Great inconvenient truth

less than a week

Only last week—on 2 December to be precise, I wrote the following about a reigniting of the civil war in Syria, although I probably should have stressed that civil war actually never ended.

https://cynthiawatson.substack.com/p/inconvenient-truths

This morning, the al-Assad regime appears over with Bashar, the ophthalmologist-turned-dictator nowhere to be seen. Undoubtedly, he departed in hopes of avoiding the fate of long-time Libyan dictator Muhammad Qadaffi in 2011.

The speed with which the Russians and Iranians abandoned their client is breathtaking, even in a world where we are having a hard time catching our breath about everything.

The Biden administration, increasingly relegated to the sidelines by a world determined to embrace the next administration, had long sought al-Assad’s ouster. One of my most shocked moments of the last decade was when I read in some open-source publication about “U.S. troops stationed in Syria”. My husband and my dear Marine friend Larry both swiveled their heads in shock similar to mine: we have troops in Syria? SYRIA? My son-in-law, a former Army officer of younger vintage, similarly asked me to clarify that at dinner back in May. I have no reason to think our troops had anything but the most marginal of contributions to this overthrow but Biden’s team will be happy.

President-elect Donald Trump made clear yesterday that we had no dog in this fight when asked about it. Since he campaigned an America First pledge, along with greater willingness to stand back as we see world events unfold, I found his statement pretty matter of fact.

The question for all of us today, however, is a radically different one: are we sure that the follow on regime will be less threatening to our interests?

We have a decided, documented tendency to reject harsh rulers (as if they were not part of systems of rule) with the expectation anyone else had to be better. We did it in Iraq with Saddam; how did that turn out? It depends on your perspective as Iraq isn’t in the news much these days so I don’t know what life is like on the streets of any Iraqi city. I do know that Iran appeared the winner as a result of our decade in that country as we cleared out the Sunni Ba’athists which created a vacuum which Shi’ites, with their Iranian connection, filled.

We were sure that Papa Doc, then Baby Doc Duvalier were horrible men (they most definitely were) in Haiti back decades ago. Haiti has nominally (and I definitely mean nominal here) been “democratic” for forty years but it’s hard to find a harder place to exist, unless one is using Somalia where we hoped that ousting Mohammed Farrah Aideed would provide better living conditions for those suffering the horrors of famine. I doubt anyone thinks either Somalia or Haiti is better off today than they were thirty years ago. The list goes on, whether an old one or a contemporary one.

Please, please, please do NOT see this as endorsing dictatorial regimes. I despise any and all regimes, no matter the country, where leaders of any party or movement put their own interests over the needs of those they are privileged to govern.

But, it’s a classic view to assume that overthrowing bad people will mean it has to get better. I would argue that is rarely the case in the immediate term. Why? But why could that possibly be true?

I am a huge believer in tempering our expectations—and actions. As a predominantly Christian nation, many in the west feel the need to “save”. It often doesn’t go as expected.

We mistake the power of an individual for the reality of a system from which that person arose. Al-Assad could not have taken place for even his quarter century without an Alawite-based ruling system. The elites that the Duvaliers danced with over lavish dinners throughout the Cold War never entirely relinquished control to the average citizen of Haiti. Sure, the Ba’athists lost power in Iraq but the religious power of pro-Iranian mullahs never ended, instead strengthened.

An individual may indeed be able to alter history to the immediate good, but the evidence for that is pretty rare. Instead, the overthrow of horrible regimes almost invariably leads to even worse conditions for those most immediately affected. How many times did we think ousting one corrupt general in Vietnam would turn the war trajectory only to find the corruption instead of good governance expanded? And they weren’t even the worst of the worst, it would appear.

Societies are complicated places with many crosscutting influences. The various relationships within those societies, for ill or good, are amazingly resilient.

Most of us detest the regime in Beijing but overthrowing it, as so many advocate, has its real dangers to our interests as well. It’s a system in China, built on Confucianism, stoked nationalism, and the desire to avoid luan. But replacing the CCP with something else is no guarantee that China goes to a more favorable place in our view.

That is why Revolutions are something we almost always rue seeing after a while. Revolutions are not just about ideology as we seem to think. A Revolution, with a capital R as we used to say in Latin American studies, is a dramatic, harsh sustained destruction of the existing order. What we too often forget is that order can mean several things: it can be societal calm but it also often means understood relationships, goals, and objectives. Most Revolutions in fact become revolutions (small r) or rebellions, merely substituting one person for the ousted bad. At the macro level, that becomes one bunch for another, often with the latters feeling it’s their due to get what they have not had for years. No wonder it’s no better.

I sincerely hope Syria’s turmoil leads to a completely different outcome from the whole of the country’s century long misery but I am pessimistic. Regimes begun with force almost invariably continue using that instrument to secure their ends rather than consulting with those they govern. This is why violence is so pernicious but participatory systems are so cherished.

It’s too early to tell who will succeed al-Assad but he appears finished, closing a half century of family dominance in Syria. The Iranians, at a minimum, appear likely to retain an interest in who runs the place because their clients Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon are important to the Islamic Republic’s objectives of menacing Israel. Indications that al-Qaeda dominates the rebels who overthrew Bashar is not insignificant for this region, either. Perhaps they will, as a predominantly Sunni force, threaten Iran more than anyone but it simply doesn’t sound good for our interests, either.

My overall message today is that we must always be circumspect in considering the world. We need be serious about what directly affects our interests, not merely our preferences or aspirations. That will sound defeatist to some but that is not my intent. I do believe completely that societies must figure things out for themselves, whether we like their choices or not. But we have a poor track record at recreating societies unless we beat them into unconditional surrender (read World War II). But we should not assume it won’t get worse.

It can always get worse. We never know precisely how things will unfold—not speed, not individuals, not outcomes. This is why I am against straight-lining our hopes or fears.

Thank you for your time today. I welcome—yearn for—any and all feedback of any sort. My thoughts are merely musings so you may have better answers. Thank you for reading today or any other day. Thank you to those who subscribe. I welcome your subscriptions for the year ahead.

A photograph of St. Mary’s le Strand in candlelight.

Be well and be safe. FIN

“Assad Flees as Rebels Take Damascus: Live Updates”, WallStreetJournal.com, 8 December 2024, retrieved at https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/syria-civil-war-damascus?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1