John R. Houk
© April 28, 2013
Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime is using chemical weapons to stop the momentum of the Syrian rebels from dethroning the Assad regime. Now I realize perhaps a half to even more than a half of the Rebels are radical Muslims perhaps making them no worse than Assad’s secular-socialized government dominated by Syria’s Alawite-Shia (See Here, Here and Here) minority. Nonetheless, chemical weapons are supposed to be illegal by international convention. I am guessing the U.N. Security Council could empower military sanctions against Assad’s regime.
Now I know many Conservatives – Danny Jeffrey comes to mind – are against the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). R2P apparently has a few criticisms such as providing an excuse to invade to accomplish the National Interests of perhaps an agreed coalition bloc of nations. And perhaps R2P could embroil the USA in a war that is conducted beyond the pale of the U.S. Constitution.
I believe removing Assad is as much in the National Interests of the USA as there is a R2P military reason to save civilian lives. Now Danny Jeffrey’s concern is that R2P strategy is an Obama mask to discreetly aid invading Arab or Muslim armies to take down the Leftist perceived threat to world peace in the Jewish State of Israel. With Obama at the helm of the U.S. government I can see Danny’s view of a reprehensible motive behind the Obama R2P agenda. President Barack Hussein Obama is NO friend of Israel. Obama has gone beyond satisfying political correctness by saying Palestinians deserve a sovereign nation to forcing the issue including robbing Israel of half its capital city of Jerusalem and giving that to Jew-Hating Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.
Why is it in America’s National Interest to remove Bashar al-Assad? Anything that throws a monkey wrench into the radical Islamic agenda of America’s enemy Iran is good for America and perhaps signals those Twelver maniacs that American muscle might actually spank Iran for making good on their threats to drive Israeli Jews into the sea.
The fine line at issue is what will the U.S. government do after aiding Syrian rebels to give the Assad regime a boot? It would be crazy to get rid of Assad and allow a radical Muslim government to form to be the Sunni mirror image of Iran’s Shi’ite Twelver radical Muslim government.
The information I have managed to cull about the nature of the Syrian Rebels is that the Islamist militias – especially Jabhat al Nusra – are gaining infrastructure control of the rebel held land in Syria. Even though the secular or more moderate Muslim rebels figured prominently early in the Syrian Rebellion against Assad, it appears the radical Muslims by virtue of infrastructure possession would evolve into the controlling faction of any future Syrian government absent of Assad. This would not be good for American National Interests. A Sunni Islamist theocratic nation will be as much of an enemy of the USA and Israel as Iran is. Indeed I suspect Iran would make friendly overtures to a Sunni Islamist regime even though Iran represents Shia Islam. Just for perspective you should know that Sunnis are about 90% of Islam while Shias are roughly 10% of Islam. Radical Muslim Sunni Clerics have labeled Shias a heretic religion thus making the Shias as much of an infidel as Jews and Christians. Perhaps even more worth of death than Jews and Christians because a Shi’ite existence could be perceived as an insult to Allah and Mohammed. Among radical Muslims, in particular insulting Mo and Allah, is a good reason for the execution of the death penalty.
So here are the horns of a dilemma the U.S. government faces. Help the Syrian Rebels defeat Assad quite probably bring into power a Jew-Hating and American-Hating Islamist government OR do nothing while Assad uses chemical weapons of mass destruction to reverse the defeat he has been experiencing utilizing conventional weapons against the Rebels. Undoubtedly an Assad victory to remain in power would result in a wholesale genocide of Sunni Rebels and the civilian Sunni population that supported the Rebels. An Assad victory would also mean acquiring hubris perhaps leading the dictator to make rash moves against American interests and Israel, feeling an illusion of being undefeatable.
In the realm of the lesser of two evils, it still seems to me Assad’s demise will in at least the short term be better for the National Interests of the USA even if the long term outcome of Assad’s removal may not be helpful. The best way to bring down Assad with the least amount of American blood is to provide arms to the Syrian Rebels. It may be a futile hope but weaponry should be distributed to the more secular minded Sunnis who desire an elected government rather than a theo-political Sharia religious government in which the religious elite call the shots.
It will be up to the U.S. government – cough the Obama Administration – to actively influence a relationship that is not inimical to American National Interests. That probably is a tough order for I sense even a secular government based on Islamic elections will still be a Jew-Hating anti-Israel government. Which brings us back to Danny Jeffrey’s thoughts that President Barack Hussein Obama will part of an agenda to use R2P to join Arab and Muslim government to end the existence of Israel.
I was brought to this line of thinking from reading a Caroline Glick article entitled, “Time to confront Obama”. Glick wants to confront Obama’s motives behind the decisions he has made relating to Islamic terrorism, his treatment of Israel, wondering the value the word of BHO in relation to the Chemical WMD attack perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad against his own citizens and so on.
As my thoughts began to evolve it became apparent I was following a different train of thinking than Ms Glick. Nonetheless, you should read her article which is anti-Obama and pro-Israel. I like that way of thinking.