The Isolationists on Both the Far Left and Right Have Been Proven Wrong to Oppose Overthrowing Syria’s Assad Regime

In my post earlier this month on the fall of the tyrannical Assad regime of Syria, I blamed isolationists on the left and far right for the continuation of the oppression of Syrians and the mass imprisonment, torture and murder over a 54-year span, as well as the international harm the regime caused by its state sponsorship of terrorism and production of illicit narcotics. When the Arab Spring protests against authoritarianism and in favor of liberty and representative government spread to the Syrian people in 2011, Bashar Assad responded with brutality, as his father had done to put down a revolt in 1982, starting the Syrian Civil War, which lasted 11 years and killed 600,000 people and caused millions to flee. The Butcher of Damascus targeted civilians with massive bombs and even chemical weapons, and his Russian allies also targeted civilians, hospitals and first responders. United States President Barack Obama declined to intervene to defend American interests against terrorism and against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which used Syria as a conduit to support terrorists in Lebanon and Gaza. Instead, the liberal Democrat, afraid to risk any losses and of opposition from the left wing of his party, opened the door for Russia to intervene to support Assad, while other Western leaders also failed to lead to defend their interests against the threat. But while the far left was opposing intervention, the far right was equally unable to recognize vital American interests in opposing tyranny and terrorism. These right wingers were thus supporting the leftist Ba’athist Socialist regime of Assad, which was anti-American, like the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and had been a Soviet client state. Like Assad and the Russians, whose propaganda and disinformation they tend to parrot because it is targeted to appeal to them, the far right mislabeled all opponents of Assad as Islamist “terrorists,” including those who only wanted liberty and even who were allies of the U.S., like the Kurds and others who formed the American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. The isolationists opposed even the minimal aid provided to the SDF. Furthermore, the fall of Assad means not only that there is no longer any Ba’athist regime in power in any Arab State for the first time since 1969, it also means a loss of a member of what I call the Axis of Rogues, which are those States that engage in various misbehavior against the West and others, such as aggression, sponsoring terrorism, drug trafficking, counterfeiting, etc. and that cooperate with each other with arms trafficking and commercial relations, as well as diplomatic support and that usually vote together at the United Nations. The loss of a member of the Axis and particularly a key ally of Iran and Russia is a major benefit to global security. Therefore, far-right isolationists, like those on the far left, are contrary to American interests, despite their rhetoric that they are motivated only by American interests. As I have observed about isolationists, they are usually incapable of recognizing those interests or the threats to them. In addition to the direct threats from Syria, there were also indirect threats the isolationists ignored. While the far right opposes migrants and refugees, they contradicted themselves by claiming the U.S. and the West had no interest in Syria, which produced a post-Second World War record number of refugees because of the Civil War, which caused the anti-migrant backlash in Europe that led to the rise of far-right nationalists and “sovereignist” parties. The excuse that anti-migrant xenophobic isolationists use against refugees is the prejudice that they were all Islamists, or even terrorists. But the Trump Administration’s Muslim travel ban barred entry even to Christian refugees, who faced tyranny, war and terrorism. The demagoguery not only exaggerated fears, but was dishonest because it was not about protecting the West from security threats, but using legitimate concerns to promote their general bigotry. Furthermore, the power vacuum in part of Syria caused by the Civil War led to the rise of the Islamic State, the Islamist terrorist offshoot of al-Qaeda, the organization that killed 3,000 people in the September 11, 2011 Terrorist Attacks against America. The Islamic State, which won allegiance from al-Qaeda affiliates around the Islamic world, declared a caliphate in northern Syria and Iraq, from which it launched attacks and threatened Europe and America until the U.S. led an international coalition to defeat it. As I have posted, the point is that instability and war are always threats to global security, contrary to isolationists’ arguments that they are not of international concern, if for no other reason that they cause refugee crises, lead to power vacuums exploited by malefactors, and disrupt travel and commerce. But isolationists were especially proven wrong to oppose overthrowing Assad, a leftist ally of Iran and Russia and state sponsor of terrorism who was thus clearly against American, Western and global interests. Isolationists on the left oppose national interests of America and the Western, and those on the far right always fail to recognize national interests, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, which leads them to the same positions as the far left they claim to oppose. The far-right isolationists always use the excuse of favoring stability of dictatorships versus their fear of a similar or worse replacement, which makes them complicit in the tyranny and other roguish behavior of such dictatorships and fails ever to allow even the opportunity for anything better. Even though isolationists are always discredited, they will continue to adhere to their ideologies, with left-wing ones blaming America and the West for every ill in the world and excusing the most heinous despots, while the right-wing ones will continue to promote xenophobia against all foreigners to avoid having to make a judgment about which side in a foreign conflict it is justifiable to support and naively relying on our own strength to protect us from threats they deny or minimize. And both types of isolationists will continue to appeal publicly to selfishness versus encouraging any willingness to make sacrifices, like even economic sanctions, let alone defensive aid or military intervention to defend vital interests. Although they will continue to insult patriots who favor supporting national interests and global security as “warmongers” and other such pejorative terms, like “neocons,” we ought to remain confident we are doing our duty for our country and the world.