The situation in Syria has gone from bad to worse to catastrophic. All ends of the world meet in a single place, in a single conflict, and in a single devastation. The single worst thing is the risk of further escalation.
The major powers either support Syrian rebels, or the other major powers support the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad. Russia, at odds with NATO countries, and the United States, at odd with Iran and ISIS, roll their dice in the game. Israel and Iran quarrel in the background of the conflict, with Saudi Arabia and others in the region supporting various rebels. The insidious proxy wars and feuds shatter stability, motives and alleged crimes follow afoot.
A few peers and pundits support the intervention in Syria, and a collection of people from all corners are against interventionism.
The interesting batch is the Trump supporters, who were against intervention in Syria. Trump ran a campaign going against escalation of the Syrian conflict, yawing away from the notion of having a no-fly zone in Syria. If the Trump supporters who opposed it find themselves on the other side, there is room for drastic political change.
Countries like Britain and France, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron, both denounce the Syrian chemical weapons attack. When the Syrian conflict lead to strikes, both countries lauded a praise for their action.
The conflict in Syria is a tremendous hotbed of trouble. There is nothing for the United States to gain from interventionism in Syria.
Interventionism and regime change have guaranteed the resolution of conflicts in the history of the United States. History always repeats itself. Rebels and factions are unreliable for the US to support.
The pursuit of a hegemony in the Middle East is unfavorable to the United States. Plenty of old allies, like Iran, have left the side of the United States and became our worst enemies. Plenty of unsavory regimes sprout out after a US-backed intervention.
If the US seeks to improve its foreign policy, the United States should sway away from this geopolitical mess.
President Trump should understand every government relies on honor and integrity. The oldest political theorists of Enlightenment, such as Thomas Hobbes, makes note that people in a society seek honor and their own profit.
If any government wants the support and consent of the public, their best option is to be honorable. Every government agency and government office must be honorable.
Honor is the foundational column of every government. An agreement must be honored, and without an accord – there will be discord; there will be disagreement; there will be dishonor.
How else will there be trust within a society?
The pursuit of honor is the wisdom of the past. Greek poets like Homer, who wrote the Odyssey, wrote of characters who showed hospitality. If the politicians of United States and our democracy bring dishonor to their institution, their institutions will become worthless.
This rule applies to the worst governments.
Even unsavory dictators make due with their promises to certain political bodies. Politics is the nature of self-interest. The political animal drinks the draught of their self-interest – what redeems them is honor.
The most honorable form of self-interest makes the political animal tame.
Every authority relies on honoring the public and their responsibility. Grace is the source of all responsibility, because freedom comes at a cost. All authority owes itself to the responsibility of its power: as it is said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
With Russia and Iran adding to the conflict and other tensions with China, the foreign policy of the US stimulates enmity with the rest of the world. Israel is attacking Syria, and Iran is cooperating with the Syrian government.
It is a rather awful scenario for the United States.
These nations have their own sovereignty, and their own consequences and their own responsibilities. The United States should reject the mantle of becoming World Police.
The New World Order is not a cause worth fighting for.
The best resolution is withdrawing from Syria, despite the chemical weapons attack. Russia and others already deny the allegations of chemical weapons being used. If it comes to the desire of peace in the Middle East, perhaps the answer is to allow the beast of the Syrian state to assert itself and make peace through whatever means.
Backing rebels and supporting warfare will result in more bloodshed. Despite how harsh it sounds, the death toll brings asunder more victims if the conflict escalates.
The nature of warfare is bloodshed. Blood warrants more blood.
To suggest there is an innocent side to the war, a benefactor, sounds insincere. When both sides were bombing ISIS, it seemed better than moving to disassemble the Assad regime.
It makes no promise that the next regime will be better when so many hands grip and pull in Syria.