Now it is Assad for Syria – what if …?

Recent reports in the media indicate that analysts now consider the best option for Syria (and for stability in the Middle East) is if Assad regains control of Syria. Well now – isn’t that good news!

Ooops! Sorry we made a mistake!

I have said before (as my one loyal reader has pointed out) the Syrians are an intelligent people with a very long, if rather turbulent, history going back millennia. As I also pointed out it is very poor policy to try and pick winners when it comes to any country’s governance, but particularly in the Middle East. And then what about the one hundred thousand (and counting) Syrian casualties later?

For the sake of humanity and in the name of whatever you consider God to be, leave Syria to the Syrians and back off!

And now there is Afghanistan. The Afghanis are an intelligent people with a very long, if rather turbulent, history going back millennia. They have fought off invaders ranging from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the more recent Soviet invasion and prevailed. Once more – trying to pick winners in this area of the world is an impossible, and pointless task.

In their recent history the Afghanis have lost many uncounted thousands of civilian casualties to the Taliban, the Soviets and NATO (read USA) actions. More importantly are the people any better off with NATO interference? 

The Afghanis are capable of sorting themselves out, one way or another. Just leave them alone. Back off!

Will this be another “Ooops” moment? You bet.

Now, just for a moment let us speculate. What would have happened if former President G W Bush and his cronies had come to a similar conclusion about Iraq? Maybe, just maybe, Iraq (and stability in the Middle East) would have been better off under Saddam Hussein. As afore mentioned, it is very poor policy to try and pick winners when it comes to any country’s governance, but particularly in the Middle East. And particularly for the five hundred thousand plus (and counting) Iraqi (and US and allied) casualties later.

Just like the Syrians and Afghanis, the Iraqis are an intelligent people with a very long, if rather turbulent, history going back millennia. Mesopotamia – the Land between the Two Rivers – was the cradle of civilization and extends at least as far back as recorded history, to about 3000 BC (remember the Babylonians?).

Ooops! Sorry we made a mistake! But was the mistake about the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or was the mistake about invading Iraq in the first place?

Or maybe both? Why can’t we (that is the USA and the West) just leave well alone and back off?

Syria – don’t add fuel to the fire!

It is a very dangerous course of action to try a pick a winner in a war zone. Particularly in a civil war and even more dangerous when to opposing sides are divided by religious beliefs.

I am not a Syrian, I have never knowingly met a Syrian – nor am I a Muslim. I strongly believe that no person, group or country that is neither Muslim nor Syrian should interfere in Syria. Bashar al-Assad may not be a very nice person – but look at who his father was and look at what his father did to the Syrian people many years ago. He killed thousands. So his son, the current Syrian president, has not had a particularly good role model to emulate.

The Syrians started this “war” two years ago (Amended Feb 22, 2018:- actually started March 15, 2011, so now seven years ago) and while I am appalled at the violence and the escalation into neighbouring countries I strongly disagree with any attempt to “support” any of the warring parties by supplying them with weapons. The Russians are wrong; the EU is wrong and the Americans are wrong in offering support to either side – in other words trying to pick a winner. (Added Feb 22, 2018:- Also  don't forget the religious side of this war Shia - the Alawite ruling minority and Shia majority in Iran vs the Sunni majority opposition allied to the Turks and others in the region).

Picking winners in a civil conflict never works. The Russians and the Western Coalition tried it in Afghanistan; the French and the Americans (and allies) tried it in Vietnam; the Americans and their allies tried it in Iraq and there are many other examples to draw on (Palestine?) – history is littered with such attempts - all failed or are failing. The Americans themselves should know better than to interfere in someone else’s civil war – each side resisted interference from the French and/or British in their various "home grown" conflicts hundreds of years ago.

Now the Russians are ramping up their supply of weapons to Syria. This will inevitably be matched by the “West” and by Israel. To what end? Such actions will just add fuel to the fire. This Syrian civil conflict – as in all such conflicts - has its origins in injustice (Palestine?). And injustice can never resolved by violence. Violence just creates more injustice, as we have already witnessed, this in turn will promote more violence to “redress” the additional injustices and so a vortex of violence and injustice will ensue. No one benefits – except arms dealers and weapons manufacturers and suppliers.

By all means provide humanitarian aid to the millions of Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and to support these countries in their efforts to assist the refugees  - this is  fair and just. But not to supply weapons.

Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.   

New Beginings

While recently moving house and “binning” unwanted stuff I came across an old wallet of mine in the back of a drawer. I checked to see if I had left anything in it – there was nothing except a fortune cookie from some long forgotten Christmas past. It read as follows:-

“You will enjoy good health – that will be your form of wealth”.

I was rather taken aback at having this thrown in my face, as it were. It is true that I am fortunate in that I do enjoy good health and I certainly appreciate the fact that no amount of money can “buy” good health but I was surprised to have this presented to me in this manner. It was the last thing I expected but then Nature, at the time and place of its choosing, has its own way of reminding us of important facts.

This last fact – that Nature has its own way of presenting things - led me to reflect on what Al Ghazali said (he was a Muslim jurist, theologian and mystic born in Iran and who lived 1058-1111 CE) - we can learn from everyone!!:

“Punishment is the natural working out of consequences, and not an arbitrary infliction imposed ab extra.”

From this statement, by a somewhat circuitous route, I arrived at a point where I was thinking about current events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (Al Ghazali spent some time in Damascus). If punishment is the result of consequences - the natural flow of events from cause to effect - then the suffering being experienced by the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (and by extension many of the Allied military) would be, logically, the result of some previous circumstance or circumstances (the cause).

If we examine Afghanistan for example we find that, certainly in recent times, they have had the beliefs and wishes of others imposed on them – first the Russians and now the Americans and their allies.

The Russian incursion into Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. As part of the Cold War (the West vs Soviet Russia) the conflict between Soviet led Afghan troops fighting multi-national insurgent groups (predominantly Muslim but US aided) known as the mujahideen was very violent.

The mujahideen won and the Russians were forced out in 1989.

Now for the Americans and their allies (including Australia) the Taliban are the “enemy” in Afghanistan – but both the mujahedeen and the Taliban had their origins in the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and are indirect creations of the US from their attempts to weaken the Soviets during the Cold War.

Also, indirectly, it has been alleged that the early foundations of al-Qaeda stem, at least in part, from the relationships, the weaponry and the billions in US aid that was given to support the mujahedeen in their fight to expel the Soviets.

The Afghan people are a tough and independent lot – they resent any incursion by anyone.

What goes around comes around!

Then there is Iraq. I know the Saddam Hussein was a very unpleasant character but he unified and modernised Iraqi society and facilitated the education of millions of Iraqis (both male and female) to such an extent that he was even given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Everything worked, people had food, employment and a level of social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries in what was an (admittedly enforced) secular country.

Now it is a disaster. Iraq is a mess of sectarian violence. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died as did thousands of Americans and their allies in the invasion of that country. For what? Bombs and general shootings are still killing hundreds of these unfortunate people. And to make matters worse previously reliable electricity and water services are now somewhat problematic and the previously excellent social services are virtually non-existent and there is high unemployment. Also it is not a “Democracy” such as would be approved by the “West”.

Syria is something else again. The current civil war (upward of 40 000 have died and millions have fled their homes) appears to be an extension of the “Arab spring” movement but would seem to have been high-jacked by the “Muslim Brotherhood” which had its origins in Egypt and others apparently affiliated to Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda.

All indications are that Syria will end up as a fragmented failed state despite the efforts of other Arab countries and the “West” who are desperately trying to prevent this.

America and the West cannot hope to impose anything resembling the Western Ideal of Democracy in the Middle East if the peoples concerned are not prepared to embrace it. If they do embrace Democracy it may be a version, a local somewhat altered version, a cherry-picked version. It will be, however, what they choose. Let it be – it will be a “grass roots” from the bottom up movement to allow the local populace a voice in running their country.  It cannot and will not be something imposed by outsiders (and non-Muslims at that).

The West, by trying to interfere in the internal affairs of these countries (something the West would never accept if the roles were reversed) has started a sequence of events that it has no power to control. If the West does not like the results – the consequences – of its interference then the West must look to itself.

As Al-Ghazali said (see my quote above) “Punishment is the natural working out of consequences, and not an arbitrary infliction imposed ab extra.”

The Arabs are not children. They will sort themselves out.  They are an intelligent people some of whom have been caught up in a quasi-religious, quasi-political ideology and, combined with a distorted view of history, are trying to impose their views and to recreate a long lost “golden age” of Arab achievement to match the West. Their “power” comes from a strict interpretation of the Koran and  application of their version of Islamic Law.

Let them be. Leave well alone. The West must learn to take responsibility for, and accept the consequences, of its actions (good or bad).

Remember what goes around comes around!