U.S. Syria Policy of Disestablishmentarianism

Destabilizing effects of the Obama administration policy toward Syria are self-evident. Appearing to encourage the Arab Spring of uprisings across the Middle East with his first term Cairo speech the administration followed up with support for the overthrow of the Qaddafi administration and repeatedly demanded that Syrian President Assad 'step down'.

Appearing to be an organizing element of the illegal revolt against the Syrian Government with a nod to the 'friends of Syria' movement supplying cash and weapons to the rebels the Obama administration must have thought the Assad government would be an easy one to take down, and that was a sophomoric mistake. The Assad government does represent a sizable ethnic and religious minority that has no place to go in the land and water crazy middle east. Any reasonable assessment of the prospects for a Syrian civil war would have recognized that it would be exceedingly bloody and would go on for year. That sort of chaotic and pathetic process that might or might not result in a Muslim Brotherhood Sunni government taking power eventually was not a stabilizing course for the U.S. government to pursue.

It became obvious that any Sunni terror and rebel movement would attract quite a few international terrorists seeking for the opportunity to ply their trade and that would be bad for Iraq and Lebanon as well. A stable Syria was far less a threat to regional politics and those of the United States than an unstable Syria under protracted assault.

Before the Arab Spiring and the rise of a theoretical attack upon Syria by mufsidoon with Obama administration encouragement no one or few were being killed in Syria. After several years of civil conflict perhaps 174,000 have been killed. Something like Democrat Party adult abortion services provided with no blame. How pragmatically cruel that is.

One might wish to liberate Syria and provide some sort of secularized democratic government perhaps with a benevolent strongman like Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party. Michael Aflaq invented the Ba'ath party in Damascus before it made its way to Iraq. Administration policy seems to run in a full circle of incomprehension of what it is going about or how the presence of an ethnic minority sectarian government in Syria might balance political forces regarding Israel, Iraq, Iran and the Lebanon. It is as if the administration believes a Sunni caliphate would bring democracy, womens' and homosexual liberation to the area; it won't. The actual nuevo caliphate of Syria-Iraq is drastically cruel and purges non-same sects people.

So the Obama administration had some luck recently in air attacks on the Caliphate in Iraq-that's fine as far as it goes, yet they also claim a right to bomb in Syria, and that is a concern. It is illegal and though the administration has said it can bomb the Caliphate wherever it likes that runs roughshod over international law. The administration must be very careful not to bomb any Syrian government targets in any way if it does not want to seem to be just prosecuting aggressive war against Syria. What kind of impression does the U.S.A. make on the world when it uses extraordinary rendition, captures and tortures suspects and says it will bomb any damn place it likes in a good cause? The U.S. government may think that global corporatism is the only possible good and that concentrated wealth is the ideal realization of democracy , free speech and justice yet probably some wouldn't agree.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/world/middleeast/obama-adviser-says-military-action-possible-against-isis.html?_r=0

Containing and reducing the rising Caliphate forces of ISIS requires turning off support for terrorist revolutionaries in Syria entirely. Mopping up and removing terrorists from that region would be a challenging and time consuming process. It is unlikely the administration would wish to appear to follow such a course because it would implicitly recognize the failure of its existing policy. Obviously one feels sorrow for the Syrian civilians that suffered so much during the civil war. Yet as in the European vacation film with Chevy Chase where some British fellow kept being injured whenever Chase tried to be of help, the Syrians too seem to be harmed when the administration tries to help. In time with the return of Christian missionaries and the development of peace with a profusion of low-cost technology perhaps civil trade and commerce and independence will become a social habit and the rule of gang terrorists will wither away.

If one imagines and administration in 2009 assessing the time required to bring about a successful popular revolt in Syria any sort of cold logic should have guessed that it would take at least 6 or 7 years and cost a quarter of a million lives. Jihad is the modern way of civil conflict against non-sectarian opposition force governments and that brings a sort of Universal terrorist conscription of military age males to war . That sort of social environment is devastating, time consuming and impractical. It would be better to let technological dispersion bring about a peaceful transition or evolution or a more fair political state.

The Obama administration ideas of what a post-Assad Syria would be like must be as wrong as those made by the Bush administration on the costs of rebuilding Iraq being 15 billion dollars-about as much as American Express paid to the Government to resolve the bad loans policy litigation. American government ought not encourage civil conflicts that cannot be completed within their own administration and that a following government may have no interest in pursuing. In that case the investment of treasure and blood as V.P Chaney was wont to say, may in in vain and seven devils return to inhabit the dwelling after it has been swept clean.