F**k 'Em All!

So saith my soulmate, upon hearing that we might intervene militarily, again, on one side of an ancient Muslim sectarian dispute.

The Syrian civil war is increasingly a war between Shia, including Alawites, and the Sunni majority. The Sunni powers, the Saudis and the Emirates, are supporting the rebels, including al Qaeda affiliates; the Shiite powers, Iran and Hezbollah, and behind them, Russia, are supporting Assad's Alawite-dominated government.

So, since Russia is heavily arming Syria and Hezbollah, shouldn't the US jump in to support the rebels, along with its long-time 'democratic friends,' the Sunni-dominated monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf? Shiite-controlled Iraq, on which the US squandered almost a trillion dollars, is permitting passage of Russian and Iranian weaponry to Assad and Hezbollah.

So, the US should do it again, in Syria, not just offer small arms? It should go in with massive equipment and training for the rebels, or more, even though prominent numbers of the rebels claim sympathy with, or allegiance to, al Qaeda?

The US helped create al Qaeda, back when Americans were seeking allies to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The US supported and trained Osama bin Laden. Don't Americans ever learn? The US's second adventure in Afghanistan turned out so well that a majority of the US House of Representatives (including conservative Republicans) just demanded the US leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013!

Not only has hot-head McCain insisted America intervene in Syria, on the rebel side, but he was publicly seconded by Bill Clinton, who warned Obama would be a "wuss," if he didn't act forcefully on Syria.

It's true the Syrian rebellion started out as a peaceful, secular protest demanding democracy, and the Assad regime attempted violent suppression. Assad had no compunction attacking Syrian civilians with his military: in 1982, his father, Hafez, murdered at least 10,000 Syrians in Hama, alone. But this time, Sunnis rallied and the protest turned into a rebellion, fueled by money and arms from the Sunni Persian Gulf oil monarchies. Hence, Syrians now fight both civil war and sectarian war.

The US will support the Sunni side, along with al Qaeda, why?

Sunni and Shia have been battling since 661 CE (1,352 years), over who should succeed the Prophet. Why should the US have anything to do with either? Especially, why, since it has already failed twice in its Mideast interventions--Iraq and Afghanistan--and the outcome of its third, Libya, is still uncertain.

The US loses, if it intervenes. As horrendous as the carnage in Syria, the US would make it worse. But Empire is so seductive, especially to the Defense industry. Americans could be bankrupted as the Romans were, but unlike Huns, or Germanic barbarians, US 'enemies' do not threaten America's existence, only each others'.

Let them kill each other until they're exhausted--they will anyway. Or see reason. Let the UN pick up the pieces.

Attack Syria, Instead of Iran!

Gee, let's see: Syria is smaller than Iraq, which is smaller than Iran, so maybe we should attack Syria, instead of Iran. The US has to attack somebody, doesn't it? Can't you see Republicans thinking this? After all, Romney and all the other monkeys, except Ron Paul, are calling for a much larger Defense budget, and a neat little war would help that along nicely. Further, if we took control of Syria, Iran would have to cave on nukes, wouldn't it? Besides, if we could take over Syria, Israel would be deliriously happy. Republicans do sense that anything they can offer that is more Israel-centric than Obama's strained dialog with Netanyahu, might win them votes among Jews, in places like Florida, and even New York. And campaign funds.

Actually, Syria is closely aligned with Iran, but more importantly, with Russia, and that relationship goes back a long way. So, we attack Syria and Russia might send in materiel, at least, to make Americans bleed.

It's a lot better for the Arabs to lead on this, and for the US to stay the hell out of the way. America's big feet would just mess up the neighborhood even more. The only thing the US should do, is either look for a negotiated peace, or supply the opposition with our best defensive weaponry (if there is such a thing). Or the best of our weaponry that the Free Syrian Army, or whatever they'll call themselves tomorrow, can use given their needs and their skills.

It is true, I think, that the opposition represents a variety of democratic impulses, while Assad's regime represents brutal autocratic rule. Americans should favor democracy, but American business often prefers to dicker with an autocrat--only one or a few to buy off, instead of hundreds in a parliament. American businesses, however, will find it hard to cooperate with an internationally condemned butcher of his own people. And we could have some influence on that, by organizing collective protests, or threatening boycotts.

This is life at the center of a declining empire. The US simply doesn't have the boots to land on the ground to sustain anything meaningful against Assad, especially given the difficulties of the neighborhood. Remember, we helped destroy Russia's Soviet empire by supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Putin might feel that turnabout is fair play. Russia is a Syrian ally, and Putin has been running against western influence since the first time he ran for President. It would probably be popular--as was Reagan's support for the mujahedeen.

I really hope Syria doesn't enter the electoral shouting match, it could initiate the dying gasp of the American Empire and it wouldn't be pretty, sort of like Adrianople, when Fritigern killed the Roman Emperor Valens in 378.

Syria and the American Empire

I'm a great admirer of Gandhi and of MLK and of the notion that non-violent protest, civil disobedience, passive resistance are far better than violence. But those strategies take even greater courage and determination, and especially, patience, than facing your oppressor/murderer with your own gun.

But I can understand how men grow impatient, and then lash out violently, or seek out someone who will organize them to do so, even when their movement, or protest, has been overwhelmingly committed to non-violence. Short of another Gandhi, an almost messianic leader, it's unlikely that Syrians can avoid a more violent revolution.

We're witnessing the beginning of this transition in Syria, when it becomes clear that the murderous intent of the government seems almost limitless (kill the country to save it). Qaddaffi had the same intent, although it's possible, hallucinatory as he was, that he really believed what he said, i.e. he was defending The Libyan People.

It is sad to see people with power act so ruthlessly, and it's sad to see that the only rational response is to fight. In this case, it looks like it is (the only rational response), but unless there is international support, the opposition will get nowhere against a well-armed security force and army.

That's why they rebelled nonviolently in the first place.

So, unless other governments or private entities (like Saudi oil sheiks) support the insurgents, it's more likely that they'll all be captured or slaughtered than that they will prevail.

I am not suggesting that the US aid the insurgents, and I'm especially not suggesting that the US and/or NATO do what they just did in Libya.

What's a good thing? The Arab League just endorsed sanctions against Bashar al-Assad, without (as far as we know) any US intervention. This is the one area in which I'm in almost total agreement with the right-wing perennial Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

The US should stand back and let these regional groupings solve their own problems. Sooner or later, the neighborhood is going to have to do something about a disorderly neighbor, and outsiders should let them sort it out.

That would also be a vastly more democratic foreign policy than the US has ever had, and it would effectively dismantle the whole imperial edifice. Americans, soon, would not have to support a 3/4 of a Trillion dollar a year military, there would be no budget deficit, and debt would automatically shrink as the nation raced forward with growing civilian business and burgeoning civilian jobs (more than twice the number of defense jobs that would be lost).

But Ron Paul won't win: the imperial side will, in both parties, although Obama may not have been a part of it, at first. There's too much money to be lost by the powerful, who are now identified as the 1%. The Roman Empire got bogged down in Syria, and we could too.