According to legend, when asked to justify his tyranny over France, King Louis XV responded with the statement “Après moi, le deluge,” translated “After me, the flood.” While not particularly inspiring, statements such as this can nonetheless be seductive. Political revolutions are risky ventures with justifiable fears that the future may be worse than the status quo.
It was this line of rhetoric that President Bashir al-Assad used to dissuade the Syrian people from being swept up by the hope offered by the Arab Spring. And despite this rhetoric being cynical and self-centered, history has justified Assad. As bad as the Assad regime was for everyday Syrians, what has followed has been undeniably worse.
Since the onset of the conflict in 2011, the UN estimates over 191,000 Syrians have been killed and over three million have become refugees since the population was first caught in the crossfire between the regime and assorted rebel groups. With no faction able to gain a clear upper hand, Assad’s tyranny has devolved into a violent multipolar anarchy.
It is unquestionably a humanitarian disaster that deserves a response. Since the onset, many nations — Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran — have intervened, supporting one faction or another as they try to mold Syria’s political fate to their own interests. Until now the United States has done everything in its power to keep out of the conflict, as the nation is still war-wearied from long engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The moderate Syrian rebels are not realistic contenders for power, but merely fuel anarchy.
Yet with the expansion of the particularly brutal jihadist faction of ISIS, America has finally decided it must do something. Thus Obama, with bipartisan congressional approval, recently agreed to supply modest amounts of arms and training to aid rebels deemed “moderate,” i.e. interested in constructing a liberal democratic state in Syria. This is a noble idea, but is it truly feasible?
The fact is, Syria’s moderate rebels are in no state to restore order or the rule of law to their country anytime in the foreseeable future. Divided and hopelessly outmatched by both the Assad regime and the more structurally organized jihadist rebels, the moderate Syrian rebels are not realistic contenders for power, but merely perpetuators of anarchy.
Perhaps if the West was willing to offer serious military commitment, including robust numbers of ground troops for occupation, they could manage to install the moderates into power. But no foreign public would tolerate their leaders embracing such a serious commitment. Instead, what Obama offers is a feel-good policy that gives the perception of doing something without paying the cost it would require.
Rather than trying to give the upper hand to one of the dominant factions in the civil war that could feasibly win, Obama shirks this hard choice and fuels the war’s continuance by supporting a faction with no chance of victory.
Ultimately, while liberty may be preferable to tyranny, tyranny is preferable to anarchy. And sadly, in present-day Syria, only tyrants remain powerful. Whatever Assad’s crimes, they pale in comparison to the brutality of ISIS, which has instituted policies of industrial sexual violence and the genocide of minorities.
If the world is truly serious about pushing back against ISIS, they must rally behind a feasible champion. Unfortunately Syria’s moderate rebels cannot supply this bulwark, but the Assad regime may. In a conflict with no good options, the West must support the lesser of two evils.
