The media is reporting that a Middle Eastern dictator has used chemical weapons against his own people, killing women and children. Stop me if you’ve heard this one.
Even if all of this were true, and it may be so, it would still be an insufficient reason to intervene in Syria against the government there.
Let’s ask ourselves a few questions here:
- Why are chemicals worse than “conventional” bullets, bombs, and missiles? (Because the TV said so!)
- In which civil wars do belligerents not kill “their own people?” (What’s a civil war? I thought he was just a bad guy.)
- How does toppling a single faction in a multi-sided civil war end the deaths of women and children? (No, he’s the bad guy and we want the good guys to win.)
And finally just a statement for reflection purposes:
The opposition in Syria crucify and ENSLAVE people.
Have you weighed all of these points yet? Good.
So why are we supposed to go in again? Women and children?
Anyone who buys into this sort of propaganda is a rube of the worst sort. If we cannot convince them to oppose war in or with Syria we ought to keep them as far from the vectors of public discourse as possible. Unfortunately, America is a nation of rubes, who have been sold this same garbage over and over.
I sincerely hope that President Trump has not been overly co-opted by the (((neoconservative))) deep state, and that he is simply being bellicose and not genuinely interested in escalating anarchy in Syria. I understand leaving every option on the table, but implying you are considering an attack on Syria works to whose benefit exactly?
Syria has a legitimate Arab nationalist government. Its opponents are assorted flavors of jihadists. Knocking out the “regime” will replace it with the ummah. This isn’t complicated.
If our only reason for going after Assad is that he is a big-mean-dummy-war-crime-dictator, then we are simply making an emotional argument for killing a bunch of people because we don’t like that he’s killed a bunch of people. And if we get rid of him, it will end up just like Iraq and Libya did when their Arab nationalist dictatorships were deposed. And then more people get killed anyway. This is a bad, bad idea, and the people shilling for it are a unique kind of evil.
It is war for the sake of war—an aberration practiced by only the most savage peoples.
In practice there are really only two kinds of war that can be brought to successful conclusion:
War of conquest
Complete destruction of target state’s government and integration or demobilization of its surviving military in order to secure annexation to your state. This is most wars in human history, seizures of territory.
War of negation
A reversal of the results of a previous war to approximately status quo ante bellum. These are essentially flipped wars of conquest. In Iraq I in the 1990s, the purpose of Operation Desert Storm was to negate the merger of Iraq and Kuwait’s oilfields. All that had to be done was knocking out the occupation force and turning the keys back over to their previous owners. It’s a winnable goal because you aren’t trying to create a new government but prop up an existing or exiled one.
What made Iraq II, a decade later, a disaster, was that it was neither conquest nor negation. The goal was to kill the enemy for being a bad person and then magically create an independent parliamentary democracy, not to annex Iraq to the United States or return the territory to a former ruler. Why the neocons say they want war in Syria is the same (though their ulterior motives are very different from their rhetoric).
For the record, I don’t think we should have annexed Iraq anyway. And if there was no third party we were going to transfer the country over to either, why on earth were we there? The point is, you don’t fight a war for the sake of fighting a war, or for “bringing democracy” to people.
This isn’t sportsball. We don’t get to give a penalty to one team for “breaking the rules,” so that the other team gets the win. But that’s the favored pretext for war by the USG. Assad broke the rules so now we have to kill him and let jihadists win. Other considerations don’t matter.
This is the “humanitarian” case for war, which says some enforcer country has to attack the criminal country because of “human rights.”
But the track record of this is essentially garbage.
As a nationalist movement, we do not seek regime change in Syria to appease the interests of a (((neocon))) deep state. We do not care if Syria is “democratic.” We care if Syria is vomiting migrants and colonists into our countries. That is the only thing we are genuinely interested in.
And as we have no interest in integrating Syria into the United States, that leaves the only possible reason to intervene in Syria as ousting an invading force, a war of negation. The only war in Syria should be to preserve the Syrian state, not to spin the wheel and topple it for sport. Were we to get involved at all, it should be to help the most powerful, most legitimate faction preserve itself and drive out the jihadists.
But even that is ultimately unnecessary. We have no obligation as a sovereign nation to intervene in another country, especially not on the other side of the world.
So if you aren’t going to fight a war with tangible goals that benefit your own country, don’t do it. Don’t do it for Israeli foreign policy interests. Don’t sink manpower and money into trying to convert other countries to your civil religion (democracy).
You’re either going in to conquer territory or to rescue an ally. No more “nation-building,” no more “humanitarian” war, no more boots on the ground without the intention to occupy permanently.
How hard is it to not make the same blunder again?