Of all the complexities within Middle Eastern politics, the complexity finds its highest fulfillment in the war in Syria. To illustrate the absurdity one need look no further than the most potent of all the rebel fighters – Al Nusra, or Al Qaeda in Syria. They are simultaneously the subject of NATO bombing and their greatest ally. Al Qaeda is NATO’s most effective ally in Syria.
The notion that the absurdities will dissipate if Assad is removed from power is beyond naivety. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Shia’s who turn to Iran’s geopolitical influence will all remain. Bombs will be dropped, children will die, and there will be more righteous indignation toward the West than ever before. The same elements within Syria will remain, the war will accomplish nothing, and the population will have a much greater hatred for the West.
There exists a utilitarian criticism of the war. Assad is reputed to have made use of chemical weapons. Aside from the fact that the Red Crescent was unable to confirm this, NATO didn’t wait for the independent inspectors before they launched their attack, and that it serves no strategic purpose, for a moment let’s check our skepticism and assume it’s true. 400,000 people have perished horrifically in this conflict – is the continued destruction of another hundred thousand to be prolonged on the basis of the dozens who have suffered a chemical attack?
One might ask what a war would accomplish even in diminishing terrorism. The number of individuals residing in NATO countries that are under the impression that we can kill other people’s children and not expect retaliation is dumbfoundingly high. How this has become controversial is a complete mystery to me.
Trump campaigned on this policy as fatuity. In the absence of evidence, Assad was purported to have killed 150 of his own people. In retaliation, NATO armed rebel forces, instigating a civil war that’s increased the killing by three exponents. The disproportionate response indicates concerns completely aside from ethics.
A war in Syria is countered by ethics and national security. It’s urged on the geopolitical rational that Iran could have proxy governments spanning from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean and surrounding Saudi Arabia. This geopolitical rise strikes me as the true concern of the West. The difficulty I have in all of this is that our meddling is counterproductive.
For all of the accusations against Iran as a state-sponsor of terror, one must not overlook the Persian rebuttal. The U.S. is a major state-sponsor of terrorist organizations, with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and they’ve allied with an infamous user of chemical weapons – Saddam Hussein.
I shall end on a disturbing note. Syria is merely the victim of two cold wars: a cold war between Russia and NATO, and a cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In light of a looming economic debt crisis for the West, Russia stands poised to win this current cold war. Currently, the West sits upon a throne of the most massive debt bubble our civilization has ever witnessed, and we now face rising interest rates – Russia doesn’t have this problem.
Russia lost the previous cold war due to their economic ailments arising from redistributionist policies and overspending on militarization counterbalanced by the West’s explosive economic growth from technological innovation. Our respective militaries’ intervention in the Middle East gave rise to vicious radicalization.
Middle Easterners aren’t bad people, but when you kill their children they begin to hate you. Overspending from the communists caused them to lose the previous cold war. This expensive foray into Syria the worst course of action we can take for our national security and is absolutely unethical.
Latest posts by Brandon Kirby (see all)
- Can Men Speak on Abortion – Freedom Philosophy? - October 11, 2019
- Virtue Signalling: What Is It? – Freedom Philosophy - October 2, 2019
- Free Speech and Freedom – Freedom Philosophy - September 18, 2019