Terminus Paradigmata For Syrian Civil Conflict

If Syrians could have seen the future of the next seven years in the year 2010 would they have voted on a referendum for a civil war? Virtually any reasonably well in formed individual could have known that a Syrian civil war would be bloody, protracted and cause a flood of refugees from the nation. So why did the Obama administration consistently promote the escalation of conflict providing support for rebel forces that had the foreseeable unintended consequence of providing weapons and training to ISIS?

Stimulating civil wars by sponsoring favorite elements does not seem like a terribly moral activity for many circumstances in which conflicts could arise. The Syrian situation was and is complex socially, and not like a simpler peer conflict such as was the American revolution where white people revolted against other white people that regarded themselves as of a higher empirical or legal class. For practical purposes George Washington was the first (for lack of a better word) nigger revolutionary in the U.S.A. to effectively lead a nigger revolt against slave owners, a.k.a. royalty. Unless it be God, royalty are Satan's devices against which niggers need revolt to be free. A human habit is to transform positions whereby they administer political power into royalty enfeofment even issuing trillions of zero interest loans to co-conspirators so they may cascade new e-dollars of their own.

The Syrian conflict did not involve such a social situation. In fact the Sunni are intolerant of Shia and Alawi believers and find it convenient to kill them now and then. To purge Syria of Alawi, Shia and Christians was the effectual consequence of a successful Sunni rebellion against the Assad regime.

While social stratification and segregation are implicitly reprehensible, it is none the less necessary as a security measure now and the for some cultures, in order that they may exist safely. Economic segregation is a camouflaged form of racial and ethnic segregation obviously. A false cry to end segregation with rebellion may in some instances be used as a device for aggressors to expropriate the land and wealth of the righteous. If there are two sorts of people in the world; aggressors and non-aggressors, those aggressing at any given time are the actual aggressors and the defenders the defenders.

It is remarkable how often in modern times especially with broadcast media accomplices aggressors present themselves a overthrowing oppressors.

The end of the first world war brought the allied powers to redraw the boundaries of the Middle East that had been controlled by the occupation of the Ottoman Empire. France was given a mandate to rule Syria for a time before it became independent. In the more disorganized condition of people in the second and third world before the transistor was invented, followed by computers and cell phones, it was not necessary to partition the Sunni and Alawi/Shia/Christians of Syria. Eventually the sectarian issues along with trans-national politics and terrorist/liberation movements transformations as well as support from the Obama administration created ripe conditions for a Syrian civil war. Plainly it might be better to partition Syria today in order to end the conflict.

A reasonable partition might be one for the Assad forces, one for the Kurds along the Turkish border and adjoining Iraq, and one for the Sunni such that it shares a border with at least one other Sunni nation.

Those seeking to dominate all of Syria might be forging a lasting instability regionally and even globally. The next U.S. President should pursue a strong partition for Syria and rebuild the reformed nation as soon as possible. It is not to early to create a Marshall Plan for a Reformed Syria.