There is no better word to describe Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Any Solution to Syria?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-any-solution-to-syria.html?_r=0). Again writing from New Delhi, Friedman declares:
"Last week, I met with a group of Indian strategists here at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses to talk about how America should withdraw from Afghanistan and navigate the interests of India, Pakistan and Iran. At one point, I tossed out an idea to which one of the Indian analysts responded: That was tried before — 'in the 11th century.' It didn’t work out well. That’s why I like coming to Delhi to talk about the region. Indian officials tend to think in centuries, not months, and they look at the map of the Middle East without any of the British-drawn colonial borders. Instead, they only see old civilizations (Persia, Turkey, Egypt), old faiths (Shiites, Sunnis and Hindus), and old peoples (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Jews and Arabs) — all interacting within long-set patterns of behavior."
Peculiar, though, how Friedman fails to mention the Kurds. There are 30 million of them spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Eliminate "British-drawn colonial borders"? Fine! And let's begin by giving the long-oppressed Kurds their own state.
Friedman continues:
"Shiite Iran has never liked the Sunni Taliban. 'Iran is the natural counter to Sunni extremism,' said [Indian Muslim journalist M. J.] Akbar. It’s in Iran’s interest to 'diminish the Taliban.' That’s why America and Iran were tacit allies in unseating the Taliban, and they will be tacit allies in preventing the reseating of the Taliban."
Ah, yes, Washington will ally itself with Tehran in order to empower Afghanistan's Shiite minority, thereby allowing the US to extract its ground forces from the muck of an inane war. Great idea, Tom! I'm certain Saudi Arabia will be ecstatic if America reaches such a deal with the mullahs, thereby enhancing the stature and sphere of influence of its mortal enemy, Iran.
Friedman goes on to say:
"From Washington, some hoped that by quickly toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, the West and the Sunnis could 'flip' Syria from the Iranian-Soviet orbit to the Sunni-Saudi-American orbit. I’m dubious. I doubt that Syria can be flipped in one piece; it will break apart in the air into Sunni and Alawite regions. And, if we did manage to flip Syria, Iran would try to 'flip' predominantly Shiite Iraq and Bahrain into its camp."
Apparently, unbeknownst to Tom Terrific, Iran is attempting to "flip" Iraq and Bahrain. This is not a game between the US and Iran of tit for tat. Iran, like Turkey, is seeking to restore historic hegemony over the Middle East. Tehran's proxy in Syria, mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, is teetering, and this directly impacts the armament of Hezbollah, Tehran's other principal surrogate. Note how Israel freely destroyed a shipment of advanced Russian SA-17 antiaircraft missiles en route from Syria to Lebanon in January. On the other hand, a chaotic, impoverished and much weakened Egypt, led by the radical Muslim Brotherhood, is providing new opportunities for the expansion of Iranian influence.
Near the end of this steaming road apple, Friedman avers:
"The lesson of Iraq is that deep historical currents were at play there — Sunnis versus Shiites and Kurds versus Arabs. The December 2010 Iraqi elections demonstrated, though, that multisectarian parties and democratic rule were possible in Iraq — and actually the first choice of most Iraqis. But America would have had to keep some troops there for another decade to see that shift from sectarianism to multisectarianism become even remotely self-sustaining. Syria is Iraq’s twin. The only way you’ll get a multisectarian transition there is with a U.N. resolution backed by Russia and backed by a well-armed referee on the ground to cajole, hammer and induce the parties to live together."
Yeah, right. A United Nations force, primarily consisting of US troops extracted from Afghanistan, is going to be stationed in Syria and prevent the Sunni majority from inflicting revenge upon the Alawites. Query: Who is going to pay for this new extravaganza?
Sit down, Tom, before you hurt yourself! Better still, go back to sleep.
The funny thing is there is a simple solution for Syria and Iraq as well, which, strangely enough nobody seems to consider. It is the system by which the Turks ruled these land very peacefully for centuries despite having a corrupt and disfunctional government..
ReplyDeleteThe Turks were legendary for their corruption and brutality, but the system worked like magic.
What was it?
It was called the Millet System. Under it, each recognized group in the population was in complete control of its own internal affairs, These groups included Alawites, Kurds, Druse, Jews, Christian sects, Sunnis, Shiites, and others including offshoots if these. The Turkish government and its courts were only involved in inter-group disputes. Because of the rapacity of its courts, even quarrels between members of different groups were usually settled privately for fear that the wealth of each party would end up with the government,
Each citizen considered himself a member of his autonomous group.
And to this day many Syrians consider themselves citizens of their own former millet, and not as Turks or Syrians.
These millets defined their own laws, ran their own schools and ran their own communities as they saw fit.
I believe they would all be delighted to return to such a system, though it would not be easy to arrange it, in this era of all powerful central governments,