Cui Bono?*

I read in the news today that Russia is sending warships into Syrian waters (Haaretz.com).  This move has been interpreted by the media as a measure  to protect the government of Bashir Assad; the U.S. has played an active role in the lynching of Gaddafi and we played what might be called a "passive-aggressive" role in the downfall of Mubarak in Egypt.  These events are in the context of the shattering of Iraq by the U.S. and the execution of Saddam Hussein.  The U.S. also has left dubious fingerprints in Tunisia, Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen and who knows where else.   

Russia is one of those countries, like France for example, the mention of which causes instant negative emotional reactions in certain groups of Americans.  There are millions in this country who without any sort of reflection attribute nefarious intent to any action Russia takes on the international stage.  That the Hammer and Sickle have been melted down and forged into Crosses is insufficient, despite the tectonic scale of the transformation, to reassure Americans that Russia is not an agent of the Antichrist.   

That Russia is moving to protect secular government of the "mad ophthalmologist" is evidence to many in the U.S. that her motives are far from benign.  After all, it is true that Assad is a ruthless dictator who murders civilians for no more than questioning their lack of political freedom.  What possible motive could Russia have for coming to his aid besides the augmentation of Evil in the world? 

American foreign policy, on the other hand, is much more rational.  At the cost of trillions of dollars (contributing greatly to our economic ruin) and the lives of thousands of Americans, we have overturned secular tyrants and replaced them with religious ones.   

More than anyone else, it is the Christians in the Middle East who have suffered.  Iraq under Hussein was a place where Christians could live in peace alongside their Muslim neighbors, now they are in the process of a gradual flight from their homeland as it becomes increasingly more hostile.  Similarly Mubarak protected the rights of Christians in Egypt, at least for most of his rule; now the Islamic radicals want to make Egypt just as dangerous for Christians as Iraq.  The more the U.S. keeps whacking the Muslim Bee Hive, the more perilous it becomes for a "Christian" bee.   

Despite all the brain-bypassing emotions of the alarmists, what Russia may be doing is protecting secularism and Christianity.  Syria has a large Christian minority who have thrown their support behind Assad; they are well aware of the fact that if his rule is undermined, it will be replaced by an Islamist government and their lives will become very difficult or impossible.  The Syraic Orthodox Church is worth preserving:  The liturgy they celebrate every Sunday was written by James, the brother of Jesus Christ.   

Americans sometimes appear to be so dogmatic about "democracy" that they seem to believe that anything taken to a majority vote must be just and therefore must be followed.  For this reason we high-five each other when we replace a tyrant who wears a necktie with an elected turban-wearing representative body that makes life onerous for women and minorities.  Iran has a functioning legislature, but on close examination there appears to be no political freedom to speak of there.  As Alex Jones has said, "Democracy (as opposed to a Republic) is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper."   

Perhaps Russia is being pragmatic.  The Russians observe America and her lukewarm allies turning the Middle East into a roiling cauldron of Islamic hatred and perhaps they conclude that it is not a rational policy.  If it were in fact possible to replace tyrants like Hussein with democratic republics of peaceful people it might be worth doing; the Russians may well recognize the fact that exchanging one tyranny for another is not worth sacrificing the well-being of minorities and women in those lands.   

American foreign policy in general leaves one bewildered.  In whose interest does our government act?  Take the example of Kossovo.  We determined that Kossovo should be autonomous, perhaps annexed to Albania, since the population in that traditionally Serbian province is overwhelmingly Albanian and Muslim.  Did someone at a boardroom table in Washington think that if we supported the Albanians in this conflict, Muslims around the world would then find us to be a just people?  Well that has not been the outcome.  Albanian Muslims since the Kossovo conflict have been found plotting to attack Fort Dix (2007), and a Kossovar Albanian Muslim named Arid Uka (2011) killed two U.S. military personnel and critically injured a third in Germany.   

The most important aspect of our actions in Kossovo seems to be completely lost on Americans, however.  If we were to use the same reasoning here that we applied there, we would have to turn over vast areas of American land to Mexico.   

It is not surprising that conspiracy theorists all over America profess the belief that some international cabal, pulling the strings of U.S. policies foreign and domestic, is making a conscious effort to bring on a spectacular downfall of the  American titan.    On the other hand, it may be as simple as the ongoing triumph of emotion over reason in the public arena, in my opinion the most consistent character of American political behavior in the 20th and 21st centuries.  The best thing you can say about what looks like such an ill-considered foreign policy is that it is self-defeating.  As Pogo said in 1971, "We have met the enemy and he is us."


*"To Whose Benefit?" A Latin phrase from Ancient Rome.  One hears this question asked more and more frequently about our representative government by those from whom it derives its power. 

(c) Copyright 2011 Robert Albanese