Idealism Vs. Realism in Syria

Sunday, March 18, 2012

There is no glory in pure expediency. But what is a nation to do when the cost of altruism is the death of a mother's son?

That is the kind of question posed to the United States as it watches civilian bodies pile like cordwood in Syria.

Should a predominantly Christian America bomb Damascus to save the lives of Muslim women and children? But more important, if some of them are the wives and offspring of militant Islamists who see Americans as infidel imperialists, should we expend our blood or treasure for their benefit?

This is our query regarding the "Arab Spring" democracy movement.

The cause would seem to favor America's view that people are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to govern themselves. As such, a Middle East democracy initiative was actually commenced in the last Bush administration and embraced by President Obama.

The problem is that it is simplistic and counterproductive to American interests.

America's democracy initiative brought about free elections in the area controlled by the Palestinian authority. The result was that the majority of the people, at least in Gaza, chose to establish a brutal dictatorship headed by the terrorists of Hamas. Then, when free elections were held in Egypt, the majority chose the repressive Muslim Brotherhood to lead their new parliament.

In the most recent news, we learned that in Libya, newly "freed" by our NATO military, an al-Qaida terrorist chief spent weeks shopping for weapons. In Egypt, where we joined to call for the ouster of a dictator, Christian churches were burned. And when these Christians held a demonstration to highlight their concerns with their newly democratized nation, 27 were killed.

Years ago, I was an enthusiastic member of a group known as Young Americans for Freedom. Founded by William F. Buckley, the intellectual architect of the modern conservative movement, this group established as one of its guiding principles that American foreign policy must solely be judged by whether it serves the interest of the United States.

The building of "democratic" dictatorships that may end up oppressing Christians and enslaving women with Sharia law serves only the interest of academics who can see no farther than the ballot box. Altruistic democratic nation-building sounds noble, but it does not necessarily serve American interests.

The Assad family in Syria, as brutal as it is, may be better able to serve the interests of the United States than the terrorist sympathizers to be found among those who oppose it. The regime has kept peace along its border with Israel and has not directly eroded America's Middle East position. To be sure, its support of Islamists in Lebanon did not serve American interests well, but it has kept its mischievous conduct to a low level.

On the other hand, the enemies of the Assad regime include Islamists with a spiritual kinship to the Taliban and al-Qaida. Giving them a helping hand could prove as shortsighted as Jimmy Carter arming the Taliban in its fight against the Soviet Union. Foreign policy ought not be the product of a simpleton's slogan like "democracy now." It is a complex decision which needs to be judged solely by its contribution to American security.

So what ought the United States do when Syria murders its dissidents in pursuit of power for its minority sect? The answer is that intervention into Syria only strengthens terrorists. When the choice is between strengthening our enemies and helping evildoers who harm them, the answer is not to choose at all.

Ron Paul has a legitimate point when he reminds us again that "we are not the world's policeman." Sure, we must urge the Assads of this world to restrain themselves. Nor can we become in any way complicit in their evil. But our own interests must supersede the natural desire to play "superhero" to the oppressed.

In 1982, Syria's former leader descended upon the Muslim Brotherhood and anti-regime Islamists in the town of Hama, killing 20,000 civilians. Americans ought to mourn every day for the innocent of Syria, then and now. But our grief and disgust ought not make our soldiers part of the statistics or our taxes part of the price.

From Tripoli to Damascus, we should agree that there are problems we cannot and should not solve.

Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.

More like this story

Toyboy52 1 year, 2 months ago

See a very interesting discussion of this topic on Facebook

http://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1476075908&story_fbid=309599229106999&v=feed&src=email_notif

Toyboy52 1 year, 2 months ago

The question of whether to intervene to stop atrocities on solely Moral grounds is a dilemma that has faced us since WWIi.

We always say we are doing the morally right thing when we intervene, but our intervention generally is preceded by self interest.

jwsal 1 year, 2 months ago

This is an incredibly US-centric point of view with a characteristic conservative lack of understanding of world politics. The idea that the US was in any way responsible for the democratic revolutions in the Arab world is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, the US helped prolong dictatorial regimes for decades, stifling democracy. So no wonder some of the people who are getting elected think the US is evil; quite a large number of people in the world think the US is the most destabilising influence in world politics. What I do agree with the author on however is that the US probably shouldn't get involved, although it probably already has its agents involved in running guns to the opposition to counter Iran's backing of the Assad regime. But I don't think the US should get involved because the US has already intervened far too much in the Middle East and should get its oil-drenched fingers out of the whole mess, whereas the author's reason is simply that getting involved does not help US interests (again showing little understanding of geopolitics, since removing Assad who is an ally of Iran probably would help the US). People who know nothing about the issues they discuss shouldn't bother opening their mouths. Silence is better than talking nonsense.

Toyboy52 1 year, 2 months ago

This is a very serious look at the Mid East. Assad only became an ally of Iran out of necessity. Iran IS a religious cult. Syria is a Ba'ath Party secular state like Iraq was before we intervened . By going to war and by siding with the enemies of Hussein's Iraq, Egypt and now Syria, we have destroyed our natural alliance with secular states and have given Iran a chance to seize power and influence I'n these states.

Moreover, we have allowed Russia to reintroduce itself as a Mid East power for the first time since we had them thrown out of Egypt.

This article recognizes that history. The problem is that the enemies of Assad are fundamentalists who will eventually make peace with Iran , not Assad. The result will be Iranian allies from Iraq to Damascus, including Lebanon and Egypt and Yemen

DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago

What I find disturbing about this article was the second paragraph: “Should a predominately Christian America bomb Damascus to save the lives of Muslim women and children?”

While U.S. intervention in Syria is not something that I am recommending or advocating it strikes me that of all the reasons not to intervene, of all the questions to ask, this one was the first one posed by Mr. Levy. This is highly disturbing not only from a Christian perspective but from a human perspective. Why, in your opinion Mr. Levy would or should religion play any part in whether a life should be saved?

While the argument could be that the religious preference was inserted in the letter as a descriptor, if taken out I would say that the sentence sounds equally callous and shows a lack of basic compassion and humanity.

This is followed with the question of whether, because of the sins of the father / spouse, a wife or child should be allowed to suffer. This strikes me as one of the least human things that I’ve read in the Pilot.

Toyboy52 1 year, 1 month ago

The true question is whether the end result of our aid is the creation of an enemy that seeks to destroy us. I submit that this is or will be the final result I'n Iraq where our aid has brought to power people sympathetic to Iran, their similar sect brothers. Our aid to stop the brutality I'n Egypt and Libya did the same.

The reason that America went to war in Europe and the reason we refrained mostly from intervention in TheMid East is partially religious. Perhaps it should not be . All innocent lives are worth saving. That is the abstract belief. But, it is not reality.