watching war through a glass, darkly
I spent a lot of time watching the Syrian civil war unfold from around 2011 to 2015. The war was filmed through thousands of phones, and put online for all to see. I would read the Syrian civil war reddit, and consume as much information as I could get my hands on. There was a lot of work tracking each new faction and each potential new foreign entrant into the war. It was a war with some shades of gray, but also evil. Assad dropped barrel bombs from helicopters on civilians. And you already know about ISIS.
Still, there were legitimate reasons to debate who was to blame for the war and what the end state should look like when all the fighting is finished (it will finish someday, right?). Assad represented the initial stable state, and perhaps a stable imperfect state of a dictator is better than a state of permanent war? Or maybe Assad’s poor governance caused the instability to begin with, so it’s incorrect to say he brought stability. Or did it? Was the Arab spring an exogenous shock outside of his control? Whatever perspective you had, you could find other people who agreed with you, and the right combat footage to cheer on the good guys, and the right foreign country to provide them with guns.
The sentiment in my social circles at the time was that Assad was a dictator, and needed to be deposed. This was popular in the US more generally, as we ended up supporting and providing arms to his opponents. Initially this seemed like the right choice, but no matter how much we supported the opponents of Assad the war just… kept going on. I wrote a long time ago (in an old blog), on September 5th, 2013:
The US has recently debated entering the military conflict. However, this debate has seemed to ignore existing US intervention, as the CIA has provided limited training, supplies, and weapons to some of the opposition forces. Syria is currently in a war of attrition, but the traditional constraint of supplies has been removed through intervention in support of each side. As a result the only constraint is blood. The US has not been decisive. By providing supplies, and hinting at future intervention, the opposition forces have remained in the fight. However, the US has not set a strategic objective, and has only contributed to a drawn out bloody conflict.
The war is ongoing still, and the list of foreign involvement has only grown. The war is still going on. About half a million people have died, with millions more displaced.
Syria is still a pit of suffering, a never ending hell on earth. I just checked the Syrian civil war subreddit. Apparently we’re still sanctioning Assad, while lifting sanctions on other parts of the country. The rest of the links in the subreddit cover what civilians were killed by what group in the last week.
The question I think we need to ask ourselves when observing these events, is what would we want if we were living in these countries. I mean that literally: If you and your family lived in some suburb in a city, or a small town, in Syria, what would you have wanted for yourselves?
When is revolution worth it? How much would you be willing to gamble on toppling an oppressive regime, but with the downside risk of slipping into a civil war? Would you want other countries providing guns and ammunition in your country? I probably wouldn’t think it’s worthwhile. I have a lot to lose, a family and a baby.
But when we watch these events unfold from the outside, and from the safety of our homes, we work backwards from who ought to have power, and how the expected utility would then look when discounted from the infinitely future periods between the current regime, and the new regime.
What about the portion of the populace that doesn’t care that much? They want peace. They might prefer one regime to another, but the difference in the two is worth far less than knowing they can feed their kid, and spend time with their families. Even if they don’t live in a democracy. And what if we’re wrong? If we judge one regime to be worse than the other based on our democratic standards, but it is in fact more likely to provide stability, are we sure it might not be preferable?
You can try to approach the problem from their perspective. Consider them an actor in this space, with their own preferences. Before you cheer on an insurgency or a revolution, think about what it will cost. Would you rather live in an insurgency under a dictator? Or gamble the risk of a decade long civil-war that takes the lives of your kids, but get a democracy? Have you ever had to make a decision anywhere close to that one?
In the case of Ukraine, supporting the Ukranians seems more justified than historical cases. Of course, it would, wouldn’t it? I’m sure the historical cases also felt particularly justified at the time.
But the questions we need to answer here are more complicated than: “Who are the good guys, and how do we get them guns?” It’s also, will those guns end the conflict faster, will they meaningfully increase the likelihood the ‘good guys win,’ will they not risk a long war of attrition? will it not risk drawing other countries into the conflict?
Russia is now apparently trying to draw Syrian troops into the fray. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians and foreign fighters are returning to Ukraine to fight. And each side will have unlimited guns and ammo delivered to their feet. The war can burn on for years and years, if it wants. It did in Syria.
Being the arsenal of democracy is a heavy responsibility. We have the ability to provide arms to those who want to resist aggression. But this will come at the likely cost of extending a conflict, and resulting in more death and destruction of soldiers and civilians alike. And given our track record, I’m not going to believe you if you say “sure, we made a lot of mistakes in the past, but this time supporting this side with guns and ammo will obviously induce a better outcome.”
I personally lean towards the belief that providing arms to the Ukrainians is the right call. But I am constantly questioning myself. I think we should all lose sleep over it, and constantly fear we’ve made a serious mistake by adding more weapons to a volatile situation.
I don’t see that questioning or concern among many other American citizens, who instead seem more entranced with one-upping each other in their support for Ukraine and escalating against Russia. They may very well be supporting the right policies, but I’d like them to show their work. Not only in terms of our American interests, but also the long-run interests of the Ukrainian people themselves.