One of the themes of True News is that we can best understand political phenomenon — as well as much of other life’s phenomenon — with the dialectic.
We can see the Syrian conflict in terms of various thesis and antithesis.
One thesis is that Assad should stay in power and defeat the rebels, who are supported by ISIS, the Sunnis and Iran.
An antithesis (and itself another thesis) is that Assad should be overthrown and there should be an Islamic state imposed by ISIS.
Another antithesis (and, again, itself a thesis) is the American thesis: Assad should be overthrown and a secular, democratic government should be voted in which would be friendly to Israel.
Here is Eddie’s thesis: the solution to the Syrian situation.
(My loyal readers must remember that virtually all of my political policies, although practical, are at the same time theoretical and idealistic. This is because for these practical policies to be implemented there would have to be the political will to do so, and this political will includes the desire to do authentic good in the world.)
Donald Trump and Valdimir Putin could get together and decide on a common goal with Syria. They could get the European Union to participate and to agree with this solution as well.
The solution would be basically the implementation of the American thesis: Overthrow Assad, outlaw ISIS, and establish a secular, democratic government. There could be a prohibition of the establishment of an Islamic state. That is, there would be a separation between church and state.
In the Syrian constitution it could be mandated that the government agree to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, especially the freedom of religion and women’s rights.
Even if the majority of Syrians opposed these policies, they would be imposed upon the Syrians by the international governments. Other facets of the Syrian government would democratic in nature. Thus Syria would have a limited democracy.
Once the democratic government was established, the U.S., Russia, the European Union, and even possibly Israel, could pour in generous aid to Syria — making it in the self-interest of the Syrian population to accept the limits to their democracy. Then many of the European refugees could be returned to their homes in Syria — making it it the self-interest of Europe to support the plan.
Russia’s self-interest would be satisfied because they, like the West, have problems with jihad and desire a secular government in Syria. Russia would also like to have the international image of be a peace maker rather than an amoral, agressive, authoritarian country.
Germany might be willing to independently give additional aid to Syria, since their million refugee policy is proving to be so costly to the country.
Any military or terrorist opposition to this plan would be suppressed by the combined forces of the U.S., Russia, and the European Union.
Islam versus the West
One of the consequences of this project would be to bring to the surface the long-term conflict between Islam and Western civilization.
Many of the Muslim countries might oppose such a solution because it would fight against the goals of jihad: to make the whole world submissive to Islam — with jihad using democratic means if possible and violent means if necessary.
In the forseeable future there still might be long-term episodes of terrorism throughout the Western world and in Russia. These episodes of terrorism may be inevitable, regardless of what policy the West pursues. There is an illusion that the main problem Muslims have with the West is the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. However, even if Israel was destroyed as a Jewish state and an Islamic state created, international jihad would probably continue. Jihad might even be encouraged because of its victory.
The reason jihad will probably continue in the foreseeable future is because of the eternal goal of Islam — a goal which is clearly stated in the Koran and a goal that cannot be modified because it is believed to be commanded directly by Allah. This goal is the eventual submission of the whole human race to Allah, to the Koran, and to the Imams.
Eddie, your opening line sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say. Not necessarily a bad thing. Do you really think that there could be peace between the Jews and Muslims?
Well thought out Eddie. I do think the International Community needs to step in and get working together. However, its seems that everyone has an ulterior motive and some cannot be seen with the naked eye. So, I am doubtful—
The proposed model appears consistent with the approach proposed by Secretary of State Kerry. The challenge has been to get the various parties to the negotiating table.
Jamison Woodham says
Aw, this was a really nice post. In thought I would like to put in writing like this moreover – taking time and actual effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and not at all appear to get one thing done.
Heya i am for the first time here. I found tҺis boаrd and I to find It really helpful & it helped me out a lot.
I am hoping to provide one thing bazck and help others like you aided me.