Syria 2018

Missile attacks on chemical weapons facilities in Syria last week by combined American, British, and France forces make me wonder if we are pursuing the right course in that beleaguered country. Although the attacks were in response to apparent chemical attacks against Syrian rebels, and seemed to have been carried out with a precision that minimized the damage to civilians, I think they raise serious questions.

What are we doing in Syria in the first place? Or rather, why have we been involved in the civil war that has been raging in Syria since the early days of the administration of President Obama? You can even say that if it weren’t for our involvement in the Syrian civil war on the side of the rebels, there would have been no civil war in the first place. Actually, without our support of the rebels, ISIS might never have gained a foothold in Syria.

One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was the belief that he would take a more pragmatic approach to foreign affairs than candidate Hillary Clinton had done during her stint as Secretary of State during the Obama administration. Clinton and Obama had worked together to foment the so-called “Arab Spring,” a movement designed to oust dictators and bring democracy to the Arab world.

The ouster of a dictator or strong man in Libya did not result in democracy but in chaos and anarchy that still persists today. The rebels we supported and armed might even have participated in the infamous attack on our embassy in Benghazi. Obama and Clinton also encouraged an uprising in Egypt that ousted another strong man but only led to the emergence of the fanatical Moslem Brotherhood that commenced to impose Sharia law as well as brutally persecute Christians. Eventually, the Egyptian army had to take over and now the country is ruled by a military strong man.

What can possibly make us think that the overthrow of the Syrian strong man, Bashar Assad, will not have similar results. A glance at a map of Syria today shows an incredibly divided country that is acting like a vacuum sucking others into a potential devastating confrontation.

The forces of the Russian backed Assad government control most of the central part of the country. In the north a large portion of the country is in the hands of American backed Kurdish forces that have played a leading role in driving out ISIS. For their efforts in both Syria and Iraq, the Kurds want an independent state of their own.

American backed rebel forces still control parts of the country but during the Obama administration, officials liked to distinguish between extremist and moderate rebels. If recent history is any guide, moderates in places like Libya and Egypt were quickly overwhelmed by more extremist and violent elements.

In the city of Homs, a rebel stronghold, practically all of the Christian population has either been killed or forced to flee. It is possible that the rebels we have armed in the past might eventually turn their arms against us. Isn’t it amazing that we want to disarm our own population but think nothing of providing Moslem militants with the latest sophisticated weapons?

Finally, the Wall street Journal has just reported that the defeat of ISIS has led to the emergence in Syria of a rival Moslem terrorist group led by Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Moslem group formed originally by Osama bin Laden. Is this one of the reasons why Shiite Iran is also intervening in Syria.

Some, like the editors of the Wall Street Journal, argue that an American presence in Syria is now necessary to counter Russian and Iranian imperialism. I wonder if that is a good or practical reason. It seems to me that Russia’s Putin has done a much better job of restoring peace and ending the bloodshed in Syria than we have.

We have demonized Russia’s President Putin in this country but if you take an objective look, it would appear that his measures have done a much better job of restoring peace than ours. A few years ago Putin restored Russian sovereignty over the Crimea in a practically bloodless coup. Since that time has anyone heard of civil war, bombings, or general anarchy in that area? Would anyone in the Crimea today like to live in Syria?

Instead of confronting the Russians and Iranians in Syria we should be working with them to find a solution that must involve all those who have thrown in with the Assad regime. Arming rebels and calling for Assad’s ouster has caused untold misery in Syria.

###

A Syrian Martyr

                                             

Today a friend sent me the news that Father Frans van der Lugt, a 75 year old Jesuit priest from the Netherlands, who had spent most of his life teaching and ministering to Christians and Moslems alike in Syria, was brutally beaten and shot to death outside the Jesuit residence in Homs on April 7. Homs, a center of rebel activity, has been besieged by government forces for the past year. The remaining population of the city is suffering from hunger and fear.

Father Frans had refused to leave the city because he wanted to stay on and minister to the Syrian Christian community that he had come to call his own. The Christian community had existed in Syria almost from the beginning and had survived more than 1000 years of Moslem rule. There is nothing in the Koran that would allow or require faithful Moslems to murder innocent Christian believers.

Now there are less than 100 Christians left in Homs. As yet there is no news on the murderers of Fr, Frans but I suspect that the rebels were responsible. The rebels have claimed that the Christians in Syria support the Assad regime, and just as in Libya and Egypt, the so-called “Arab Spring” has led to the wholesale persecution of Christians by Moslem fanatics.

The lead article on the front page of the Wall St. Journal today did not mention Fr. Frans but did discuss a rift in the Obama administration on aid to rebels in Syria. Apparently, Secretary of State John Kerry is pushing for aid to the rebels while the President’s military advisors are reluctant to get involved in what could turn out to be another long-term commitment in the Middle East. Aid to the rebels would either involve direct military involvement or training of rebel fighters.

Advocates of involvement insist that aid would only go to moderate rebels. One wonders how we can tell the difference between moderate rebels and extremist killers. Also, we should consider the possibility that once moderate rebels are fully trained and armed, they might no longer act like moderates. Isn’t it amazing that we want to disarm our own population but think nothing of providing Moslem militants with the latest sophisticated weapons?

If recent history is any guide, moderates in places like Libya and Egypt were quickly overwhelmed by more extremist and violent elements. Today, Libya is still in chaos, and the Arab Spring in Egypt has resulted in military rule. In each case the ones who have suffered the most have been the Christians.

The death of Fr. Frans on April 7 has so far not appeared on the mainstream American media. A Google search will help but here is a link to a news source. I was educated by Jesuits priests more than 50 years ago at Fordham University in the Bronx. Most were dedicated scholars and teachers but I do believe that a handful were in the mold of Fr. Frans who must have been in training when I was in college. Shortly before he died he said that he had come to love the people of Syria who had done so much for him.

Fr. Frans died a martyr’s death. We are not all called to be martyrs. But the small percentage of priests and religious that continue to suffer martyrdom today should make people think twice before they vilify the Catholic Church and its priests because of the 2% who violated their vows iback in the 60s and 70s when Fr. Frans took up his cross to serve in the Holy Land.

###

Syrian Warning

    

After President Obama asked Congress to give its opinion on military intervention in the civil war in Syria, I sent an email to James Himes, my representative to Congress, asking him to consider the possible outcomes that might result. I wrote, “I hope you will ask for intelligence estimates of how many lives will be lost on both sides under the various scenarios.”

I believe that the possibility that we will do more harm than good far outweighs any other question. Even if there is irrefutable proof that the Assad forces used chemical weapons, that would still not justify an intervention that would cost much more destruction and many more lives than were lost during the chemical attacks.

Does anyone seriously think that President Bush or Vice President Cheney would have launched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after 911 if someone had been able to present them with the actual consequences that ensued? If President Obama could have looked into a crystal ball and seen how the attack on the Benghazi embassy would from his Libyan intervention, does anyone think he would have gone ahead?

Mine was not the only letter that Congressman Himes has received. He and other Members of Congress have received a torrent of mail on the subject. Himes did  respond and indicated that he had been briefed by the President and others on the contents of highly confidential intelligence reports. His response also included a survey question asking me to choose between four or five different options.

Subsequently, just yesterday he and senior Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut appeared at a local town hall type forum in Darien to sample public opinion. According to the news report Himes admitted that the response to his survey had been overwhelmingly opposed to any military intervention in Syria. In her weekly column in the Wall St. Journal Peggy Noonan indicated that polls showed that 80% opposed an attack on Syria.

Nevertheless, Representative Himes and Senator Blumenthal indicated on Sunday that their minds were still not made up. However, the recently elected junior senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, has already seen the handwriting on the wall and decided to vote against intervention in Syria despite a personal call from President Obama.

Speaking of the President it would seem that his strongest supporter on intervention in Syria would be his most outspoken enemy, the Wall St. Journal. The Journal and some of its columnists have been the drums for strong action. One columnist even urged a pinpoint attack to assassinate Assad and his whole family. The Journal believes that the USA is the sole bastion of world order and that we must live up to our role.

Even though I am a great admirer of the WSJ I can’t but feel that they have gone off the rails on this world order business. It seems pretty clear to me that in the last dozen years successive American administrations have done more to create disorder in the world than anyone else. Although President Obama promised a new era in foreign policy on his election in 2008, it is now clear that his Administration has de-stabilized the entire Middle East. In a few short years the so-called Arab Spring has turned into chaos. Disorder reigns all the way from Libya to Afghanistan.

I know that our country is tired of war and we want our soldiers back home. I also know that it is rare for us to consider an attack on a country or regime that poses no threat to us. Assad is no Hitler bent on world domination. Iran and North Korea pose a much greater threat than Syria and North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the North Korean regime has been starving its people for years. Is that nicer than killing them with chemicals? For that matter, why haven’t we attacked Libya after the terrorist attack on the Benghazi embassy. An attack on an American embassy or consulate is considered an attack on American soil. What has been our response there?

Pope John Paul II urged President Bush not to invade Iraq but he failed to listen. Pope Francis has urged President Obama not to seek a military solution in Syria. People in power should not brush these warnings aside as impractical theological nonsense. In the gospels Jesus was almost Machiavellian when he cautioned rulers to consider all the consequences before going to war. He told the parable of the King who wisely withdrew from the brink when he discovered that his enemy’s force was twice as large as his.

Congressman Himes should not vote for war on the basis of intelligence estimates of chemical weapons. He should consider the cost in human life on all sides of the civil war in Syria, and also the possibility that the results of all our military efforts will only aid and abet our real enemies in the area.

###