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: