The Utterly Predictable Sectarian Violence in Syria
And why so many are turning a blind eye.
As of this writing, hundreds of Syrians are dead as a result of what appear to be reprisal killings occurring across the country.
There are disputes as to who exactly is responsible for the killings and who is being targeted. Most media reports claim the victims are Alawite Christians, while others claim Christians only make up a small percentage of the total killings. Some claim the perpetrators are members of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a coalition of Islamist groups who were instrumental in the Syrian rebellion. Others say the perpetrators belong to a wide variety of groups, including HTS and everyday citizens. The one thing most agree on is the fact that civilians are being killed.
The most important factor to keep in mind is the fact that this kind of sectarian violence was utterly predictable. We’ve seen the scenario play out time and time again. From Gaddafi in Libya to Saddam in Iraq—a Middle Eastern strong man falls, a power vacuum ensues, and sectarian violence is the result. Given former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad belonged to the Alawite sect, there was a high likelihood of reprisal attacks against them and other ethnic minorities despised by Islamists who made up a large portion of the Syrian rebel forces. In fact, some of the same Syrian Islamist groups implicated in the recent slaughter engaged in similar reprisal killings against the Alawites in 2013. But you’d never know it listening to the cavalcade of international dignitaries, foreign policy blob appendages, and their friends in the media who have been the new Syria’s biggest cheerleaders.
The evolution of the blob’s narrative has gone from outright denial that the killings are happening to lengthy equivocation about how it’s not really all that bad. Claims of “misinformtion” are also rampant.
So why are so many turning a blind eye? Well, because this whole sectarian slaughter thing is very inconvenient to the narrative they are spinning on how Syria is becoming a new pluralistic democracy. In fact, a carousel of Western leaders and the UN Secretary General himself met with Syria’s interim president and designated terrorist Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa (nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani) shortly after Assad’s downfall to congratulate him on his victory. This, despite an extensive rap sheet that includes a stint fighting American troops with none other than al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi during the occupation of Iraq in the early 2000s. Oh, and let’s not forget Julani’s al-Nusra Front was also accused of massacring the Alawites in 2013.
But that was the old Julani! Our new man in Syria has had quite the rebranding since his victory in December. He has traded in his drab military fatigues for a smart suit and tie. He says all the right things about human rights and freedom. He shakes hands with all the right people and has even reverted back to his given name.
This isn’t really about Julani, though. He’s just the face of the whole charade. To truly understand this story you need to go back to the early 2010s during the Arab Spring.
For those too young to remember (or those who have conveniently forgotten), the Arab Spring was a series of uprisings against several Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes, Syria included. Many within the foreign policy blob were ecstatic about it for a variety of reasons. For neocons like Paul Bremer and Bill Kristol, the Arab Spring was another opportunity for Uncle Sam to intervene and remake the Middle East. For neoliberals like then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it was an opportunity to get one step closer to a Nobel Prize by embracing Arab revolutionaries who pretended to say nice things about human rights and democracy.
But of course, the Arab Spring did not usher in a new era of Middle Eastern peace and liberal democracy. Most countries involved either reverted to a new flavor of authoritarianism or, like Syria, were caught up in years of bloody civil war. Having suffered through the Assad regime’s massacres, the rise and fall of ISIS, and years of revolutionary infighting, it was easy to write off Syria as a lost cause. That is, until the Assad regime’s shocking collapse in December of last year.
Assad’s downfall breathed new life into the hopes of many that American involvement in Syria wasn’t all for nothing. For those who had propped up Julani and his Islamist friends, this was a final opportunity to save face. To paraphrase a friend of mine: “They staked their reputation on the rebels being the good guys. It’s a key part of their careers for more than a decade. If they’re wrong, their lives have been a waste.”
Simply put, they can’t acknowledge the massacres of Syria’s Christians because it would ruin a narrative decades in the making.
Needless to say, I believe Bashar al-Assad was a uniquely evil butcher who deserved to die in the streets of Damascus. It is unfortunate he will get to live out his life in relative safety thanks to his Russian patrons. I wish the best for the Syrian people, but we can’t let Assad’s horrific actions blind us to the reality of what happens when radicals are allowed to fill a power vacuum in the Middle East.
So let’s be clear: Julani is not George Washington and his Islamist allies are not Syria’s version of the Founding Fathers. Syria’s Islamist rebel factions have committed atrocities in the past and they are committing atrocities now. You are not doing Syria any favors by pretending otherwise. We can wish the Syrian people the best without having to turn a blind eye to a massacre. We can also acknowledge this scenario was utterly predictable and hopefully learn something from it in the future.