DOUGLAS MURRAY: IN SYRIA LET THEM FIGHT IT OUT
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557193071973074.html?mod=WSJUK_hpp_sections_opinion
The war in Syria has been a catastrophe for the Syrian people. But as the composition of the military opponents has become clearer—al Qaeda-linked Islamists dominating one side, Bashar Assad’s forces and Hezbollah the other—it has become obvious that the window of opportunity for outside intervention is closed. We must now have in mind Henry Kissinger‘s famous remark during the Iran-Iraq war: It’s too bad they both can’t lose.
Western governments no longer have the will, capability or patience to act in such a forum. And to dabble without wishing to get more deeply involved is a pathetic option.
So when the British prime minister and foreign secretary talk of arming a “moderate opposition” to Assad, they are talking of a diminishing and soon-to-be extinct force. If there was ever a chance of helping such moderates into power, it has passed. What moderates existed have been replaced by extremists, and the West must have no part in assisting them.
It is not Assad propaganda but the simple flood of news that now confirms this. What Vladimir Putin alluded to at the opening of the G-8 summit last week was true: that a young Syrian opposition fighter called Abu Sakkar was captured on video last month cutting out and biting into the lung of an opponent. Similar atrocities include those of “opposition” forces who recently tortured and executed, in front of his parents, a 15-year-old coffee seller in Aleppo. Mohammad Qataa’s “crime” was an overheard comment alleged by these judges, jurors, torturers and executioners to be blasphemous.
Other “rebels” include the killers of Andrei Arbashe, a 38-year-old Christian taxi driver who was recently beheaded and his body fed to dogs near the Turkish border, all because his brother was allegedly overheard referring to the opposition as bandits.
Of course, the atrocities do not go in one direction. Assad’s forces have been performing acts of barbaric violence from the outset of this war, aided by Hezbollah. We did nothing to stop them then. Yet the British government now appears eager to arm someone—anyone—to tip the balance in the war. This is a mistake.
The moment they do so, their complicity will shift from the tangential complicity of the bystander to the more serious complicity of the enabler. This is not just a moral question, but a practical one too: How do David Cameron and William Hague hope to go about arming only the “good” rebels while ensuring that their weaponry does not fall into the hands of the “bad” ones?
If they are indeed able to tell the difference between the “extremist” and “moderate” opposition factions, then they have yet to explain their technique. After U.S. Sen. John McCain slipped into Syria last month to meet rebel factions, he assured the American media that it isn’t so difficult to tell the good guys and the bad guys apart. He said that he himself can identify who the “right people” in Syria are.
Leaving aside the viability of persistently parachuting in a 76-year-old senator, the plan immediately hit a snag. The Arizona senator was barely back on American soil before Lebanese media were reporting that among the men he had met with were Mohammad Nour and Ammar Al-Dadikhi, two members of an extremist group who last year kidnapped 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims returning from Iran.
Mr. McCain’s people pushed back on these claims. They pointed out that Dadikhi is missing and presumed dead. And Mr. McCain’s trip arranger said that “Nobody self-identified as Nour.” The senator’s spokesman told the website BuzzFeed that it would be “regrettable” if one of the people photographed with the senator did turn out to be Mr. Nour.
The reality is that a tragic situation risks becoming an even greater tragedy with Western involvement. Nobody knows how to find the good guys and make sure they neither become bad guys, nor succumb to bad guys nor get overrun by bad guys. Nobody has any idea. And in a situation in which you have no idea, why would you seek to do anything?
There could be no better demonstration of the madness of this whole grandstanding discussion than the fact that on the very morning after David Cameron made his impassioned arguments on Syria at the G-8 summit last week, almost 4,500 U.K. army personnel were handed their redundancy notices. This latest round of defense cuts leaves Britain increasingly helpless, militarily. The litmus test for the country’s military readiness remains whether or not Britain could recapture the Falkland Islands should Argentina invade again, and on that question the jury remains divided. How could a country with a military in such a parlous state even contemplate getting involved in a war like Syria’s?
Earlier this month, the Egyptian theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi said that Hezbollah, whose name means “Army of God” in Arabic, is now the “Army of Satan.” He ordered that “every Muslim trained to fight and capable of doing that [must] make himself available” for jihad against Assad and Hezbollah. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia agreed.
There are many people around the world who would like to fight jihad, and there are many al Qaeda affiliate groups who clearly hate what Hezbollah are doing. So if it weren’t for the consequences for civilians, shouldn’t we simply encourage both sides to go at each other full-tilt? If al Qaeda and Hezbollah want to fight each other to the death, then the West ought to support them every step of the way—and our hope must be that they both lose. This is one intervention that the West would be mad to get involved in.
Mr. Murray is the author, most recently, of “Islamophilia” (emBooks, 2013).
Rebel fighters in Damascus.
The moment they do so, their complicity will shift from the tangential complicity of the bystander to the more serious complicity of the enabler. This is not just a moral question, but a practical one too: How do David Cameron and William Hague hope to go about arming only the “good” rebels while ensuring that their weaponry does not fall into the hands of the “bad” ones?
If they are indeed able to tell the difference between the “extremist” and “moderate” opposition factions, then they have yet to explain their technique. After U.S. Sen. John McCain slipped into Syria last month to meet rebel factions, he assured the American media that it isn’t so difficult to tell the good guys and the bad guys apart. He said that he himself can identify who the “right people” in Syria are.
Leaving aside the viability of persistently parachuting in a 76-year-old senator, the plan immediately hit a snag. The Arizona senator was barely back on American soil before Lebanese media were reporting that among the men he had met with were Mohammad Nour and Ammar Al-Dadikhi, two members of an extremist group who last year kidnapped 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims returning from Iran.
Mr. McCain’s people pushed back on these claims. They pointed out that Dadikhi is missing and presumed dead. And Mr. McCain’s trip arranger said that “Nobody self-identified as Nour.” The senator’s spokesman told the website BuzzFeed that it would be “regrettable” if one of the people photographed with the senator did turn out to be Mr. Nour.
The reality is that a tragic situation risks becoming an even greater tragedy with Western involvement. Nobody knows how to find the good guys and make sure they neither become bad guys, nor succumb to bad guys nor get overrun by bad guys. Nobody has any idea. And in a situation in which you have no idea, why would you seek to do anything?
There could be no better demonstration of the madness of this whole grandstanding discussion than the fact that on the very morning after David Cameron made his impassioned arguments on Syria at the G-8 summit last week, almost 4,500 U.K. army personnel were handed their redundancy notices. This latest round of defense cuts leaves Britain increasingly helpless, militarily. The litmus test for the country’s military readiness remains whether or not Britain could recapture the Falkland Islands should Argentina invade again, and on that question the jury remains divided. How could a country with a military in such a parlous state even contemplate getting involved in a war like Syria’s?
Earlier this month, the Egyptian theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi said that Hezbollah, whose name means “Army of God” in Arabic, is now the “Army of Satan.” He ordered that “every Muslim trained to fight and capable of doing that [must] make himself available” for jihad against Assad and Hezbollah. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia agreed.
There are many people around the world who would like to fight jihad, and there are many al Qaeda affiliate groups who clearly hate what Hezbollah are doing. So if it weren’t for the consequences for civilians, shouldn’t we simply encourage both sides to go at each other full-tilt? If al Qaeda and Hezbollah want to fight each other to the death, then the West ought to support them every step of the way—and our hope must be that they both lose. This is one intervention that the West would be mad to get involved in.
Mr. Murray is the author, most recently, of “Islamophilia” (emBooks, 2013).
Comments are closed.
