Columns

Syria's Insurrection Is Not America's War

By: Pat Buchanan | Posted: June 5, 2012 3:55 AM
Pat Buchanan mug
In pushing for U.S. military intervention in Syria -- arming the insurgents and using U.S. air power to "create safe zones" for anti-regime forces "inside Syria's borders" -- The Washington Post invokes "vital U.S. interests" that are somehow imperiled there.

Exactly what these vital interests are is left unexplained.

For 40 years, we have lived with a Damascus regime led by either Bashar Assad or his father, Hafez Assad. Were our "vital interests" in peril all four decades?

In 1991, George H.W. Bush recruited the elder Assad into his Desert Storm coalition that liberated Kuwait. Damascus sent 4,000 troops. In gratitude, we hosted a Madrid Conference to advance a land-for-peace deal between Assad and Israel.

It failed, but it could have meant a return of the Golan Heights to Assad and Syria's return to the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee.

We could live with that, but cannot live with Bashar?

Comes the reply: The reason is the Houla massacre, where more than 100 Syrians were slaughtered, mostly women and children, the most horrid atrocity in a 15-month war that has taken 10,000 lives.

We Americans cannot stand idly by and let this happen.

That massacre was indeed appalling, and apparently the work of rogue militia aligned with the regime. But in 1982, Bashar's father rolled his artillery up to the gates of Hama and, to crush an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood, fired at will into the city until 20,000 were dead.

What did America do? Nothing.

In Black September, 1970, Jordan's King Hussein used artillery on a Palestinian camp, killing thousands and sending thousands fleeing into Lebanon. During Lebanon's civil war from 1975 to 1990, more than 100,000 perished. In the 1980s, Iraq launched a war on Iran that cost close to a million dead.

We observed, content that our enemies were killing one another.

In 1992, Islamists in Algeria won the first round of voting and were poised to win the second. Democracy was about to produce a result undesired by the Western democracies. So Washington and Paris gave Algiers a green light to prevent the Islamists from coming to power. That Algerian civil war cost scores of thousands dead.

If Arab and Muslim peoples believe Americans are hypocrites who cynically consult their strategic interests before bemoaning Arab and Muslim victims of terror and war, do they not have a point?

As for the Post's idea of using U.S. air power to set up "safe zones" on Syrian soil, those are acts of war. What do we do if the Syrian army answers with artillery strikes on those safe zones or overruns one, inflicting a stinging defeat on the United States?

Would we accept the humiliation -- or escalate? What if Syrian air defenses start bringing down U.S. planes? What would we do if Syria's Hezbollah allies start taking Americans hostage in Lebanon?

Ronald Reagan sent the Marines into Lebanon in 1983. His intervention in that civil war resulted in our embassy being blown up and 241 Marines massacred in the bombing of the Beirut barracks. Reagan regarded it as the worst mistake of his presidency. Are we going to repeat it because Bashar has failed to live up to our expectations?

Consider the forces lining up on each side in what looks like a Syrian civil war and dress rehearsal for a regional sectarian war.

Against Assad's regime are the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, the Turks and Saudis and Sunni states of the Persian Gulf.

On Assad's side are his 300,000-strong army, the Alawite Shia in Syria, Druze, Christians and Kurds, all of whom fear a victory of the Brotherhood, and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

The question for our bellicose interventionists is this:

How much treasure should be expended, how much American blood shed so the Muslim Brotherhood can depose the Assad dynasty, take power and establish an Islamist state in Syria?

"Tell me how this thing ends," said Gen. David Petraeus at the onset of our misbegotten Iraq War. If we begin providing weapons to those seeking the overthrow of Assad, as the Post urges, it will be a fateful step for this republic.

We will be morally responsible for the inevitable rise in dead and wounded from the war we will have fueled. We will have committed our prestige to Assad's downfall. As long as he survives, it will be seen as a U.S. defeat and humiliation.

And once the U.S. casualties come, the cry of the war party will come -- for victory over Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia! We will be on our way into another bloody debacle in a region where there is no vital U.S. interest but perhaps oil, which these folks have to sell to survive.

Before the religious and ethnic conflicts of Europe were sorted out, it took centuries of bloodletting, and our fathers instructed us to stay out of these quarrels that were none of our business.

Syria in 2012 is even less our business.



Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.


COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Comments (2)

Robert Lloyd
7:27AM JUN 5TH 2012
The world will soon declare war on the neo-con Judeo America and eliminate this terrorist state once and for all, should we not change our ways and stop telling everyone how to live their lives (but we won't).

Hopefully a true America would emerge from the ashes... called Dixie.
scoured
4:51AM JUN 5TH 2012
While the effectiveness and strategy behind creating "safe zones" in Syria is more than debatable, as it would open an endless can of worms, the value of concerning ourselves with the issues in Syria is not. The idea that Syria is "not our business" is both short-sighted and reckless. Syria is in the middle of - and entrenched in the politics of - a number of regional players which we HAVE to deal with - Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran. Anything short of Assad barbarically repressing the opposition in his country and reinstating a staus quo in Syria is going to have meaningful impacts on the region as a whole and possibly risk spilling over (as the buzz word of the day is) into these other countries, which would affect a number of other foreign policy interests for the U.S. In addition, the slaughter in Syria, while marginally well documented, is arguably larger than stated, and set to increase. By trivializing Syria, we in the international community give Assad a free pass to deal with the opposition however he sees fit. With Shabiha now empowered throughout the country by government arming programs, the risks there for unrestrained sectarian violence are reminiscent of Rwanda or Bosnia. So while comparing Syria to Lybia is a dangerous thing to do, ignoring the problems in the country is a mistake both for our foreign policy and the people of Syria who would have to deal with even more hostile repression in a place that has been entrenched by conflict for over a year.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.