If someone comes across my Google+ page or my blog and only views one of my posts, that person could determine from that post that I am a tree-hugging liberal, an über-nationalist, or a supporter of foreign dictatorial regimes, among other things. The reason for this is that I call things as I see them. 80% of the time, I may support one group, but I may not support them that other 20% of the time when I think they're wrong. I try to be as objective as possible. My views sometimes confuse those around me, but the thing to remember is that I am consistent with what I believe to be the best position based on the evidence I have at hand, instead of merely latching on to one group and mindlessly accepting every position they advocate.
You may remember my recent posts, "Propaganda in the West" and "More Propaganda in the West". Those were both about how the United States is messing things up and actively trying to create enemies out of nations that are willing to compromise when it should instead be accepting these nations with open arms to show that enemies don't have to stay enemies. So far, the United States has shown itself to be extremely rigid and haughtily moralistic, even when it has not been the most moral actor, either.
Today, my main topic deals with the relationship that the United States should have with the Syrian government. You might not know this, but back in 2011, I supported the demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak, and I also supported US actions in Libya to help those in Benghazi (although I would not have taken down the whole Libyan regime). You could say that I was hopeful about the so-called "Arab Spring".
That started to change after I witnessed a few things. Firstly, Hosni Mubarak was arrested right after being forced to resign. That was not a major surprise, and it was probably warranted in a way, but I feel that those who resign should be allowed to leave in peace (even if much of their ill-gotten money is taken from them). When you arrest your previous rulers, that reeks of instability. This is also one reason why I think that those who want to arrest George W. Bush or Dick Cheney over "war crimes" are very far off base. In the end, even if what they did amounts to war crimes, they are out of office now, and they should not be prosecuted. As soon as you start prosecuting one former ruler, then the door is opened for absolute anarchy. In fact, this is what happened in Egypt just two years later when the next ruler, Mohamed Morsi, was also deposed. Once a country gets into the custom of deposing and incarcerating leaders, then there will no doubt be bitter factions that want revenge and instability will grow.
Now, the Hosni Mubarak imprisonment did not change my mind about the demonstrations, and as I said, I also (more or less) supported the fight against Gaddafi. There were some nagging doubts in the back of my mind. For example, I heard that an area in eastern Libya sent more foreign fighters to Iraq to kill American soldiers than any other area of the world. Yet I still wanted Benghazi to be free from Gaddafi's wrath. The real turning point came when the rebels found Gaddafi and executed him. Gaddafi was tortured, and this included being stabbed through the anus. I finally realized that the rebels were more savage than the regime. And this was my turning point in the "Arab Spring". By the time the Syrian rebellion had really gotten underway, I was already leaning towards the side of the Syrian government. I remember that when the Syrian rebellion was in its early stages, there was one rebel/protester on TV saying, "We are not animals!" My mental response was "Oh, yes you are." That was not an insult. It's just basic science.
I recently read an article called, "Syria warns US: No unilateral strikes on militants". When reading through it, I agreed with what the Syrian government officials said much more than what the United States government officials said. Below, I will give you some select quotes from the article, followed by my reactions:
"Al-Moallem told reporters his government is ready 'to cooperate and coordinate' with any side, including the U.S., or join any regional or international alliance against the Islamic State group. But he said any military action inside Syria should be coordinated with the Syrian government."
"He said Damascus has warned repeatedly of the threat of terrorism and the need to cut off resources and funding, but 'no one listened to us.'"
"The West, he said, will 'have to choose what is more important: to change the regime and satisfy personal antipathies with the risk that the situation will crumble, or find pragmatic ways to join efforts against the common threat, which is the same for all of us — terrorism.'"
I agree with all of this. Those quotes are right on the money. The United States government didn't listen to the Syrian government when it talked of terrorists. Now, there is no doubt there are terrorists fighting the government.
But the United States still wants to destroy the Assad regime. Why? Because the Assad regime is "bad"? Of course not. The Saudi government is worse. It is an absolute monarchy which allows people even fewer rights. Women can't drive and must cover up, and a rape conviction is almost impossible and will more likely lead to the victim getting whipped for adultery than a rapist getting imprisoned...and add to that the fact that anyone found to be an atheist or gay will be at the very least arrested, or far worse. And remember...Saudi Arabia is a "friend". So no, it's not because of that. It is because of two things. 1) Russia has its only Mediterranean naval base in Syria, and getting rid of the regime will deprive Russia of its only base in the Mediterranean, and 2) the United States has already called for Assad to step down, and every minute that he does not is seen as an affront to the United States, which is becoming more and more embarrassed.
However, now, the United States has the perfect out. Before, the US might have thought that the Assad regime would never forgive and forget, and we could never have a good relationship with Syria until a regime change occurred. With the quotes above, it is clear that Syria is doing its best to forgive and forget, and they will work with us if we just have the decency to put all of this posturing behind us and work in good faith with them to destroy the Islamic State, which is a major objective for both parties. Will the United States work with Syria? I hope so, but it seems hard to imagine, because once we put a government on the enemy list, we can't ever make up with them, even if they try their best to compromise with us. I am sorry that the United States will continue making this choice, because it is bad for the world.
This is true also with Iran. The US is against the Iranian government. We hated Ahmadinejad (as did I), and then a moderate (Hassan Rouhani) got elected, and we still don't want to give an inch. They are trying to be friendly in many ways, and they are compromising with us, but we are not ready to lift sanctions. I think that sanctions are an important way to make a country come to the bargaining table. But once it comes and is willing to give in to some of our demands, then keeping the sanctions in place is wrongheaded. What does that teach other countries? It teaches them that even if they compromise, they will still be treated harshly. So, it doesn't make sense for them to compromise at all under those conditions.
Let me be clear. Syria and Iran are not faultless, and they have done numerous heinous things, often to their own people. But we know that many "friends" of America are just as bad if not worse. What I am saying is that if we put the past aside and team up with these countries (at least for certain things), then the world will be a better place, and our enemies might morph into acquaintances (if not friends).
You may remember my recent posts, "Propaganda in the West" and "More Propaganda in the West". Those were both about how the United States is messing things up and actively trying to create enemies out of nations that are willing to compromise when it should instead be accepting these nations with open arms to show that enemies don't have to stay enemies. So far, the United States has shown itself to be extremely rigid and haughtily moralistic, even when it has not been the most moral actor, either.
Today, my main topic deals with the relationship that the United States should have with the Syrian government. You might not know this, but back in 2011, I supported the demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak, and I also supported US actions in Libya to help those in Benghazi (although I would not have taken down the whole Libyan regime). You could say that I was hopeful about the so-called "Arab Spring".
That started to change after I witnessed a few things. Firstly, Hosni Mubarak was arrested right after being forced to resign. That was not a major surprise, and it was probably warranted in a way, but I feel that those who resign should be allowed to leave in peace (even if much of their ill-gotten money is taken from them). When you arrest your previous rulers, that reeks of instability. This is also one reason why I think that those who want to arrest George W. Bush or Dick Cheney over "war crimes" are very far off base. In the end, even if what they did amounts to war crimes, they are out of office now, and they should not be prosecuted. As soon as you start prosecuting one former ruler, then the door is opened for absolute anarchy. In fact, this is what happened in Egypt just two years later when the next ruler, Mohamed Morsi, was also deposed. Once a country gets into the custom of deposing and incarcerating leaders, then there will no doubt be bitter factions that want revenge and instability will grow.
Now, the Hosni Mubarak imprisonment did not change my mind about the demonstrations, and as I said, I also (more or less) supported the fight against Gaddafi. There were some nagging doubts in the back of my mind. For example, I heard that an area in eastern Libya sent more foreign fighters to Iraq to kill American soldiers than any other area of the world. Yet I still wanted Benghazi to be free from Gaddafi's wrath. The real turning point came when the rebels found Gaddafi and executed him. Gaddafi was tortured, and this included being stabbed through the anus. I finally realized that the rebels were more savage than the regime. And this was my turning point in the "Arab Spring". By the time the Syrian rebellion had really gotten underway, I was already leaning towards the side of the Syrian government. I remember that when the Syrian rebellion was in its early stages, there was one rebel/protester on TV saying, "We are not animals!" My mental response was "Oh, yes you are." That was not an insult. It's just basic science.
I recently read an article called, "Syria warns US: No unilateral strikes on militants". When reading through it, I agreed with what the Syrian government officials said much more than what the United States government officials said. Below, I will give you some select quotes from the article, followed by my reactions:
"Al-Moallem told reporters his government is ready 'to cooperate and coordinate' with any side, including the U.S., or join any regional or international alliance against the Islamic State group. But he said any military action inside Syria should be coordinated with the Syrian government."
"He said Damascus has warned repeatedly of the threat of terrorism and the need to cut off resources and funding, but 'no one listened to us.'"
"The West, he said, will 'have to choose what is more important: to change the regime and satisfy personal antipathies with the risk that the situation will crumble, or find pragmatic ways to join efforts against the common threat, which is the same for all of us — terrorism.'"
I agree with all of this. Those quotes are right on the money. The United States government didn't listen to the Syrian government when it talked of terrorists. Now, there is no doubt there are terrorists fighting the government.
But the United States still wants to destroy the Assad regime. Why? Because the Assad regime is "bad"? Of course not. The Saudi government is worse. It is an absolute monarchy which allows people even fewer rights. Women can't drive and must cover up, and a rape conviction is almost impossible and will more likely lead to the victim getting whipped for adultery than a rapist getting imprisoned...and add to that the fact that anyone found to be an atheist or gay will be at the very least arrested, or far worse. And remember...Saudi Arabia is a "friend". So no, it's not because of that. It is because of two things. 1) Russia has its only Mediterranean naval base in Syria, and getting rid of the regime will deprive Russia of its only base in the Mediterranean, and 2) the United States has already called for Assad to step down, and every minute that he does not is seen as an affront to the United States, which is becoming more and more embarrassed.
However, now, the United States has the perfect out. Before, the US might have thought that the Assad regime would never forgive and forget, and we could never have a good relationship with Syria until a regime change occurred. With the quotes above, it is clear that Syria is doing its best to forgive and forget, and they will work with us if we just have the decency to put all of this posturing behind us and work in good faith with them to destroy the Islamic State, which is a major objective for both parties. Will the United States work with Syria? I hope so, but it seems hard to imagine, because once we put a government on the enemy list, we can't ever make up with them, even if they try their best to compromise with us. I am sorry that the United States will continue making this choice, because it is bad for the world.
This is true also with Iran. The US is against the Iranian government. We hated Ahmadinejad (as did I), and then a moderate (Hassan Rouhani) got elected, and we still don't want to give an inch. They are trying to be friendly in many ways, and they are compromising with us, but we are not ready to lift sanctions. I think that sanctions are an important way to make a country come to the bargaining table. But once it comes and is willing to give in to some of our demands, then keeping the sanctions in place is wrongheaded. What does that teach other countries? It teaches them that even if they compromise, they will still be treated harshly. So, it doesn't make sense for them to compromise at all under those conditions.
Let me be clear. Syria and Iran are not faultless, and they have done numerous heinous things, often to their own people. But we know that many "friends" of America are just as bad if not worse. What I am saying is that if we put the past aside and team up with these countries (at least for certain things), then the world will be a better place, and our enemies might morph into acquaintances (if not friends).
Comments
Post a Comment