Our enemy's enemy
Fraser Nelson 9:20am
It’s unusual for The Guardian and The Spectator to agree on anything, but Seamus Milne and our own John R Bradley are sceptical about these Syrian rebels whom we’re being invited to support. Bradley was
alone in predicting the Egyptian revolution, and argues in today’s magazine that the conventional wisdom is once again wrong. Who’s backing the rebels? The Qataris, keen to depose the
last secular regime in the Arab world. And the Saudis and Israelis, whose hatred of Iran eclipses all other considerations: this isn’t about the Syrian people, but about depriving the
ayatollahs of an ally. Some in the West also take the view that the enemy’s enemy is my friend — so the rebels must be good eggs. We once thought that of the Taleban, when they were
‘freedom fighters’ resisting Soviet occupation.
The West is whistling ‘Wind of Change’ again, just like it did in the Arab Spring, but is finding out that the rebels are radical Islamists who have been using their newfound power to crack down on minorities and insist on veiling up women. In my piece for the Telegraph, I noted how the Syrian Christians fear the Islamists’ triumph, as the Islamic regimes in Egypt, Iraq and Tunisia have led to a persecution of the religious minorities who are relatively unmolested under Assad — who represses all, whether they wear the cross or skullcap.
Yes, Assad is brutal and repressive — and the assault at Homs is shocking precisely because it's not as exceptional as most reports make out. The death toll for the ‘massacre’ described on Friday has been put at anything between 55 and 400. This should be seen in the context of a dispute which has so far claimed 5,000 lives. Before the Iraq war, Britain rightly listed Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people. But after he went, Britain failed to pacify Basra and looked on as the city fell to Islamist death squads who unleashed a reign of terror. It took the Iraqi army to re-invade the city. We congratulated ourselves at the peaceful decolonisation of India, but hundreds of thousands die in the sectarian violence which ensured. Failure to ask ‘what comes next?’ is a major problem in Western foreign policy. And this is why I'm nervous about the clamour to depose Assad: we're not really sure that the new regime which the UK is helping usher in would be that much better. It's easy to stand up and deplore Assad. But can William Hague really stand up and say that the Syrian people would be better off under whatever regime the rebels would bring in? If not, why is he backing the rebels? Don't get me wrong, I deplore Assad and his brutality. I'm not convinced the rebels would be as bad: I don't know enough about them. But I'm not persuaded that regime change in Damascus would do any more than swap one kind of tyranny for another.
As Bradley says:
‘There has been much talk of the Syrian army having committed the worst massacre since Assad’s father ordered the slaughter of up to 30,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in 1982. But soon after China and Russia’s veto, the figure for those killed in Homs was reduced from 200 to 55 by one of the opposition groups (although others insisted more were killed). Homs then came under renewed military bombardment, and yes, dozens have been killed, which is sickening news to be sure, but sadly nothing out of what has passed for the ordinary in Syria for the past year. However, this idea of “a massacre” went viral. It was a “crime against humanity” and “its perpetrators must answer for it”, said Alain Juppé, foreign minister of France (and the prime architect of the Libya invasion).The West seems as keen as ever to see the uprisings as a simple story of freedom fighters opposing tyranny, when the situation is clearly much more complex. There seems to be an awful repeat of the Libya debacle beginning to unfold: western correspondents embed themselves with self-declared former al-Qa’eda fighters and bands of tribal fanatics, but fail to report these details so as not to undermine the “Arab Spring”. The result of this in Libya is plain to see. Once the Islamist militias had established their rule in Tripoli, they imposed sharia law on a once secular country and set about torturing their former enemies — or anyone who happened to be black — in a way that would have put even Gaddafi to shame.
Now the same voices that helped the Islamists take over Libya — and then feigned surprise when they introduced a new, perhaps even worse type of despotism — are calling for yet another armed revolution in Syria. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that, should their insurrection succeed, the new regime might cause untold suffering for the Syrian people, most of whom (it is not often reported) have not joined the uprising. Why would they? They have plenty of justification for fearing that what will come after Assad could prove far more repressive culturally, and potentially murderous.’
Previous
Peewit
February 9th, 2012 9:45am Report this commentI'm shocked to the core. Did you clear this piece with Daniel Korski? But well done for finally noticing what anyone with an ounce of common sense noticed about 12 months ago.
Austin Barry
February 9th, 2012 9:47am Report this commentFrom the West’s perspective there are no good guys, just the Sunni and Shiite branches of our implacable enemy, Islam.
Here it’s a case of my enemy’s enemy is also my enemy, to which the logical, if slightly unpalatable, corollary is to leave them to it.
David L
February 9th, 2012 9:52am Report this commentThere are no good guys in the middle east, more's the pity. Secular socialist Baathist thugs, and fundamentalist Sunni Muslim thugs spell equal misery. In the longer term we have to hope for the emergence of a middle class, who will demand an Islamic Reformation.
what we have today is a cold war between unsavoury rivals: the Sunnis, led, armed and funded by Saudi Arabia; and the Shias, led, armed and funded by Iran. The best we can hope for is stalemate, as in the first Gulf War.
By our blundering intervention in Iraq in the second and third Gulf Wars, we contrived to shift it into Iran's sphere of influence, and thus shifted the balance of power in the Middle East's cold war. Not quite what Bush/Blair had in mind when they contrived the casus belli.
The removal of the Alawite gang from Syria might go some way to redressing the balance.
TrevorsDen
February 9th, 2012 9:53am Report this commentYes but they are the only rebels we've got.
Would an outside agency have chosen Cromwell?
TomTom
February 9th, 2012 10:13am Report this commentYes Homs is terrible, so was Hama in February 1982; and so was Fallujah in 2004.......so why are British SAS/SBS soldiers alongside Qataris INSIDE Homs ?
Wilhelm 1
February 9th, 2012 10:37am Report this commentFox news was saying that the Libyan rebels were muslim fanatical nuts 12 months ago, while Fraser and the rest of the UK lame stream media was gushing and slobbering over them calling them freedom fighters.
Andy Carpark
February 9th, 2012 10:57am Report this comment'Before the Iraq war, Britain rightly listed Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people.'
Listed as what and alongside what? One spurious casus belli among many, by any chance? Iraq was not a belligerent.
'I deplore Assad and his brutality.'
What do you want, fellatio? Syria is not a belligerent.
Vulture
February 9th, 2012 10:57am Report this commentLeaving aside the dubious idea of agreeing with ANYTHING that the swivel-eyed Old Wykehamist Commie Milne says, it does seem that the choice in Syria is between the Devil in a business suit that is 'Basher' Assad, and the deep blue sea that is the fundamentalist lunacy that has already taken over Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and now threatens Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrein, and Pakistan.
Two rival versions of the mad, violent creed that laughably calls itself the religion of peace.
Why the West should wish to assist another Islamist takeover ( other than to spite Iran, China and Russia) beats me.
A plague on both their houses. So long as they are killing each other they won't be killing us.
MaxSceptic
February 9th, 2012 11:05am Report this commentAs both sides are as odious as each other, surely the correct policy should be to encourage the conflict to be as long, draw-out and bloody as possible.
As Kissinger sensibly said of the Iran-Iraq War: "It is a pity that they both can't lose".
Axstane
February 9th, 2012 11:29am Report this commentA great many regimes throughout the world are repugnant to us and all governments are repugnant to some.
Brutal repression is perfectly normal in the Muslim world [Dar al-Islam]and always has been. I suppose that any government wants to control outcomes ion its country and tries to have all run smoothly as possible. That means that many have to fight opposing factions where democracy does not exist as a means of government change. Syria is just one amongst many.
Since this situation will exist in those countries for aeons to come we must shrug, wail, send humanitarian aid and keep out of it. Any change in those regimes will just be different and not more democratic.
EC
February 9th, 2012 12:17pm Report this commentI notice that you are not quoting from Korski's shallow observations, Fraser. Stop deploring and go and ascertain the Russian or Chinese analysis of the situation. That would be interesting.
As Wilhelm1 says, it's not an uprising, it's an insurgency.
PayDirt
February 9th, 2012 12:18pm Report this commentNot sure Assad is as described brutal and repressive, ask his First Lady. He's nothing like Saddam or Ghadaffi. He is nominally leader of the Syrian ruling class but it's the generals who are pushing the violence of the crackdown, maybe they need to if they are to survive.
Fergus Pickering
February 9th, 2012 12:55pm Report this commentFreedom fighters and terrorists are the same thing, just seen from the other side. Mau-mau for example. IRA for example. What we called the Stern Gang for example. But we all know this. We should pick the side advantageous to us, or if neither is, we should do nothing. As in this case. All muslim leaders in the middle east are very horrible, and will be.
MilkSnatcher
February 9th, 2012 12:59pm Report this commentHas the West not yet realised that judging an insurgency/rebellion/treasonous uprising by whether women's and religious rights will be upheld is a path to nowhere. The West has given up on this in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it should not be a consideration here, harsh though that is. The only considerations that really matter in this context at this stage IMHO are
(i) is the new regime likely to proliferate, or cooperate on, nuclear weapons
(ii) will they facilitate or hinder Iranian expansionism
(iii) can they be kept out of the Chinese and Russian sphere of influence for the long term.
There is a far bigger game being played out here and our Chinese and Russian opponents care nothing about burkas. We could care because we are "civilized" and if we don't we ring our hands over the "sacrifice of our values" but let's not allow the Guardian to make foreign policy. To quote Facebook "Done is better than perfect".
Expect abuse.
john gerard
February 9th, 2012 1:42pm Report this commentIt's blindingly obvious what will happen if Assad goes - the country will be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, and other assorted Islamic maniacs. The only discussion they will have is how 'quickly' to impose sharia law. In Egypt, the clerical head of the Muslim Brotherhood is claiming that he wouldn't advocate the chopping off of hands for at least another five years. According to the western media, this makes them "moderates". Phew - for a minute there, I thought they were going to do it in four. Well, that's alright then, isn't it? Trebles all 'round!
WIlliam Blakes Ghost
February 9th, 2012 2:58pm Report this commentDespite all the hand wringing about motives and will this lot be better than that lot above what exactly are you suggesting should be done about the innocent people that are currently being slaughtered?
Or are you saying we should sit back and let this atrocity against humanity go unpunished?
PS I don't know what will happen. I haven't got a Crystal Ball. However peoploe are being slaughtered it needs to be stopped! Worry about motives AFTER the killing has ceased.
Anne Wotana Kaye 1
February 9th, 2012 3:49pm Report this comment"Our enemy's enemy" is perhaps a too sophisticated attitude for the average British citizen to comprehend, when they are prevented by the media, especially the BBC from recognising the enemy within. The “Daily Mail” has printed yet another sad story of a white youth and a young man attacked by “Asians” in Rochdale. Of course all comments on this article will be moderated beforehand. Of course, I doubt if many will be printed if they are not PC. Why do they write that the attackers were Asian? How many Chinese, Japanese or other Asians are there in that area? Why not state Pakistanis? Far more likely to be Moslem and Pakistani than Chinese Budhists.
Peter From Maidstone
February 9th, 2012 4:21pm Report this commentWilliam Blake's Ghost, the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East has been going on for centuries. Have you been insisting that something be done to stop this ongoing violence? When one side or the other gains power in all of these Muslim majority countries they will turn on the Christians as usual. Indeed Christians are being killed all the time in Egypt and it is just not reported in the MSM anymore.
Jez
February 9th, 2012 5:09pm Report this commentWell said Fraser.
Tarka the Rotter
February 9th, 2012 5:26pm Report this commentSyria has nothing to do with us - we should keep well out of it and look to our own
Dimoto
February 9th, 2012 8:50pm Report this commentExpect Sarko to come over any day now, wringing his hands and asking for Cameron's help to interfere.
Tell him to bugger off and ask Merkel.
Herbert Thornton
February 9th, 2012 9:30pm Report this commentFraser says - "It's unusual for the Guardian and the Spectator to agree on anything."
Perhaps so, but it's a noticeably growing trend.
David A.
February 9th, 2012 10:53pm Report this commentI normally don't advocate the overthrow of any of the ME dictatorships (having seen early on where Libya & Egypt were heading), but given that (a few years back) an Israeli attack on Syria uncovered Paki & NK nuclear weapons materials, and the recent movement of ~15K Iranian troops to support the current Syrian government, perhaps I will make an exception.
Ruby Duck
February 10th, 2012 1:46am Report this commentOur serfs and downtrodden masses fought their own fight. The rest of the world can do the same.
John Thomas
February 10th, 2012 4:19pm Report this commentBut, William Blake's Ghost, how would you go about stopping the killing? You'd have to support one side against the other (in order to secure victory as fast as possible) - but which one?
Back to top