Syria Policy – #NeverAssad? #AlwaysAssad!

If, as argued this week, negotiating with Russia is always an intricate balancing act for even the most skillful diplomat, then judging which side to back in the Syrian Civil War is a choice that requires no such complex handling between competing interests – America should, without hesitation, use all our power to tilt the scales in favor of Assad.

What is alarming is how many supposed “conservatives” cling to #NeverAssad positions no matter how obviously an Assad victory is the only remotely sane outcome.

As #NeverTrump did during the election, their opposition to Assad is justified while either avoiding what the alternative to their #NeverCandidate is guaranteed to be, or deluding themselves in the hope there is a viable third candidate to save everyone from two undesirable options.

Few things in foreign affairs are as certain as the fact there is no Democratic 3rd option in Syria.

The time for #NeverAssad to have their say was in the primaries between Assad, ISIS and other equally loathsome terrorist groups, and those ever elusive Islamic “moderates”.

Primary season is over; the general election is now, and those Westernized moderates – as always happens in Muslim “democracies” – were beheaded on the floor of the party conventions by amphetamine-addled delegates, their wives and children sold into chattel sex slavery, and their Western bank accounts stripped clean of every digital penny.  You can believe us when we say no one throws a nomination convention quite like ISIS!

This obscenely Darwinian process has selected for a simple binary choice between two tyrants –

  • Bashar Assad
  • The various Islamic terrorist rebels opposed to Assad, the most powerful of which is ISIS

Setting aside any delusions that the world can enjoy #NeverAssad without #AlwaysBaghdadi, and understanding that only one of these two characters can win, Pragmatically Distributed gets to the point and asks what condition will Syria be left in following an Assad or rebel victory:

Assad is Victorious – Under this scenario the Syrian remnants of ISIS will either be massacred or sent into full retreat.  Assad will begin consolidating power over his war ravaged nation.

For America and Israel, Syria’s condition will be the best of all worlds:  His nation will be in such ruins that he will not be in a position to threaten his neighbors, particularly not Israel, for many years to come.  At the same time Assad will be feared enough within Syria that no serious terrorist threat will be able to gain a foothold there.

What if Assad takes out revenge against civilians who backed the rebels?  Leave them to their fate we say, even if that means Assad kills millions of Muslim men, women, and children.  We would raise moral objections only if Syrian Christians became targets of Assad’s revenge, but since they are on Assad’s side and Assad can hardly afford to antagonize whatever allies he has (unless he plans on his final video appearance being in an ISIS video wearing an orange jumpsuit) we expect whatever is left of Syrian Christianity to be left unmolested by Assad.

The Rebels are Victorious – As happened in Libya with the overthrow of Gadhafi, Syria disintegrates further into Muslim warlordism with ISIS enjoying the role of predominant warlords.  The black market will thrive, the remaining Syrian Christians will be exterminated, more Muslim refugees will pour into the West, and ISIS will have a secure base to coordinate more terrorism against the West.

Over the long-term there is the possibility that one faction of Muslim terrorists eventually consolidates power over all of Syria – but this is hardly an argument for backing Assad’s overthrow because whichever faction ultimately fights its way to the top is guaranteed to be run by five-star homicidal maniacs.

From every rational perspective an Assad victory easily best serves American interests.

How should America intervene in Syria?

Since the rebels are not exactly as formidable as a 1943 Wehrmacht Army Group under the command of von Manstein, a simple American air campaign backed by pro-Assad ground forces and whatever land contingents Russia has in theater should be enough to annihilate this latest, horrid, experiment in Islamic “Democracy”.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Syria Policy – #NeverAssad? #AlwaysAssad!”

  1. A more interesting analysis would be to try to justify the Left’s wish to overthrow Assad, when we have witnessed the consequences of regime change in Libya etc. (In fact, when I say the Left, I should probably include large elements of the Right as well, including for example the UK “Conservative” government.) I think anyone supporting the so-called Syrian “rebels” must be mad, including for the reasons you outline.

    O/T. When you’ve finished getting through your backlog of blog posts, one thing I’d like you to explore in more detail is your support for international capitalism. I’m sure that in broad terms we have the same stance, but in a globalised economy support for capitalism in its purest form is hard to defend, and indeed I no longer would do so. The State is needed to push back against some of the worst excesses of international capitalism, such as vast banking conglomerates that can wreak havoc on society (hence legislation to limit the emergence of monopolies, and regulation of financial services industries). Likewise, consumers need protection against amoral business practices. To give just two examples related to healthcare: first is allowing big business to sell cigarettes to lower IQ people and young adults who discount their futures too highly (thereby imposing extra healthcare costs on the rest of us), and second would be the slide into obesity of the general population, partly arising from excess levels of sugar in modern processed food. Libertarians would argue that people should be allowed to make their own mistakes. But the fact is that multinational corporations can throw tremendous amounts of advertising at promoting unhealthy products: it’s a world of asymmetric information and abilities. The poor in particular need some help in the form of government regulations etc, and not just in the labour market by limits to mass immigration. So, exactly what form of international capitalism is it that you favour?

  2. A more interesting analysis would be to try to justify the Left’s wish to overthrow Assad, when we have witnessed the consequences of regime change in Libya etc.

    The Left, broadly, refuses to change its position because to do so would mean admitting the basic tenets of Islam are culturally incompatible with key features of Western civilization. This admission is too at odds with their fundamental belief in the infinite malleability of all humans for them to consider. Their response to the clear results in Libya and those in every other example of removing somewhat sane Muslim dictators in the name of Muslim democracy has been to not even acknowledge that consistent result.

    In the particular case of Obama I feel he has not been ignoring an unpleasant truth. Instead I believe he has been deliberately helping Muslim terrorist governments rise to power because, even though I doubt he is a practitioner of Islam, he personally identifies with Islamic terrorism.

  3. When you’ve finished getting through your backlog of blog posts, one thing I’d like you to explore in more detail is your support for international capitalism.

    That subject will be addressed in my analysis of modern Leftism, which is primarily to blame for many failures supposedly caused by Capitalism.

    You bring up banking, cigarettes, and obesity. In banking the Liberal state has been at least as responsible for financial market meltdowns as the banks themselves. In the 2008 crisis the banks were forced by government regulators to loan to minorities who could not pay them back. In a Capitalist system they would not have received the loans in the first place.

    The state has been cracking down on the cigarette industry for some decades now.

    In the case of obesity, this another failure of the Liberal social engineering state. The agricultural industries that produce high-fat, low-carb foods have as much lobbying power as the grain and sugar industries. The former can use their lobbying strength to have the government promote a high-fat, low-carb diet.

    The reason high-carb, low-fat won the argument and subsequently sparked the obesity epidemic is because government regulators imposed their solution on the public and against all the scientific evidence contradicting their advice.

    If the decision had been entirely left to the free market the food pyramid would be at least as balanced towards fat and meat as to grain and sugar because the political connections of both industries would probably have cancelled each other out and resulted in a compromise on dietary guidelines.

  4. Thanks. I accept your points, although bank lending to minorities was not the issue in Eire, UK etc. But you don’t really get at the fundamental issue. No doubt you’re right that state intervention sometimes (often even?) adds to, rather than helps to address, society’s problems. So the State needs to be smaller. But my argument still stands: the interests of vast, multinational corporations aren’t always aligned with those of the people, especially in third-party countries where the corporations are not domiciled for tax purposes. Many deep thinkers are worried that the likes of Google will dominate the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and become more powerful than governments. Even supporters of international capitalism need to put limits on the powers of private enterprise, since they surely stray into the political arena as well.

  5. Under Capitalism, as I define it, the government takes responsibility for limiting unfair business practices because enforcement of rules common to all private actors is the domain of the government (since private actors could not, as Libertarians would have you believe, be trusted with enforcement of common rules when they also have a profit motive to satisfy.)

    A Capitalistic government would defend the interests of the common people with the break up of monopolies, banning or restricting the sale of goods linked to public health problems, and set strict financial regulations for banks. What you point out as a flaw in my system is really more applicable to anarcho-Libertarians.

    Now, you may point out that if businesses were given as much free reign as my politics would grant them – however less reign they would have under pure Libertarianism – that they would in practice use their lobbying strength to have the government neglect enforcing appropriate business rules on monopolies, public health, finance, and so on.

    To this I would respond that while it is true the Capitalistic government’s role would not meet its ideal as a purely neutral economic referee, this reality is not by itself enough to refute my position because no political system reaches their ideal state. As long as the government attempts to adhere to its role as neutral arbiter the actual benefits of Capitalism will still outweigh any other system, despite big business abuses, because it will reign in most abuses.

    When Scandinavian governments are praised for their low levels of corruption that praise does not suggest they have no corruption at all.

    But because Scandinavians make a better attempt at freeing themselves of corruption, they still enjoy an advantage over many other nations because they are relatively better in this aspect than others.

    Likewise, the aggregate benefits of Capitalism will provide a significant relative advantage over other economic systems despite Capitalism never being perfectly aligned with its ideal.

    As for third-party nations, they would be putting a great deal of trust in an external government enforcing its rules fairly.

Comments are closed.