You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

WILLIAMS: Syria: Pick your poison or pass the cup

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

President Obama met with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the Group of Eight summit last week to discuss many things, but the biggest topic appeared to be their differences over Syria. One look at a picture of their meeting tells you how poorly it went.

Syria has been in the midst of a civil war for two years. The rebels were a late bloom of the Arab Spring — beginning while the Western world was occupied with Libya. Mr. Obama has largely avoided getting involved, but he recently cited reports of chemical weapon usage for declaring that Syrian President Bashar Assad must go. Mr. Obama backed himself into the same corner when he said in 2011 that Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi must go.

Furthermore, Britain and France forced the White House to openly agree to supply arms to the rebels. Our allies were prompted by Iran announcing that it was sending 4,000 troops to help Mr. Assad and that Russia was sending more anti-aircraft defenses and small arms to the Syrian government.

The Cold Warriors, like Sen. John McCain, want to jump into Syria in order to fight another U.S.-Russian proxy war. For the likely outcome, see Vietnam.

Humanitarian interventionists, represented by recently appointed U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, decry the loss of innocent life and demand involvement to prevent another mass genocide like Rwanda. (Recent estimates put the Syrian death toll at more than 93,000 so far.) For the likely outcome, see Somalia.

Neocons still want to spread democracy and think the rebels are the best chance for a secular, peace-loving democracy in Damascus, as well as a means to weaken Iran and create another bulwark around the mullahs. For the likely outcome, see Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are all wrong. In this case, Mr. Obama was absolutely correct in trying to stay out of another Middle East quagmire. Unfortunately, as so often is the case with our president, he is flip-flopping. Now he is backing into a conflict with eyes wide open. A conflict that, once again, has no positive outcome.

Hezbollah and al Qaeda represent the two sides of the Syrian conflict. Both are terrorist organizations, obviously. If you had to guess which one the U.S. is more likely to help in this case, most would say, "Hezbollah is the lesser of two evils." Wrong, we are supporting al Qaeda.

Surely this cannot be because Mr. Obama himself declared al Qaeda defeated just this past May. Perhaps, he meant the non-U.S.-supported branch of al Qaeda.

But I digress.

The best outcome would be to give the Syrian al Qaeda-supported rebels just enough firepower to keep fighting so both sides kill each other. And then all the equipment we deliver magically disappears. But the war will end and there will be a victor of sorts.

If Mr. Assad and Hezbollah win, Iran can strengthen its ties with the two groups, most likely throwing Lebanon firmly under Hezbollah control and provoking an Israeli response. Jordan and Turkey also have been actively trying to oust Mr. Assad, so his victory could easily foretell another explosion of Middle East conflict.

A rebel victory gives al Qaeda a new base of operations. The Syrian desert is an uncontrollable wasteland, just like the Iraq desert was. We should not expect or even hope that suddenly these rebels will like us because we helped them. That seems to be a recurring fallacy that interventionists entertain.

Syrians generally distrust foreign, and especially Western, influence. The rebels have been begging for help from the West for two years; coming late to the party does not endear us to them, even if that very help turns the tide. Under no circumstances can we assume that we will have standing with the new rebel government.

So the U.S. is left in the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.

Modern interventionism is a fool's errand. America has always proclaimed it does not desire an empire, and it has largely followed that tenet. We could have easily maintained control of Iraq and confiscated its oil money to pay for the war, but we did not.

If there is no economic reason for the U.S. to intervene, then there must be a strategic reason. I cannot see how being in Syria is a better strategic position than being in Iraq. And we left Iraq.

In Syria, we have no positive strategic outcomes, so that point is moot.

If Britain and France want to get involved, then they can go beg Germany for some money and do it themselves. I am sure Germany is willing to listen since they were Syria's No. 1 oil customer. If Europe wants to challenge Russia and Iran in a proxy war for oil, let them foot their own bill. We have been down that road enough the past 10 years.

So I say, let them fight their own war. We should not waste our blood or treasure being a kingmaker among those who revile us.

Armstrong Williams is the author of the book "Reawakening Virtues." Join him from 4 to 5 a.m. and 6 to 7 p.m. daily on Sirius/XM Power 128. Become a fan on Facebook and follow him on Twitter.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks