What Moderate Parties in Middle East Revolutionary Politics?

There is a certain pundit-political point of view that moderates might be found to support in the Syrian civil war that would be of benefit to American or western interests. That politico-centric viewpoint has little reality corresponding to it. President Assad may be the moderate. Dictator Saddam Hussein led the most secular party in his Ba’ath party that was started in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is a parent organization of most Middle Eastern terrorist groups that are Sunni. So what are Washington D.C. theoreticians to do in order to intervene to stop the further establishment of a radical Caliphate carved out of Syria and Iraq?

Besides just reinforcing the present legal government of Syria and building up a little Kurdistan as an associate state of Iraq to fill the void, American war planners could consider the larger historical politics of the middle east and decide if making Damascus a Sunni town purged of the Alawi and Christians would not be a sort of fundamental change in the balance of power in the Middle-East. The United States probably built up Saddam Hussein a little too much with some sort of encouragement to attack Iran in revenge for Iran’s taking our embassy personnel hostage in the process of revolting against the Shah whom had returned to power with the help of a U.S. supported coup. Now the U.S. seeks to remove the Assad government as it removed the Hussein government and it will probably have the same results of general regional destabilization.

American strategic planners seem to want to establish a universal Sunni state in the Middle East and the Caliphate have jumped the gun. In some way Washington liberal-moderates believe that Sunni coreligionists have a moderate nature in which a few fundamentalist extremists swim to wreak terror and havoc upon soft, lovable westerners. Removal of Assad-the moderate British educated dentist, would usher in an age of Aquarius-another Arab Spring fulfilling Nasser’s concept of a pan-Arabic empire of one nation for all Sunni without trouble of Shi’a mosques or Christian churches. With moderate Sharia law the death penalty for converting to another religion could be allowed to slide. Just ostracism and petty persecution could result and moderate Muslims might decide to permit homosexual marriage.

If a Sunni state were established in Syria there would be a drive to expand in Lebanon as well. One might create a Muslim domino theory with Iran in opposition to Sunni expansion, Lebanon under assault and a substantial increase in trans-Mediterranean terror ops.

One must wonder if a Syria that does business with the Russians is not a little moderate. Market fundamentalists viewed the Soviet state in a bad light of course and probably carry over that bias against Syria and Russia now that the cold war is over. It might be recalled though that the Soviet communism was viewed by most as leftist and atheistic. Those policies would be somewhat moderating of right-wing fundamental extremists that are popular in some circles.

Yet one might ask when do racial groups seeking to survive amidst a sea of hostile adversaries have moderation? Moderation can be suicidal in defense situations where the foe is determined to kill and/or conquer. The Assad government working with Russia to combat Sunni extremism might be of more help than harm in containing and rolling back the establishment of a Caliphate in the Middle East.

The Syrian government maintains a careful crossroads balance between Iran and its Shia, the Sunni world and the west. I would think the politics are somewhat Byzantine perennially as they seek to defer attacks from upon themselves perhaps to Israel. Certainly Hezbollah has long been a foe of Israel and yet they have no possibility of ruling Israel in any circumstance. They may be a function of the Shi’a-Sunni-Western balance of political and social philosophy.

Perhaps 70% of Syrians are Sunni. They make up the cadre of the Syrian Free Army. They can talk about democracy in order to receive support from starry eyed moon calves in D.C. If they get in power they will probably be taken over by the most radical of Sunni terrorists because that is the dynamics of the Middle East. The need to partition Syria may exist because those groups don’t live together well. Some of the may dream of when the Ottoman Empire Sunni ruled everything in the Middle East and there was a Mufti in Jerusalem who supported Adolph Hitler. Others included the Orthodox faithful of Serbia may hate that idea. The Shi’a and Israelis probably wouldn’t like any sort of Sunni restoration of Empire or Caliphate either. D.C. has a lot to think about before just dropping some bombs for peace.

There is no moderation in Shi’a-Sunni relations. Neither allows mosques of the other sect in their territory. The Kurds also have nearly sectarian level political and ethnic interests that could have been settled after the First World War and were not. They can be built up perhaps in part of Syria and Iraq while leaving the Assad government in power over Damascus and the Alawi and Christian population. Better theories need to arise in D.C. Simply dropping bombs can’t solve the social problems alone, and neither will the myth of moderate terrorists or governments of revolutionary Sunnis. The most effect secular force in the Middle East was the Ba’ath party of Iraq. Perhaps D.C. will seek to re-establish the Ba’ath in a moderate form in a third state associated with Iraq carved out of part of Syria.