If Syria is a Proxy War, What's the U.S. Interest?
Syria has become a global proxy war, in which every other participant is more invested than the United States. Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — along with Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and now the Muslim Brotherhood — aid the forces that seem to serve their interests. U.S. support for the moderate opposition that began the Syrian revolution, in contrast, has been hesitant, late and restricted.
So writes former Bush speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. Recall that Gerson supports what he calls "heroic conservatism." In 2007, I reviewed his book of the same name and spelled out what he meant:
This is not your grandfather's—or Barry Goldwater's—conservatism. Out with libertarianism—"the elevation of personal and economic freedom over other values like compassion and community"—and in with what Gerson and others have cham-pioned as "compassionate conservatism," only on a global scale.
The list of appropriate interventions covers a lot of ground: "When a 15-year-old girl in the inner city lives in an atmosphere of squalor and daily abuse . . . when a Down syndrome fetus is casually killed as a life not worthy to be lived . . . when an infant in Africa grows burning hot, then cold with death from the lack of malaria pills that cost a few dollars."
So Syria is a proxy war in Gerson's mind. But a proxy for what?
Outside of a pretty straight-on humanitarian intervention, it's not clear what the U.S. interest could possibly be. In Korea and Vietnam, the paradigmatic Cold War proxy battles, the idea was that we were defending Western-style democracies against insurgents backed or perhaps directed by international communists. We were also showing the Russians and the Chinese that we would pay any price, etc. to help keep people free (never mind the rotten record of the South Korean and Vietnamese governments).
In Syria, who is our proxy? Not the Assad regime, obviously. But it's not clear we're on the side of the rebels, either, many of whom seem to be precisely the sorts of Islamic radicals we stand against. More important, I guess, is that the international stakes in Syria are far from clear. What happens in the United States if Hezbollah or al Qaeda takes over? Are they that much closer to establishing sharia law in Oklahoma? Will they be emboldened to undertake another 9/11 (which they did when the U.S. had already beaten secularish Iraq and was playing footsie with the Taliban in Afghanistan).
Perhaps Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are "more invested" because they actually have more at stake in the outcome of the Syrian civil war—not only geographically but religiously, culturally, and ethnically.
Gerson makes the semi-conventional wisdom case that the time for action was a couple of years ago. But we should stick it out anyway, because, don't you see, we're already engaged:
Disengagement would shift the worst case once again: further spreading cross-border radicalization, refugee flows and uncontainable Shiite-Sunni warfare across the Middle East. Iran would see a United States unable or unwilling to accomplish its goals in the region and draw the obvious conclusions.
That's arguably the most novel argument for intervention I've seen in a long time: It's not really intervention because we're already involved even though we're still debating what sort of involvement we may or may not do. As for the larger point about Iran: If that past decade—or perhaps the past 60 years—has proven anything, it's that the U.S. is unable to accomplish its goals in the Middle East.
Apart from offering to take in as many displaced persons and refugees as possible via immigration (to his credit, Gerson is far more pro-immigrant than most cons, whether heroic or not), perhaps it's time—finally—for the U.S. to let countries with more obvious stakes in a region take the lead.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What’s the U.S. interest? Distraction?
Damn you, Fist. Not only first but you stole my comment.
Yeah, I’ll do that.
That is what he is. That is what he does. And he won’t stop …. ever.
But the FoE-1000 is an advanced prototype composed of liquid F5 keys and it always brings its A game.
Yeah that guy is gonna put me out of business when they get him out of beta.
Aside from general humanitarian concerns and the (small?) faction of the rebels who are pro-Western secular democrats, I’d say our interest might well be “uncontainable Shiite-Sunni warfare across the Middle East.” Yes, Israel might get caught in the crossfire, but hey, draining both Al Qaeda and Iran of fighters and resources sounds like a good thing to me. The long, exhausting Great War did a pretty good job of calming down Europe, until Hitler and Stalin decided to have another war. Maybe a huge Shiite-Sunni conflict will make Islamist fanaticism less popular.
I’m not really a pacifist or isolationist or whatever you want to call it, but this is another one we can’t manage, try as they might. We don’t have an interest that’s worth the cost we’re going to take.
Well, we might be able to “manage” it to the extent of, say, feeding crucial bits of intelligence to whoever the losing side is at any given moment, to prolong things.
I say, let the radical religious supremacists of all flavors kill each other in Syria, so that thinking people throughout the region will enjoy a greater share of the vote in the future.
It’s actually a win-win, since for the religious supremacists the real action is in the afterlife.
Unfortunately the religious supremacists will do their best to execute the thinking people, so this idea is doomed to failure.
What’s the U.S. interest? Getting involved in chemical warfare, and distraction?
Argentina?
Yeah, that sounds right.
Luxemburg?
(Not sure who any Israeli proxy would be?)
Gerson may not be interested in Iraq, but it is interested in him.
Iraq has been erased from the conservative memory-hole.
I see it here.
“But Libya!”
“has been erased from the conservative memory-hole.”
That is quite muddled…even for you.
OB is rather obsessed with holes.
When your head is like a hole (cue NIN), you tend to be obsessed with them.
“What’s the U.S. Interest?”
Simple. The US government needs to support terrorism in Syria so that there will be plenty of terrorists in the future. Because nothing has proven as effective as terrorism in advancing the frontiers of the State.
Support for insurgencies in places like Libya and Syria is an investment in the future health of the State.
Sounds like its gonna be a serous smackdown for sure.
http://www.AnonStuff.tk
Refugee resettlement is a scam, so count me out for that.
I am OK with taking Christian and Jewish refugees, but no Muslim ones, sorry.
I believe the interest is in keeping military personnel out of the U.S., for the safety of the people running it.
http://mallsjersey.blogspot.com/
Cheap NFL Jerseys, NHL Jerseys, MLB Jerseys, NBA Jerseys Online,
Authentic 2013 New Style, Wholesale and Custom, Fast Delivery?
Free shipping fee http://modernjerseys.org/
everyone are intered in jerseys can feel free to
http://mallsjersey.blogspot.com/ to us or go to our shop
http://modernjerseys.org/ to know about jerseys details.
1,nfl nike jerseys 1=22$,5=21$
2,nhl jerseys 1=33.79$,5=32.9$
3,mlb jerseys 1=17.3$/pcs,5=16.5$
4,nba jerseys 1=19$,5=18.5$
5,ncaa jerseys 1=17.3$,5=16.5$
6,soccer jerseys 21$/pcs
and other items price here.