Death Comes to Syria and Egypt

Someone attacked a suburb of Damascus, Syria this week with all the quiet fury of a Biblical plague.  No marks of sacrificial blood could save the innocent or chosen.  This work of man killed all indiscriminately.

Nerve gas wafted through the streets and homes.  By the time it dissipated, it killed 1,300 just as effectively as the Japanese at Nanking or the Romans at Carthage in the Third Punic War.

The Daily Mail referred to the incident as "the town that never woke up."

The Syrian belligerents can be divided into three categories.  First is the Syrian government itself, no stranger to atrocities.  Rebelling against it is one group with an equal potential for evil, the Islamicists.  Kurdish forces in the northeast have seized important points.  Kurds have a quasi-sovereign state in northern Iraq, but also live in Syria, Turkey, and Iran.  Possibly the weakest faction is the Syrian nationalist rebels, tied by outrageous fortune to the Islamicists.

Government forces showed signs of desperation earlier this week when they attacked the Israeli held Golan Heights.  Provoking a war with Israel would throw the region into chaos.  Israel, so far, has remained somewhat restrained.

A group allied with the Syrian government took down the Washington Post's website last week.

The Washington Free Beacon reported a day before the attack that a joint Russian-American plan to create a transitional government has not taken the first necessary steps.

Meanwhile in Egypt, as was reported yesterday by Kirby Wilbur on the Sean Hannity Show, Muslim Brotherhood thugs, ousted by the military, have taken their rage out on the Coptic Christian community.

American influence since World War II has not brought complete peace, but has kept the lid on conflicts that could have erupted without its presence.  US troops have occasionally played a role, as in Lebanon under Eisenhower and Reagan. This also, of course, includes the Iraq wars. But usually US aims are realized through  the dispensation of aid and realpolitik style maneuvering.

Some of these conflicts, such as the rise of the Islamofascist thug group, Muslim Brotherhood, have steadily percolated for years.  The Brotherhood aligned with the Nazis before and during World War II to try and destabilize British authority in the Middle East.  Ever since, they have worked to undermine secular rule in Egypt to establish an Iran or Taliban style state there.

The full realization of their plans would put a hostile power in control of the vital Suez Canal who also would attack Israel.

Part of the problem lies at the feet of Barack Obama.  Nearly every president since Harry Truman has based American Middle East policy on certain foundations.  First was support of Israel.  Second, America must protect, or support the protection of, strategic interests.  These include safe ocean passage through the Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc., oil reserves, and important points.

The United States also worked to prevent the rise of malefactors in the Middle East, but also lived with anti-democratic forces willing to go along with the game plan.  For example, Qaddafi was an enemy when he sponsored terrorism.  When he renounced weapons of mass destruction, he became at least tolerable and a possible example of a "reformed" dictator.  Not the best case scenario, but an improvement.

Supporting "democracy" in the Middle East is problematic.  Islamofascists, like the German Nazis and Communists before, advocate "democracy" so that they can come to power and annihilate it.  The best case scenario for Germany in the mid 1930s would have been a military coup and purge of Hitler's followers and Communists, followed by a restoration of the Kaiser.  Those rebelling against authoritarianism today often only plan to establish bloody totalitarianism tomorrow.

Previous presidents understood this.  Obama does not.

American policy in the region has no chance of restoration under Obama.  His aimless diplomacy, coupled with two poorly performing secretaries of state, inspire no respect.  Middle Easterners did not always like Obama's predecessor, but they respected his strength and ability to act.  Obama has effectively destroyed that perception and replaced it with weakness.

Drifting away from Israel has also made war more likely, not less.

Even though energy self-sufficiency will de-emphasize the Middle East's importance somewhat, it still breeds hate and terror.  America must have a policy that starts with a perception of strength based on the reality of action.  Doing anything else increases the chance of war and/or terror attacks.

Why Zimmerman and Not Egypt?

On one hand, a guy either defended himself from attack or murdered someone in a Florida town.  On the other, the military of a strategically significant country overthrew an elected leader to the delight of the people.

Why did the world shaking news of the Egypt coup rate a minor blip on the American cable news scene?

Part of it comes down to the nature of criminal trials.  What role do they play in culture?  The adversarial nature of a criminal trial combined with the subjectiveness of a jury judging the success or failure of a prosecution's case gives it a baser significance.  Trials, always more so than sports, represent social release.  The Roman emperors used to hold gladiatorial games to distract the people and channel their passions.  They "played" for stakes of life and death.  At times, the head of state got to weigh in on whether a combatant lived or died.

For better or worse, jury trials for centuries have fulfilled that role in America. 

Go back to the 1700s.  The capital murder trials of the Boston Massacre soldiers, defended brilliantly by the patriot John Adams.  No trial has ever matched that one for high drama.  An opponent of British rule convinces a blood bent Massachusetts jury to acquit the soldiers who killed several in the Boston Massacre.  The drama and the bigger issues made it a landmark of justice.  Like many equally famed trials later, the jury required a strong standard of proof to convict despite the social pressure to do so. 

The Zimmerman trial, however, does not reflect current issues as much as it resuscitates the ghosts of conflicts of ages past.  Hispanic on black racism?  Class judgment?  Just a guy trying to be the neighborhood tough guy going one step too far? Or was it a man watching out for his neighborhood?

Racism is as much of a modern issue as anti Catholicism.  It will always lurk in the background, but it no longer looms as large as it once did.  Times change, but memories remain.  Those running the news outlets today grew up in those times and lived in that context.  It is hard for them to understand that America has moved on.  The old paradigm is gone forever.  Nevertheless, it is good politics in some quarters to keep the fading issue alive.

News outlets believed that the Zimmerman trial formed a confluence of trial drama and race debate.  They spent a lot of time and money preparing to cover it as intensely as possible.  Egypt's military rudely launched a coup, disrupting the American media's preferred order.  It had no experts on scene, no reporters breathlessly standing in parking lots outside the coup, packed with meaningless or old information.

Americans proved to be more interested in the coup.  They packed social media, following reporters on the scene.  Online, they turned to BBC, Reuters, and other international outlets.  History was in the making.  A man that the people had elected had tried to transform himself into a tyrant.  They got the military's help in declaring independence from him.

Judging from the reaction of Obama and some other nations, not many understood the fact that an election confers a trust to follow the law, not a mandate to impose one's will.  The people and armed forces of Egypt acted on that very ideal.

And that should have been the big debate of the day.  The role of elections and the responsibility of the elected.  News outlets should have recognized the drama, understood the significance, and devoted analysis to the possibilities good and bad that could arise. 

But they didn't.  And that is why we do not trust our media.

Egypt's Least Bad Option: Military Coup

As of right now, the Egyptian military has launched a coup to remove the Muslim Brotherhood party and President Mohammed Morsi from power.

Military leader General Al Sisi held meetings with national leaders, including the Coptic Christian pope, to secure support for removing the radicals from power.  Meanwhile, BBC reports portray a rabidly angry Muslim Brotherhood equally willing to take to the streets "with martyrdom on their minds."

Tanks have taken to the streets of Cairo and, according to Reuters, hundreds of soldiers are ostentatiously marching on parade near the Presidential Palace.  Some have claimed that the president now lives under house arrest. Armored vehicles defend national broadcasting outlets.  The opposing sides even took to Facebook to launch rhetorical attacks.

Since Morsi ascended to office, the international community has watched his regime with concern.  Relations with Israel and the United States cooled.  Unprovoked and unpunished attacks on women and Christians rose.  Morsi also unconstitutionally centralized power into the executive branch and attacked the independent judiciary.  These almost always preface the evolution of a quasi democracy into a dictatorship.

Their goal was the implementation of Islamic religious Sharia Law.  This is the code that mandates punishments for raped women, for educating girls, and oppresses millions across the Eastern Hemisphere.  Egyptians have rallied against the imposition of religious totalitarianism, to their credit.

A coup would be the least bad option for Egypt.  Its strategic location means that any increasingly radical state could play a very destabilizing role in the next few years.  Military seizure of the government is the best chance of returning moderation to the country's foreign affairs.

It would also restore order, although in the short term any upending of a constitution disrupts rule of law. 

Rarely is the case that a nation should go to such extremes to ensure order, even over law.  But some cases beg for this step.  Wouldn't history have taken a better course if the German Army's aristocratic officers overturned the elected Hitler government that they despised?  Waiting would only entrench Morsi more securely.  We can't wait for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood to grow confident enough to attack Israel or even U. S. interests in the area.

Fortunately the Egyptian Army obviously feels the same.  Thus the reason for launching the least bad option.

The Dangers of Meddling in Syria

Last month, experts testified to a House committee that inaction in Syria emboldened Iran.  Not long after that, Senator John McCain predicted that "the entire Middle East is up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning."  He urged Obama to lead.

The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict.  As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence.  Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause.  Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.

Such is the nature of "civil war."  Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved.  Some cite humanitarian issues.  Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.

Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy."  President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism.  But would he be replaced by anything better?  Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise.  He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"

Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?

Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean.  North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government.  Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup.  Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s.  Spillover from the war could be destructive.  A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.

The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses.  Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides.  Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.

Yes this is a particularly horrible war.  But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.

Military Dictatorship In Egypt?

Unrest in Egypt is getting worse and not better. What is unclear is which groups stand to gain if, or more likely when, Hosni Mubarek is forced to step aside. We would love to see true democracy, but should be concerned about the Moslem Brotherhood (backed by Obama, of course.) Egypt has tried to retain a secular government in the face of a tide of dangerous fundamentalism. Inviting a religious group to the table is a bad idea. Just because they came does not mean they should get to sit or speak.

History shows us that revolutions such as the one brewing in Cairo tend to turn out badly much of the time. Radicals shove aside moderates and spill blood when they consolidate power. Radicals want to control the people body, mind, and spirit. Radical Islamofacist terror will be bad for Egypt, Israel, Europe, and the United States.

In 1933, German democracy selected Communists and Nazis overwhelmingly in elections for the national legislature (Reichstag.) Its system required the President to choose a government from the dominant political parties. The President selected what he thought was the better of two evils, the Nazis. Of course the Communists had already killed thousands and wrecked Russia. The Nazis had not done as much yet, although they eventually would. The best case scenario for that desperate nation would have been a temporary seizure of power by the military.

Is that what is best for Egypt? If the Moslem Brotherhood or any other Islamic front group try to seize power, the military needs to step in and shove them aside. We need no more radical religious groups running nations in the Middle East. It is not a great result, but better than a lot of alternatives if true democracy cannot be established.

This all being said, that military government (as we have seen this morning actually take over the country) needs to put together a transition plan to democracy that reflects the secular nature of the country and respects all of its religious groups. It needs to promise to prevent terror as well. Hopefully, temporary military rule will result in real democracy and positive change for Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood Must Be Excluded

In recent days, Obama has been pushing Egypt to find a role in a new government for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is an international front for Islamofascism who tries to make fundamentalist Islam look acceptable, much like the Nazi moderation campaigns in the late 20s and early 30s.

Make no mistake, especially y'all on the liberal side of things. These are people who have no problem with the execution of gays and the mutilation of rape victims, especially if that rape destroyed their virginity. These are the Middle East version of the Westboro Baptist (non)Church in their basic beliefs. They should be allowed nowhere near any power structure anywhere.

Revolutions usually begin with democratic leaning moderates in control and radicals asking just for a place at the table. Over time the radicals use ruthless means to intimidate and shove their way into dictatorial control. The American Revolution was an example of the opposite. Radicals were weeded out or chose to drop out and the moderates too over. In Russia and France, radicals seized control with terrifying and bloody results.

To avoid bloodshed in the increasingly inevitable looking scenario of change in Egypt, we must push for the exclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are terrorists who will kill and maim the weak and vulnerable if their sick interpretation of Islam is given any credibility or influence.

We want a moderate and secular democracy in Egypt that opens up the economic system to a more free market orientation. We do not need terrorists who have temporarily decided to look moderate.