Syrian Strategy, Or When PC Grows Evil

What’s a strategos? A general, in Greek, the commander of an army. What does an army do? War. What have humanoids done in the last fifteen million years? War. Who are we? The descendants from ancestors who won a billion wars.

War, that’s who we are (as Obama would not dare to say, although he thinks it, weakly). Some may mumble something pacifist, or Buddhist, deny our nature, conflate thinking and comfort. However, some of the fiercest, most ferocious states in the last millennium were Buddhist. Just ask the Mongols. Genghis Khan annihilated the Buddhist Xi Xia empire (because he had been enslaved by it). Or ask non-Buddhist minorities living in Myanmar/Burma. In Medieval Japan, not particularly a nice place for the commons, the elite was Zen Buddhist (with a veneer of ecologically correct Shintoism). Common crime of vulgar people would be strongly discourage with systematic crucifixion, insuring a global Zen attitude.

Vladimir Putin has started carpet bombing of Syria, to regain control the way he did in Chechnya: by killing civilians as needed. Now Putin and Assad have launched the siege of Aleppo. It could starve 300,000.

Putin Is Trying To Make A Bad Situation Worse, A Medium In Which He Swims Best

Putin Is Trying To Make A Bad Situation Worse, A Medium In Which He Swims Best

The war in Syria is a serious thing: the latest estimate in number of victims killed is close to 500,000. More than 11% of the Syrian population has been killed or wounded. All this had started as peaceful protests against Assad, the son of dictator Assad. For years now, Assad has replied by bombing schools and hospitals in rebel areas.

One has to remember that one of the financial support of the Islamist State (ISIL) has been Assad himself: he bought most of the oil from ISIL. One of the root of ISIL was the release, by Assad, of thousands of Muslim Fundamentalist prisoners, in the hope that, by starting their own Allah fanatical state, they would make the initially Secular opposition to the Syrian dictator disreputable. Assad is no less Machiavellian than Cesare Borgia (the nephew of the eponymous Pope, cardinal at 18 years of age, and the model, for Machiavel, of “The Prince”).

Same for Putin: Cesare Borgia, with nukes, and much more legitimacy to go even more crazy.

Roger Cohen in the New York Times had an excellent analysis. Enough is enough. U.S. abdication on Syria must end.

Vladimir Putin is leading, and, by letting Putin lead, Obama is collaborating with him, Putin. When good men do not oppose evil, they do not just do evil, they encourage evil to become even more evil.

We have seen similar situations in the 1930s and 1940s: evil, when unopposed, feel encouraged to grow some more, particularly when it emanates from a government.

What happened in the mid-1930s is the paradigm. Japan, Italy, Germany, and the USSR, invaded countries, respectively China, Ethiopia, and Spain, and were unopposed. Thus they were encouraged. By 1939, Hitler and Stalin found natural to invade Poland and Finland.

For example, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin intervened forcefully in the Spanish Civil War. The French Republic wanted to intervene, but was discouraged by the American attitude to do so. The result was that Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini became persuaded they could intervene militarily with force, and without interference from the Western democracies.

The result? Hitler and Stalin became official allies, to everyone surprise, and carved between themselves Poland (September 1939). Then the Nazis felt free to engage in a deliberate extermination of the Poles, later extended to Jews and others, for a grand total of 3% of humanity killed.

Some say it will not happen again. Well, that’s what they said in 1913, and in 1914, all the way until the end of July. Then, persuaded by the visit of Colonel House, the right arm of president Wilson, that, not only the USA would not intervene, but the USA would try to help imperial Germany, the imperial fascists in Berlin declared war on France and Russia, and boldly attacked, invading other countries on the way. Doing so, they knew, since December 1912, because they had been told so by the British government, that Great Britain would respect the “Entente Cordiale”, and come to the help of France. In other words, since Sunday, December 11, 1912, the top six fascists at the head of Germany knew that attacking the French Republic and Russia would cause a world war. They knew, so they intended to win it fast, before the British could build up their army.

It is more reasonable to expect that the same causes will bring the same effects: the more the forces of evil are free to do whatever they want, the more encouraged they are. If Putin succeeds in Syria, he will not just comfort Assad’s dictatorship.

After a while, the Russian population, considering the weakening of the economy, will have to launch another war. Hitler had the exact same situation in early 1939 (contrarily to repute, the Nazi economy, stressed by intense militarization, the persecution and expulsion of Socialists, Communists, Jews, etc., was in great difficulty in the late 1930s).

Thus Putin may be tempted to let his tanks will roll some more in Europe. Like most fascist everywhere, war is what justifies one-man rule best.

Obama may look very wise, advanced, pacifist and reasonable, but his supine attitude feeds the worst moods, the worst strategies, the worst inclinations, the worst outcomes. And what to say of Europe? Syria was part of the Roman empire for seven centuries. Before that it was Phoenician, and where Princess Europe came from. If Europe cannot impose Human Rights where she comes from, does it deserves to go anywhere? Anywhere good?

Some will say it costs money to impose command (= empire). However, the economic weakness of Europe emanates directly from the fact it belongs more to the American empire than to a putative European empire. Look at the four largest market capitalization companies: Alphabet (aka “Google”), Apple, Microsoft, Facebook. All from the West Coast of the USA, three from San Francisco (aka “Silicon Valley”). All paying no significant European taxes and exerting monopoly powers, propped by inventions a majority of which, arguably, were made in Europe. That’s lack of European empire showing up, ladies and gentlemen. It’s also American empire imposed.

So European impotence in Syria is also European economic impotence. And the American strategy to let the dogs of war run in Europe, as I have pointed out many times, was most profitable… to the USA. So maybe Obama is a traditionalist, after all. An American traditionalist: encourage the best European fascist you can find, see what happens…

As the difficulties of the financial markets presently show, sweeping evil under the rug is no heavens, medium term. Sweeping evil below indifference is how civilization killing infection festers.

Patrice Ayme’

10 Responses to “Syrian Strategy, Or When PC Grows Evil”

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Chris Snuggs:

    Not PC, but true ……

    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, it’s worse than that. “Superiority in applying organized violence, force or power” is the essential characteristic of the genus Homo. Homo affects to forget that fact; non-human sentient species never do.

      Thus, Western civilization is more human, not in spite of its violence, but because of it.


  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Well, anyway, looks like there’s going to be an escalation in Syria pretty soon, toward a regional (open) war, and/or a potential clash of bigger proportion. This, thanks to the Turks & Saudis (egged on by…?) doubling down to cover their loss.


  3. picard578 Says:

    Reblogged this on Defense Issues and commented:
    This is not in any way new or surprising. Good ol’ USA have supported Hitler’s rise to power, and continued to support it through the war (mostly through finances). All in hopes of destroying communism in USSR, albeit Hitler provided an (unexpected?) boon when he attacked UK and France… when these countries were exhausted by war, USA got free reign.


  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Note on comment: Someone new to this site used just a profanity to “comment” without any (attempt at an) explanation. This will not be tolerated, because it is a despicable behavior. Why despicable? Because it’s just hate speech. Hate speech with an explanation can be countered, and a fool exposed. Hate speech which is only hate speech should not be rewarded.


  5. purasuchikku Says:

    I find it utterly disappointing you fall for the “mainstream” line (might as well call it propaganda, but we live in much better times dont we?) that displays Putin and the Russian intervention in Syria as neo-fascist imperialism. Given the recent past, it really is unbelievable to see support for an US intervention in Syria, all in the name of “freedom”, decency and whatnot. These ideas, along with human rights ideals and the orgy of individual rights that followed in the West, are still strong enough to blind a whole society under a thin veneer of morality and dreams of past (imagined) grandeur. But well, it is the age we live in after all (good old simulacra and simulation…).

    In the case of Syria, we should really ask ourselves who the fascists really are. While history is bound to repeat itself, its broad interpretation is also written by the winners. And “they” conveniently conjure up its meta-narrative, however irrelevant and poorly understood, in such times.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am not mainstream. But you are obviously Putin main stream.
      I did not describe Putin intervention as “neo-fascist imperialism”. I was much more precise.
      Assad, not Putin, is clearly the source of the evil in Syria. Faced with peaceful protest, Assad went for the guns.
      Now the number of people killed in Syria is approaching half a million, the number of displaced is above half of the population.
      Putin has decided to help Assad recover all of Syria, apparently.
      Obama has been supine. The French wanted to take Assad out, the USA refused, at the last minute.
      Historically, Syria was part of the “West”, the Greco-Roman empire, for a millennium, before it fell to Arab invaders who killed by surprise all males who could bear arms.
      Syria was part of the West, 2,000 years before the foundation of a little fort called Moscow, under the impulse of Alexander Nevski’s youngest son. Moscow should go back where it came from. Last year, Russia, officially the poor population of Russia augmented by 2.6 million.
      The French have more planes engaged in Syria than the Russians. However, the Russian practice indiscriminate bombing, as demonstrated by their bombing this week of several hospitals (including one MSF/DWB) and schools.

      Maybe you should learn real history instead of platitudes.

      The fascists are those Putin is so far supporting wholeheartedly, and that’s disappointing. On this site, when Putin started to bomb, early on, I felt as if he were trying to make amends for invading Ukraine. But then his wanton bombing has made me sour on whether he learned anything since he occupied 20% of Georgia (that’s south of the Caucasus).

      Russia’ 17 million square kilometers of land area is 70% larger than the four largest countries on Earth after Russia. Is not that enough for the Russians? Why do they want to always grow their empire?


  6. purasuchikku Says:

    I am certainly not a Putin advocate, even though I admit to a certain sympathy for SOME of his interventions regarding US foreign policy (and its Western allies, as there is unfortunately no independent EU foreign agenda). And considering post-war US geopolitical games, your last paragraph about Russia expansionism hardly makes any sense. Again, I am not pro-Putin or even pro-Russian, but I am even less pro-American or pro-globalization (here is “fascism with a human face”, to paraphrase B.H. Levy). So there is that.

    What is puzzling to me is how you take the idea of a Western intervention in Syria for granted on a moral standpoint. Recent history (and nobody needs to get back 2000 years to get a view on current Syrian – European relations) has shown very clearly that such conflicts result in utter disaster, for both invader and the “assisted” country. A quick look at Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya should suffice. I thought the idea of bringing freedom by the arms and “peaceful democratic transitions” was over, but apparently not for all.

    The very least you should grant Putin in this case is the clarity of his line of intervention: put an end to the chaos taking place in Syria. Nobody wants to send ground troops there, so the only way is to support the Bashar dictatorship and its army.

    And please, let’s stop with the half million people dead. As if anybody really cared during the forgotten conflicts in Congo, Rwanda, Eastern Timor, Sudan, Somalia… Of course it’s been on the news (and it is biting in Europe’s ass quite a bit with refugees). But I have grown truly tired of the European moral posturing and condescending.

    Another tiny detail about French air force present in Syria : if you have details on the number of sorties and dropped bombs, I would be very interested in comparing these to Russian ones (averaging 500 sorties a week apparently). I doubt the French have done anything else than a PR campaign here, just like their American friends…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      First sorry to have taken you for a paid Putin advocate. Some have commented here in the distant past, during some others of Mr. Putin’s invasions (in particular those around the Caucasus). You seem to be completely genuine. Good.

      On bombing: the French bomb parsimoniously. Most of their sorties, more than 97% are reconnaissance. That allows them to strike with extreme precision, the enemy (foreign jihadists quarters, refineries, trucks, etc.). They even passed a lot of information to the USA.

      Putin makes carpet bombing, even with cluster bombs (just google it, and watch the videos). This could give rise to war crime charges later.

      If Assad had been decapitated when the French wanted it, the intensity of death in Syria would have abated. We are at 470,000 dead right now (the UN has stopped counting because its envoys were getting killed). You say let’s make peace, and life will blossom. Not so. Assad is ready to kill 90% of Syria (leaving only Alawites around).

      Putting Afghanistan and Iraq in the same boat as Libya is inappropriate. As I have documented, the initial American intervention in Afghanistan was launched by Jimmy Carter on July 3, 1979. The aim was to destroy the Soviet and French influence and trade there. (Google my name, and add Carter, Afghanistan,1979…) I am in very good position to know this (my father, a geologist, went to Afghanistan several times at the time and was involved with the government).

      I was against BOTH attacks against Iraq. Saddam Hussein was bad, but not as bad as Qaddafi, or the alternative. After Trump pointed that out vociferously last weekend at a debate, his popularity among “Republicans” plummeted, BTW… Meaning many right wing Americans are as dumb as ever.

      The American attacks on Iraq were just motivated by greed, the first one, the American ambassador even baited and switched on Saddam Hussein… So the first attack was a classical entrapment.

      My father also negotiated with Qaddafi in Libya (and the Shah in Iran). Always with the same angle: deal with non-American companies and countries these countries were keen to make. (My father also represented the UN, same general idea.)

      The intervention in Libya had the aim to put a terrible dictator out of order. The French had to attack, it was a question of minutes, as the advanced elements of Qaddafi tank army were in the suburbs of Benghazi. So the French attacked, and informed the participants of the conference in Paris. Later France did send ground troops (“Marsouins”) and organized an air bridge to bring weapons to the mountains south of Tripoli.

      The situation in Libya is complex, as many Libyan ethnicities want more autonomy than they had in 2,000 years. Rightly so. But Libya is not Syria. There is no blood bath in Syria, and the French are waiting the green light of the national Libyan assembly to stamp out the Islamist State in Libya, around Syrte.

      The French, like the Americans have a problem making enough very high precision bombs, they are using too many of them, a problem Putin does not have, because he does not use them very much… BTW, the French have more planes in Syria than the Russians… Once the Libyans get their act together, and it’s a matter of negotiating among themselves about autonomy, expect the French to intervene again. It will easier than in Mauritiania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, CAR, etc. Actually there are pictures, on this site, of French forces (2RPE) having parachuted in Libya last Spring (they can also be seen on the Foreign Legion site).

      As I put in an essay recently, war is what decides the world. Wishful thinking, not so much. Goodness without defense is just a crime. Truth is tough, but it’s the truth..


  7. Europe & Obama: Guilty Of The Syrian Massacre | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] will not be kind to Obama and those Europeans who pay only lip service to humanity, Socrates’ style (See Socrates on the lake of selfishness). To defend the position that one […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: