In nearly every case of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, the result of the much ballyhooed Arab Spring and subsequent revolts of different names have been bad. They’ve been bad for the people. They’ve been bad for relations with the United States and Israel. They’ve been bad for stability in the region.
Why, then, are we so against Bashar al-Assad’s reign and Russia’s insistence to support it? Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of Assad or Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, there’s something that was apparently missed by western media and even the US government. According to The Guardian, most Syrians preferred Assad over the US-backed revolution shortly after the revolt started in 2011.
#Flashback: Most Syrians back President Assad – but you'd never know from western media http://t.co/VuEgwtBc6p pic.twitter.com/OWSpZYDFax
— The New Americana (@SocialNews) October 9, 2015
As the story loosely points out, the reason we didn’t hear much about this or the comprehensive poll is because it has been in the United Nations’ best interests to oust Assad. Iran’s and Russia’s positions are strengthened as long as Assad is in power. We weren’t trying to oust Assad for the sake of the Syrian people. We have been trying to oust Assad for political reasons that have nothing to do with the people.
The poll, which was conducted by an organization trying to justify opposition against Assad, was mysteriously removed. All we have on record is The Guardian article and knowledge that 55% of Syrians supported Assad.
Looking at Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Yemen… the list of utter failures and worsened situations as a result of UN- and US-supported revolts is huge. Some might point out that we didn’t support the revolt in Egypt, but the fact that we didn’t assist long-time ally and supporter of peace Hosni Mubarak echoed the support we were technically giving to the uprisings. Not only did we not help our ally. We turned coat to support the uprising once it became clear that Mubarak would be ousted. Instead of a stalwart supporter of peace, we have seen a Muslim Brotherhood pawn take control in Mohammed Morsi followed by the most destabilizing regime of all.
Ever since the bad taste of war was left in our mouths by President George W. Bush, Americans have been very reluctant to get involved with anything in the Middle East. What average Americans don’t understand is that it’s not just “their problem” when governments crumble and our influence is replaced by others in and out of the region. Our economy is directly influenced by what happens in the Middle East. The very thin stability of the petrodollar is the only thing keeping our economy from crumbling under its own weight (a topic for another article).
Nearly every decision we’ve made about the Middle East since the turn of the century has been wrong. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. We shouldn’t have left Iraq after invading them. We shouldn’t have allowed our allies to fall. We shouldn’t have pushed for revolution in Libya. We shouldn’t have allowed revolutions in countless other countries. We relied on one concept that has served us well but that has propelled the Middle East into utter chaos: Democracy.
We believe in Democracy because it can work when installed properly over time. We allowed it to be installed by manipulative forces that have used it as an excuse for propping up anti-Democratic governments. Fake democracy has spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The only true Democracy in the region is Israel.
The bottom line is this: we should have act decisively in every situation. We were only decisive in one decision – invading Iraq. Otherwise, we’ve held a lukewarm, tiptoeing presence in the Middle East. The two extreme decisions were correct. We either go in and install the governments we want or we let it all work out on its own. To do a little helping here, a little supporting there has given us the worst case scenario.
If we wanted Assad gone despite the wishes of the majority of Syrians, we should have taken him out when he crossed Obama’s “red line.” Now, it’s too late. We couldn’t coax the revolution to work and now we have a bigger problem in the form of the Islamic State. Now that Russia is in the mix, we have no choice. We must back down. We have to allow Russia to take the lead and secure Assad in Syria. In fact, as insane as it is to say, we should go in and wipe out ISIS while Russia wipes out the Syria government’s opposition.
This isn’t a position that I support. It’s the only position left to take unless we’re prepared to face Russia on the battlefield. It’s the most heinous form of retreat that I could ever imagine supporting, but we’re in a situation that is so grim that we must side with our enemies in a way that keeps our influence as intact as possible in the region.
We had our opportunity to affect change in the region and we didn’t take it. Now, unfortunately, we must embrace stability even if it can only come in the form of supporting our own enemies. What a mess this has become. Sadly, all it would have taken is decisive action and strong leadership to shape the Middle East into something wonderful. Instead we helped to plunge it into chaos.