The horrific attacks in Paris on Friday have, predictably, led to much
over-reaction and demands that we do more of the exact things that radicalize
people and make them want to attack us. The French military wasted no time
bombing Syria in retaliation for the attacks, though it is not known where
exactly the attackers were from. Thousands of ISIS fighters in Syria are not
Syrian, but came to Syria to overthrow the Assad government from a number of
foreign countries -- including from France and the US.
Ironically, the overthrow of Assad has also been the goal of both the US
and France since at least 2011.
Because the US and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and
other groups - seeking the overthrow of Assad - many of the weapons they have
sent to the more "moderate" factions also seeking Assad's ouster
have ended up in the hands of radicals. Moderate groups have joined more
radical factions over and over, taking their US-provided training and weapons
with them. Other moderate groups have been captured or killed, their
US-provided weapons also going to the radicals. Thus the more radical
factions have become better equipped and better trained, while occasionally
being attacked by US or allied planes.
Does anyone not believe this is a recipe for the kind of disaster we have
now seen in Paris? The French in particular have been very active in arming
even the more radical groups in Syria, as they push for more political
influence in the region. Why do they still refuse to believe in the concept
of blowback? Is it because the explanation that, "they hate us because
we are free," makes it easier to escalate abroad and crack down at home?
It may not be popular to say this as emotions run high and calls ring out
for more bombing in the Middle East, but there is another way to address the
problem. There is an alternative to using more military intervention to
address a problem that was caused by military intervention in the first
place.
That solution is to reject the militarists and isolationists. It is to
finally reject the policy of using "regime change" to further
perceived US and western foreign policy goals, whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria,
or elsewhere. It is to reject the foolish idea that we can ship hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of weapons to "moderates" in the Middle
East and expect none of them to fall into the hands of radicals.
More bombs will not solve the problems in the Middle East. But a more
promising approach to the Middle East is currently under fire from the
isolationists in Washington. The nuclear deal with Iran ends UN sanctions and
opens that country to international trade. Just last week the presidents of
France and Iran met to discuss a number of trade deals. Other countries have
followed. Trade and respect for national sovereignty trumps violence, but
Washington still doesn't seem to get it. Most presidential candidates compete
to thump the table loudest against any deal with Iran. They will use this
attack to propagandize against approving trade with Iran even though Iran has
condemned the attack and is also in the crosshairs of ISIS.
Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop
shipping weapons, abandon "regime change" and other manipulations,
respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including
protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.
We should abandon the failed policies of the past, before it's too late.
