Bombing Syria

I see folks on Facebook lamenting that Syria was recently hit by US/UK/French missiles.

I don’t get it. Why the grief now, and not about everything else that has happened in Syria since 2011? War is only wrong if the US, Britain, or France get involved?

Many are saying that the casus belli, the Syrian government gas attack on its own civilians, seems likely to be bogus. The US had just announced it was pulling out. It was entirely in the Syrian government’s interest to lie low for a while.

I accept that Machiavellian logic. Regimes do sometimes do stupid things that are not in their own self-interest. But that would suggest some breakdown in command, so that local players are operating in their own behalf. It was more likely staged, a false flag, by the opposition.

I’m not sure that is important. Whether or not he was responsible for this attack, it is plain that Assad has been continuing to manufacture and to use chemical weapons. This is in violation of the deal by which the US did not intervene under Obama. Such things cannot be ignored. It is just fortunate to have a clear violation now in order to make the point. Now, I trust, chemical weapons are less likely to be used, and not only because the strike targeted Syria’s chemical weapons facilities.

Russia has of course protested, on the reasonable grounds that this was a plain violation of Syria’s national sovereignty. Not long ago, I would have agreed. It used to be accepted international law that one country did not intervene in another’s affairs without a formal request from the government, and this seemed wise. Until Rwanda. Everyone felt pretty bad afterwards about not intervening, and a new international standard emerged in time for the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo: foreign intervention was justified and called for if any government was violating basic human rights with regards to their own citizens. Gas attacks would fall under this rule.

Given that Russian military was on site, does it all risk starting some wider war? Yeah. By the same token, so does the US sitting on its hands. On balance, by convincing Putin to tread more softly, this looks to me more likely to prevent than to provoke a wider war. Russia has been throwing its weight around, here and elsewhere. The more it does so, the more it risks inadvertently provoking a big war. Rather like the German Kaiser sticking his finger in everywhere leading up to World War I. Putin has been swashbuckling for the sake of prestige. Suddenly it looks as though the big boys have come to play. Now this adventure begins to feel like bit of a humiliation. That may make him less eager to undertake the next one. If he risks a wider war in Syria, he is an idiot: there is no way Russia can match the US, Britain and France in any overseas theatre.

His own position depends on sleight of hand. Russia is in bad shape; worse with the collapse in the price of oil. He may need foreign policy successes to stay in power; but, by the same token, a serious humiliation could topple him.

A third issue is the presence of Iran in Syria, in support of Assad. Apparently John Bolton was previously opposed to any US intervention, but now backs it because he fears the growing influence of Iran. If the US leaves a vacuum here, and it is filled by Iran as a regional power, this is troublesome for allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Israel, and Kuwait.

The Case for Kings

A friend in Japan wants to launch a letter writing campaign to urge the Japanese government to let in more Syrian refugees.

I think that is a bad idea, and have told him so. The Syrian civil war will one day end, and those who are refugees now will want to return home. And they should return home. Their country will need them to rebuild. Syrian Christians, Yazidis, Jews, and Kurds have a case to be taken in as permanent refugees; but not other Syrians.

Granted that there is a refugee problem in Syria right now. But the best thing is to keep the refugees as close as possible to their homes. Moving them halfway around the world complicates things.

If foreign governments want to help, right now, they can help fund the refugee settlements in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. My friend says there are too many people there to be supportable. I say there is no such thing as “too many people.” There are a heck of a lot of people living in downtown Tokyo, and they make out okay.

But the best help would be to go in with guns blazing, as part of an international force, and end the war. Then everyone could return home.

Understandably, everyone is trigger shy. Everyone always thinks of the last war. After Rwanda, the international community decided the best thing was to move in militarily to end local bloodbaths. That worked in Bosnia and Kosovo. Then it did not work in Iraq and Afghanistan. So everyone became afraid of “regime change.” But then, just going in and taking out the dictator failed to work in Libya.

So now the international community does not dare to do anything. And we are back to the situation of Rwanda.

Worse, the vacuum has enticed smaller powers to get involved on their own behalf, none of them strong enough to end the conflict, but each able to make it worse: Russia, Turkey, Iran.

We need the UN to go in; or, if the UN is too divided to do it, we need a coalition of NATO, basically representing the world’s democracies, and the Arab League. Failing that, NATO alone.

Easy enough for them to end the war. But, my friend counters, what chaos may ensue? How to avoid another Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya?

The US’s error there, I believe, was naive belief in democracy. By its nature, democracy cannot be imposed. The objective should simply be to establish a stable government, able to reestablish order. And it might have fairly simply been done, in Iraq, by reestablishing the Iraqi monarchy. There was even an available candidate, the uncle of the present ruler of Jordan. He was in the royal line.

The same might be done, if a little less easily, for Syria. It has been done many times before, for many other countries: choose a member of a cadet branch of some other nation’s monarchy, and establish a new royal line.

Look around, at the rest of the Arab world. Who in MENA has good and stable government? The monarchies, all the monarchies, and only the monarchies: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait. Republics are always disasters. Even Afghanistan, otherwise seemingly ungovernable, ticked away reasonably well for many years so long as it had a monarchy.

For reasons of historical prejudice, the US cannot accept monarchy. But it is the best government available in many cases, when a full democracy is not available, is perfectly compatible with democracy, and is he best government to segue peacefully into a full democracy. Working democracy usually requires an independent, prosperous middle class, and that requires a certain level of economic development.

There are fairly simple reasons for monarchy being successful. Firstly, because the nation is seen as a family possession, corruption is less likely. Each ruler wants to preserve and even improve the state of the nation in order to pass it down to his children, whom he normally cares about. A republic has no such checks on kleptocracy. Secondly, a monarchy has a human face. People can identify with the royal family, and this inspires them to pull together. Especially in a nation that is ethnically diverse, there may be no ready alternative unifying principle. Thirdly, in terms of temperament, a monarchy throws up average people randomly as rulers. A republic in which leadership is up for grabs, without strong rules and traditions, will instead tend to throw up those with the greatest thirst for power, and those most ruthless in obtaining it. It is, therefore, far more likely to end in oppressive totalitarian dictatorship. Fourthly, when civil structures are weak, a monarchy has the advantage of making the succession clear. In a republic, if democracy is not well established and respected, any change of power devolves into civil war. As, indeed, we see in Syria now.

Sean Spicer Reveals That Trump Is Hitler by Denying the Holocaust

Quick! The Alka-Seltzer! 

When Sean Spicer noted that even Hitler had not used chemical weapons against his people, I immediately knew what he was talking about. It is a familiar observation. Poison gas was used by all sides in the First World War. Hitler had stockpiles of it. Yet he allowed Germany to go down to total defeat without ever resorting to using it.

This was probably not for purely humanitarian reasons. The problem might just as well have been that, after the experience of World War 1, England, France, and the US also had their stockpiles of poison gas. Establish the precedent, and it would probably be a wash. Maybe useful once, in one vital, desperate battle, but no more.

There is another theory: that Hitler, having himself been gassed during the First World War, had a visceral aversion to it.

But I am utterly surprised by the public and press reaction to Spicer referring to this: that it was not true, and insensitive, because of the Jews Hitler gassed in the concentration camps.

What Spicer actually said was “We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. Someone as despicable as Hitler ... didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.”

Exactly right. The preceding sentence makes it clear that he was referring to a weapon of war. Even without the specific reference to the war, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or a guillotine may qualify as a weapon, but it is not the sort of thing we usually think of when we use the term. It should not have been necessary to add “in war” in the second sentence to make this clear. If it were, this is a trivial error of clarity in an off-the-cuff spoken statement. We do not normally require precision in such circumstances.

In reaction, the Anne Frank Centre released this statement:








Excuse me, but are they nuts?

 

ISIS Problem Solved

Gurkhas in British service, 1896.

The situation in Iraq and Syria has become a historic humanitarian crisis, on the level of Rwanda or Kampuchea. We must do something. Our posterity will not forgive us if we don't.

Unfortunately, the US is exhausted. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they have no more stomach for war. And the Europeans, after Libya, have lost what little appetite they had.

Once, in the days of empire, such matters were easier. One could send in the colonial troops:

We don't want to fight, but, by jingo, if we do--
We won't go ourselves; we'll send the mild Hindoo.

Indian artillery, Jerusalem, 1917.

Under British or French officers, of course.

This is apparently no longer considered seemly; even though the modern alternative looks much worse.

Still, there is a variant of the old formula that might be called into service.

It may not have escaped notice altogether that the US has an illegal immigration problem. Twelve and a half million, too many, many say, to deport. And Europe is facing a Syrian refugee problem. Germany predicts 850,000 refugees this year alone.

We have our solution, don't we? Give the immigrants in the States a “path to citizenship” by serving a term in the military, and in harm's way, overseas. Give the refugees in Europe rifles, turn them about face, and march them back to Syria in good order under German officers. Since we believe in sexual equality, there is also no reason to limit this requirement to the men.

Yes, it would cost something. But quite possibly less than a continuing and growing flood of refugees, if the present carnage continues.

This is in fact a time-honoured way for immigrant groups to prove their commitment to their new home. The Irish, long mistrusted in Canada (thanks, Fenian raids) proved themselves to their neighbours by enlisting in droves during the First World War, even while their homeland was in revolt. The Japanese of America did the same in the Second, proving their loyalty as their homeland was at war with their adopted home.

In the case of the Syrian refugees, such proof is quite appropriate: we have reason to suspect the presence of Islamist moles. More generally, such required service solves a problem with modern immigration. In the old days, an immigrant had little hope of ever returning home. He lived or died by his own efforts. There was no dual citizenship, and there was no social safety net. He had to commit.

Now, it is too easy for immigrants to be summer patriots, to see Canada, or Germany, as a comfortable hotel. You can milk it, then leave when anything is asked of you.

Requiring national service for immigrating would eliminate this temptation, would it not?

I think I've just killed about three nasty birds with one stone.

Eat depleted uranium, ISIS.

The Best Thing for the Middle East

A case might be made here for a larger crown.

The Middle East is mess. A lot of people are upset with the US and NATO for not going in and helping the poor people of Syria. It's such a mess. A lot of the same people are upset with the US and NATO for going in and getting rid of Ghaddafi. Leaving such a mess. Not to mention with Bush going in and taking out Saddam, leaving the mess of ISIS there now.

Wait a minute, though. What would you have the US and NATO do?

The problem with nasty dictatorships is that they destroy all elements of civil society. They do this, because any separate organizations could become rival power centres and challenge their rule. They want an absolutely free hand, or what's a totalitarian supposed to do? It's in the job description.

That means that, when they fall, there is nobody and nothing in a position to replace them. And you have a mess.

So, the rest of us have three options here, and only three options, when they start to shoot their own people:

1. Go in, take out the dictator, and try to set up a civil society before we leave. That's Iraq.
2. Go in, take out the dictator, and leave, letting the chips fall where they may. That's Libya.
3. Do nothing, and leave matters to work themselves out. That's Syria.

The West is catching all kinds of criticism for each of these. In other words, they are being blamed no matter what they do.

For my money, number 2 is the best option available. All three end in a mess, but in 1, the West gets blamed for the chaos, while in 3, the West gets blamed for the dictator. The West still gets blamed for the chaos in 2, but it is less convincing, and certainly costs less.

The one institution that dictators in the Middle East do not dare to shut down, because it is too culturally ingrained, is the mosque. As a result, all organized opposition must develop a quasi-religious character, or at least a religious disguise. So, when a dictator goes, almost the only option to replace him ends up being the so-called “religious extremists” (a serious misnomer—these guys aren't very religious at all). This is why democracy doesn't work here. There are only two organized groups: the army, and the mosque. Neither is democratic in nature.

So how do you get to a healthy civil society in the Middle East?

History tells us that there is really only one way: monarchy.

The matter is partially obscured, because many nations have chucked the monarchy since achieving democracy, but it has almost always been necessary to have a monarchy in order to get a democracy in the first place. This is of course true of Canada, Britain, Australia, and the rest of the Commonwealth. It is true, recently, of Spain. It is also true, despite the national mythology, of the US: they got their democratic institutions when they were still colonies. It is true of Japan—under Hirohito; and of Italy. Germany achieved it without a king, but under long foreign military occupation. It is also true of France. Despite the revolution and all that, stable democracy came under Napoleon III, the hereditary Emperor.

With rare exceptions like Henry VIII, monarchies are not totalitarian. One reason is because you do not become the leader in a monarchy through personal ambition. On average, the average monarch will have only the average drive for personal power. Accordingly, there is so desire in the typical monarch to destroy civil society. Or, should suitable institutions arise, to hang on to power for the sake of power.

Like other citizens, they are mostly inclined to do whatever seems best for the nation. Nor do they have the same incentive as a dictator to loot the country's treasury: given the hereditary principle, they have every reason to want to leave the country in the best possible condition for the sake of their children.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have oil. Iraq and Iran have oil. Which governments have made better use of the resource?

Fortunately for the Middle East, it does include some monarchies.

How to Safely Arm the Syrian Rebels

Arab Christians

It now looks as though Obama may lose the vote in Congress authorizing Syrian intervention. If he does, his best option is to arm Syrian rebels.

But here we have a problem: the main Syrian opposition is reputedly closely allied with al Qaeda. How can the US, and other Western countries, ensure that their aid does not end up in the hands of their worst enemies?

The answer is perfectly simple. Arm only the Syrian Christians. Here we have an easily identified group that is guaranteed to be anti-jihadist and pro-Western. They are two million strong—enough to make a difference. And they are currently at greatest risk.

One Point about Syria

...that I have not seen made, and perhaps it should be made:

I think we know now where Saddam's missing chemical and biological weapons ended up.

The Dogs of War

It looks as though Obama has the backing from the Arab League that he needs to take action against Syria. Now it's up to the US Congress.

Obama and Syria

It's just hard to take someone seriously as a villain who looks so much like a turtle.

I believe Obama is absolutely right to ask Congress for permission before taking action on Syria. It is the legal requirement, and he needs this kind of political backing in order to take the action that is really needed. He needs to do more than just lob a few missiles. He also needs the backing of the Arab League—which he does not yet have.

If he gets this support, however, he needs to take advantage of this formal mandate to do something substantive. Unless there is a clearly-defined and meaningful military target, firing missiles at Assad while leaving him in power is only likely to enhance his prestige and his position. And the debate has given him ample time to protect any meaningful military targets from such a strike. So this approach seems worse than useless—really an admission of American weakness. Sanctions invariably hurt the poor, not the regime. Even doing something that would topple the Assad regime might be counterproductive from the American perspective: the strongest element of the opposition is Islamist.

Accordingly, if Obama is going to do anything, he has to do the full monty. The only useful alternative is a full-scale invasion to overthrow the government.

No doubt this sounds crazy. The US is stretched financially and militarily and in recession. There is no stomach for more Middle Eastern adventures. Interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged them down for years.

This is one reason why a full invasion is necessary: to prove American resolve. To prove that America cannot be scared off, as the Japanese hoped Pearl Harbor would.

Invading Syria need not be the expensive proposition Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be. Iraq and Afghanistan involved one fundamental and obvious mistake, that need not be repeated: there need be no nation-building. Go in, take out the regime, get out. If you recall, the matter of overthrowing the regime was, in both prior cases, extremely easy. Syria would be easier. It is a smaller piece of land, more accessible from the sea, and it has almost no natural defenses. It is ideal tank country. Moreover, the Syrian military is already fully engaged in fighting the rebels; the use of chemical weapons suggests that their position is desperate already. The US has a strong ally in Turkey, with a long border to the north; and another ally in Jordan, to the south, close to the Syrian capital. One fast pincer movement.

Boots. Ground. Deal with it.

If the US then just pulls out, I see no problem. By going in and taking out a regime easily and efficiently, it automatically ensures that any succeeding regime will be sensitive to US pressures. What it did easily once, it can do easily again.

But if it really must mess around with democratizing and all that, there is a simple solution available here that was not available in Iraq or Afghanistan: let Turkey do it. Turkey is interested these days in extending its influence in the Arab world. Syria was, not so long ago, Turkish/Ottoman territory, so it is a natural sphere of influence. Turkey has the manpower to do it, and the supply problems would be minimal. Turkey is a fellow Muslim country, so it would look less like “western interference.” And Turkey is a functioning democracy.

Can the US afford it? Maybe they don't have to. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have declared against Assad; they are concerned with the fate of the Sunni majority in Syria. Very well—their own militaries are not large, but their contribution can be to help fund the invasion.

Absolutely. No. Natural. Borders.

The result: the Syrian people would be free of a dictator; the next dictator would think long and hard before using chemical weapons; American prestige in the Middle East would be restored, and US concerns would be heeded; Turkish prestige in the Middle East, as a functioning democracy, would be enhanced; Syria would have a decent chance at democracy; and Iran would lose its only ally in the region.

Of course, if Obama loses the vote in Congress, as he is likely to, it’s all off. For now. But he can still do two things. First, arm any factions he can identify in Syria who are genuinely pro-Western, if any. Second, start beating the war drums. It took a long time to build up a coalition and popular opinion against Saddam. This administration has barely begun to do the same against Assad. It was not long ago that Hillary Clinton was characterizing him as “a reformer.”

The Man in the Street

An interesting, and encouraging, observation from Syria, courtesy of Al Jazeera:

"The most important message is that people can make the change. Before it was always army officers that lead a coup."

"It may not be tomorrow or a few months but I'm sure it is like dominoes. Before there was always an ideology - pan-Arabism or being an enemy of Israel. But now people are simply looking for their personal freedom, for food, education, a good life. The days of ideology are over."

Let's hope so. No pie-in-the-sky, just getting rid of corruption and oppressive government regulation.