Daniel Pipes Syria

A REPUGNANT POLICY IS SOMETIMES THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS……..

 

Support Assad

by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
April 10, 2013

 […]

Daniel Pipes 22.06.08 HelsinkiHere is my logic for this reluctant suggestion: Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and it (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.

This policy has precedent. Through most of World War II, Nazi Germany was on the offensive against Soviet Russia and keeping German troops tied down on the Eastern Front was critical to an Allied victory. Franklin D. Roosevelt therefore helped Joseph Stalin by provisioning his forces and coordinating the war effort with him. In retrospect, this morally repugnant but strategically necessary policy succeeded. And Stalin was a far worse monster than Assad.

Stalin, Saddam Hussein … and Bashar al-Assad?

The Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 created a similar situation. After mid-1982, when Ayatollah Khomeini’s forces went on the offense against those of Saddam Hussein, Western governments began supporting Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi regime had started the hostilities and was more brutal, but the Iranian one was ideologically more dangerous and on the offensive. Best was that the hostilities hobble both sides and prevent either one from merging victorious. In the apocryphal words of Henry Kissinger, “It’s a pity they both can’t lose.”

More here.

3 Responses

  1. Honestly the USA should stop supporting any islamic nation knowing that they are at war with us. Simply let them kill each other and the rest will starve as they are unable to sustain themselves.

  2. Makes perfect sense to me, also. Genuine Realpolitik is something that Western politicians are not well-versed in, as a general rule. Keeping opposing forces in the Islamic world embroiled in attrition war is the best strategy there is. Intervening will always prove counterproductive in the long run, and equally dangerous: the poisonous snakes of the Muslim Spring will always bite the hand that feeds them.

  3. It was obvious that the replacement of dictators such as Mubarak, would not be a liberal democratic regime, but a choice between a military junta and fanatic Islam. In fact, in Islamic countries, the best option is a stable moderate dictatorship. What we now have are fanatic Salafist regimes Egypt, Libya etc, where burning churches and killing Christians is koranically sanctioned.

    Syria is the one country that has taken hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians when we “liberated” Iraq. It is one the few ME countries that has freedoms for religious minorities. Women are as free as they are in the West. And America wants to replace this by Saudi Arabia funded MB regime.

    Now what could be the motive for doing so ? I ask this for several reasons

    1. Our politicians are not complete fools and neither are they in the pay of Saudi Arabia. Besides, they have to take heed of their advisors.

    2. Oil is not a problem any more as we have plenty of our own and ME countries have to sell the oil anyway.

    3. This policy of appeasement to fundamentalist Islam is common Western policy. It cannot be common without their being agreement on such a policy, and must have been concocted behind the scenes within NATO by long term strategists.

    Note also that the election of Obama has had no effect on policy. Even he is not free to change this common Western policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *