Matt Johnson

*Originally published in Political Fiber, July 2, 2012

As Syria sinks into chaos and the world continues to cringe, it looks like Russia is at it again with a boatload of weapons and helicopters bound for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his henchmen.

But Russia is on notice: Being a principle lobbyist and arms dealer for Syria is turning out to be more trying than lucrative. Russia is historically reticent on human rights, but as a recent New York Times article by Dmitri Trenin notes, “Delivering arms into a country going through civil war is damaging, both politically and morally.”

Russia claims it doesn’t want foreign intervention in Syria because it fears Islamist rule in place of secular dictatorship and remains suspicious about Western intentions.

The deodorized version of this argument is easier to understand: Russia prefers to remain brutally self-serving when it comes to client states such as Syria.

With the recent startling news from Egypt and Libya swirling in our minds, it’s difficult to look at Syria with sober eyes. Is a military dictatorship in Egypt with the capacity to dissolve parliament really better than Mubarak? Is the maelstrom of roving militias in Libya actually an improvement over Gaddafi? In spite of the disheartening setbacks and violence, the answer to both of these questions remains “yes.”

In a recent article for The Daily Beast, Leslie H. Gelb takes the opposite view (which, in this case, certainly isn’t “probably not.” Try “absolutely not.”) Here are a few snippets from his piece:

With regard to Egypt, “you’d have to be delusional to argue that Washington should choose sides here.”

He then scoffs at the people who advocated the air campaign in Libya, “Having helped the Libyans rid themselves of the evil Colonel Gaddafi, democratic-loving Europeans and Americans and humanitarians worldwide now find themselves confronting a Libya in dictatorial free fall…”

Near the top of the second page, he takes note of the larger rivalries at work here, “Another consideration that has not gained sufficient notice: the Mideast has become a diplomatic (and sometimes arms-sales) battleground between Washington on the one hand and Russia and China on the other.” We can certainly thank Mr. Gelb for pointing this one out, as it’s been dominating the news for months now.

In reality, there are a few critical weaknesses in Mr. Gelb’s pessimistic appraisal of the newly revolutionary Middle East. His most bewildering assertion is the one about Egypt. As I’ve taken care to mention, the situation isn’t particularly promising at the moment, with the military stubbornly clinging onto its power and the Muslim Brotherhood poised to lead. But the only “side” that America ostensibly chose was that of the Egyptian protesters.

The overthrow of Mubarak wasn’t hastened by foreign military intervention – it was entirely homegrown. Is Mr. Gelb really suggesting that the words of encouragement from Washington should have been withheld? It’s not as if an American blessing gave the protesters the strength they needed to persevere – Mubarak was falling, one way or the other. Military aid was even suspended for a time, though the United States has mistakenly resumed it.

In Libya’s case, Mr. Gelb isn’t just shouting at air. Positive action was taken to remove Gaddafi from power. It’s curious, though: Mr. Gelb doesn’t seem to be concerned with the opinions of the people who actually have to live in this “dictatorial free fall…” He turns his nose upward at the “democratic-loving Europeans and Americans and humanitarians” and chides their optimism, “Boy have we helped the Libyan people into a new, free, and democratic life.”

In an article for Foreign Policy Magazine, “The Twisted Arc of History,” James Traub responds to Mr. Gelb’s dismissive sarcasm with a simple refutation, “And yet the Libyan people themselves are almost unanimous in believing themselves better off without Qaddafi.”

Perhaps this is because the mere possibility of democracy is better than the guarantee of indefinite, violent autocracy. The “evil Colonel Gaddafi” couldn’t possibly be worse than the militias or the National Transitional Council, right? Well, as his 42-year reign may suggest, it’s better to wonder about a country’s future than to bemoan its seemingly endless state of tyrannical domination.

Oh, and protecting innocent civilians from indiscriminate massacres may be laughably silly to Mr. Gelb, but I find it a subject for incredulity in the opposite direction.

There’s also a shifty dichotomy at work in Mr. Gelb’s article. In one vein, he’s admonishing us to survey the chaos in these countries and lament our role in bringing it about. In another, he’s decrying our impotence, “It would be sheer folly to think that Washington could gain control over these events or even exercise decisive influence. Only those foreign-policy experts who don’t know the region could believe otherwise.”

We’re either playing a decisive role in the disintegration of the Middle East or simply wasting money there. It seems Mr. Gelb hasn’t made up his mind as to which is which.

Finally, we return to Syria. Mr. Gelb says, “If anything, the Syrian hellhole is worse.” Unsurprisingly, he also wants us to stay out. Here are the reasons he outlines:

1) It’s becoming a civil war (too late).

2) Airstrikes would only “kill more Syrians of all stripes” (he doesn’t expand on this beyond citing “military experts” without naming any).

3) Syria has “potent air defenses” (I suppose the American Air Force has never run up against this problem before).

4) We may have to send in ground troops (well, yes, we may). When thousands upon thousands are dying and the government shows no sign of relenting, it may be time to have this conversation – whether Leslie H. Gelb likes it or not.

At least Mr. Gelb doesn’t take the Russian line. Through all this uncertainty and speculation, it’s nice to have one perfectly concrete argument to deploy and emphatically restate. The last thing any respectable country should be doing right now is shipping weapons to President Bashar al-Assad.