Tunisia, which gave birth to the Arab Spring, was for a few years that movement's lone success. Then three Libyan-trained Islamic State gunmen killed 20 tourists last March at a museum, and an Islamic State gunman killed 39 and wounded 36 tourists last June at a beach resort, destroying Tunisia's valuable tourist trade. Today that nation is sinking into unemployment and violence, and is a leading supplier of religious radicals to Islamic State in Syria.
But the really bad news is Iraq and Syria. Iraq has effectively split into three entities: Iraqi Kurdistan in the Northeast, a Sunni Islamic region in the Northwest and a Shiite Islamic region in the south.
It's hard to keep track of Syria. Half the land is controlled by the Islamic State, which also controls a huge portion of Iraq's desert. Kurds control northeastern Syria. In western Syria, Assad's Shiite-allied "government" rules 25 percent of the "nation," with pockets dominated by the Syrian National Coalition and by al-Qaeda. The neighboring Turks are at war with the Kurdish resistance in southeastern Turkey, are hostile toward the Kurds in northeastern Syria, have recently allied with the U.S. against Islamic State, and are at war with the Assad government. The U.S. is at war with the Islamic State, supports the Syrian National Coalition, and opposes Assad. Russia and Iran are allied with Assad.
Summarizing, there are at least two wars in Iraq: A U.S.-Shiite coalition against the Islamic State, and the Kurds against the Islamic State, complicated by suspicions between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. And there are several wars involving many nations in Syria, with shifting alliances.
The losers are the Syrian people. The United Nations estimates 220,000 Syrian war deaths, half of them civilians, since the Arab Spring reached Syria in March 2011. The United Nations reports more than 4 million Syrian refugees, mostly in large camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraqi Kurdistan. More than 300,000 had crossed into Europe by August 2015, a development that could destabilize Europe.
What has been, and what should be, the United States' role? With a military budget four times larger than runner-up China and as large as the next seven nations combined, and with a hawkish Republican party, it's difficult for us to resist the urge to reach for our guns. Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, most Americans, including me, supported our attack on Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and deny it a base of operations by removing the Taliban from power. But we quickly lost focus after electing to attack Iraq in July 2002. A stridently hawkish Bush administration proceeded to fight endlessly, and would still be fighting if it could. Fortunately, the far wiser Obama administration came onboard to finally wind it down, despite a few remaining boots on the ground today.
It was a historic mistake. The only winners were the Islamic State, Iran and Islamic extremism. What would have happened if we had not chosen that war? Iraq would have remained in the hands of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial but secular Sunni regime rather than Iraq's current corrupt, authoritarian, Iran-oriented, sectarian Shiite regime. Furthermore, Iraq would not be splitting up, the Islamic State would probably not exist, and half a million Iraqis plus more than 4,000 Americans would be alive today.
We must be more rational and realistic about our ability to influence events. It will be impossible to sustain democracy in the Mideast until that region gets over its infatuation with radical Islam. We needn't go to war every time we spy an unfriendly dictator. Iraq and the world would have been better off with Saddam Hussein in power.
Finally, consider Syria. The anti-Assad revolution has proven to be disastrous, leading to millions of casualties and refugees, and encouraging the Islamic State. Given the fiasco in Iraq, it's unlikely that good government can emerge from Assad's defeat. Those who want to continue the revolution in the name of freedom must recognize there is no freedom for the dead, and forced refugee status is probably worse than life under Assad.
War is seldom the answer. This is especially true in the Mideast. That region will be better off if we intervene only for humanitarian aid, leaving them to solve their own problems. Intervention only makes things worse. We have no business fighting Assad, and the Obama administration has no business discouraging Russia from assisting Assad. Assad should instead be our ally against the Islamic State--not necessarily our friend but our ally the way Stalin was once our ally against the Nazis. For now, we must accept that extreme religion has doomed the Mideast to dictatorial rule.
Commentary on 09/15/2015