The Greater Evil for the World is that Too Few Seek for Its Peace

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jul 18, 2012 at 19:21

To be sure, the times for euphemistic speculations are at an impasse; since arguments for the sake of rhetorical explorations are patronizing at a minimum in the wake of the reality of lives in jeopardy and risk of loss of more lives. People, indeed entire groups, are being decimated for the sake of political argument and dominance and the words just seem to fall to the ground for failure to penetrate into the hearts of the antagonists.

As for the blunt question(s): what do I prefer?

Very few would give ear to my preferences; for my tolerance of blatant aggression at the hands of any aggressor is nil, no matter whose flag, either the Russian tri-color (a distant cousin to its predecessor, the red hammer and sickle), the flag(s) of the Islamic Revolution (in the variant forms of green and black and red, and yellow); and if it came down to it and we find that the presence of the American forces are detrimental to the peace of the region, then add that.

The Russian presence in Tartus presents a situation that not too many understand. Are we to conclude that the interests of the Russian military is enough of a deterrent that none would dare to involve themselves in an encounter with the Russian navy or marines; or does the stated intentions of the Russian interests to defend Syria against aggression seem insignificant while the country implodes into civil war. My preference is to allow the Syrian crisis work itself out without outside interference, even that of the Russians. Otherwise, the question must be asked: what price peace? This is difficult to answer because no one, not even the American Secretary of State, knows how to achieve that there. Russia would love stability for their own purposes, but seem stifled for the moment. Turkey is even more clueless.

As for the jihadists that are imbedded and embroiled in this latest iteration of the 'Arab Uprising,' their agenda is plain; and it seems unstoppable on several levels. They aim to take control – at any cost. Can the Russians stop it? Look at Afghanistan in the 80's and ask the question again.

Your contention that state sponsored terrorism is somehow easily laid at the base of covert operations of the American sort – and there may be something to that –but they are not alone. Definitively, the change in the American Administrative Executive's attitude since the change occurred in 2009 has lent itself to certain speculations of expectations and the antics of the American Secretary of State has done nothing to allay them; but if that were true, then the outcome should have produced better results if democracy were the motive.

I have no known or speculative reason for the Russians being directly involved in Libya's demise; their interests there seemed limited to political observations. Kosovo on the other hand bears another look, if for no other reason than the peripheral association of the neighboring Slavic connections. I was not as keenly active in those circumstances in those days; except that to note that a Clinton is still involved in such things. You may draw your own conclusions on that one.

Let us revisit the first blunt question: do I prefer a Russian Naval base in Tartus? Considering that shortly the question will become academic, I have previously asserted that the Russians do not employ military force except, like emergency signs that say here in America –"in an emergency, break glass." Their emergency is about to break open because the glass is being shattered all over the place and I cannot see how they will not be compelled to respond. But, that would not have been my preference; my preference being that of seeking peace at equity for all concerned.

Instead, all we see in what is going on is the race for dominance in the human race and history shows that never turns out well - now does it?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".