A Case for Oppression

The city of Aleppo was a center for cultural and economic development in 20th century pre-war Syria, leading the country in terms of harmonious urbanization and social cohesion. Today, Aleppo is a militarily strategic position for both rebels and Assad loyalists in one of the most violent civil wars to have ever plagued North Africa, and by all indications the stronghold will be falling to Assad and his troops in the near future. For rebels attempting to overthrow Syria’s dynastic and dictatorial political system and the American troops assisting them, this is a major blow to the cause of freedom. But contrary to most Western attitudes towards the situation, I welcome the victory of Assad’s tyrannical troops. Empirical observation clearly indicates that when the West attempts to democratize Middle-Eastern or African countries, it leads to catastrophic results. Although a humanist, today I plead the case of oppression.First off, America’s support for the rebels is politically misinformed and culturally ignorant. The “Syrian rebels” Western leaders often address are not a unified force: They are, simplistically speaking, divided between Democrats and Islamic fundamentalists (although both are not mutually exclusive, see the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), and the United States already has an unpleasant history of unwittingly arming Islamic fundamentalists. It is not clear to intelligence agents, let alone our Congress, exactly whom America has been supporting in battle and whom it has been arming. Day after day, the Obama presidency is overwhelmed with scandals of rebel leaders with terrorist ties shaking the hands of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her successor, Secretary John Kerry. Obama’s administration seems to be handling in the same dangerous philosophical abstractions that led Bush to invade Iraq: Injustice is being done, thus let us fight for those who claim a moral desire to end that injustice.As displayed by our intellectuals’ attitude towards the Arab spring, we in the West have a problematically romanticized view of freedom and rebellion, tainted with a history of Republican revolutionary ideals, inscribed for eternity in the words of enlightened philosophers. Unfortunately, our model of democratic freedom is not compatible with the Arab world as it is today, and it is even less our prerogative to impose this model on the Arab world. North Africa is in a more primitive stage of its development than we are, one that we as a Western culture went through centuries ago: one of absolute statism and theocratic radicalism. Although Assad’s regime is an oppressive one, it at least balances religion and the executive, and offers some sort of stability to the North African region—much like Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. Rather than forcing freedom, we should be allowing Syrians to naturally transition towards democracy. Attempting to accomplish revolution in the short run will only lead to the rise in the popular, chaotic and violent Islamism we saw rise in Egypt and Libya. Syria needs a dictatorship. It is, as a developing country, in desperate need of political, economic and institutional stability. Assad has and should continue to provide that.So, in the face of defeat, what should the United States do? Retreat. We are lost in the fog of war; let us not repeat the mistakes of our imperialistic past. Iraq and Afghanistan are proof that the United States is no longer the police of the world, but rather a rowdy, uneducated and harmfully well-intentioned militia. The United States needs to back out of Syria because it is fighting an unwinnable war. Its consequences, such as the refugee crisis, are disastrous for both Syrian families and Western Europeans, both submerged in a cultural trap that is leaving so many victims to rape, murder, theft and fear. America needs to start minding its own business, once and (hopefully) for all.