired. President Trump knows this, and he should not get distracted by wild geese across the Atlantic. American troops would better serve the American people by guarding the Mexican border, not supplying weapons to Kurdish or Syrian rebels. Even if President Assad gassed his own people (and there is no conclusive evidence that he did), why should America care? We must dethrone the humanitarian, interventionist impulse in Washington, D.C. if American liberty is to survive.
<<On Degeneracy, Loss, and Civilization++++++++++++++++++++++On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part X: Time Preference>>