Ominously Reminiscent

In Britain's most paleocon newspaper, one of the two Britons on the Academic Board of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Mark Almond, writes:

This East versus West divide is ominously reminiscent of the Cold War. Is Syria becoming today’s version of the proxy war fought out between the White House and the Kremlin in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

If America and Britain pour in weapons to back the rebels, will we be installing another Taliban-style regime despite the lessons of 9/11? Are the Russians and Chinese storing up antagonism among Arabs by backing Assad?

In reality, the various factions actually fighting in Syria are pursuing their own interests first. 

Whoever wins a long, drawn-out fight is likely to be the hardest of hardliners and not a cosy partner for past backers.

In an ordinary war, you only need to know who your enemy is – if you are going  to intervene in a messy civil war, you need to be certain who your friends are.

Neither President Obama nor Mr Cameron can guarantee which rebels might get any high-tech weapons supplied by us.

But Putin or the Chinese can’t really count on Assad’s Syria in the future. Our shared uncertainty about what could come out of the Syrian civil war should unite East and West.

Who would want to be in William Hague’s skin if he authorised weapons supplies to Syrian fundamentalists which ended up killing innocent people on the streets of London?

But Putin cannot really think that Assad is the only friend Russia needs in the Middle East.

Siren voices in Washington, London and Moscow warn against any compromise. But these hardliners overlook that neither West nor East has any self-interest worth sacrificing for the sake of a Syrian proxy.

Prestige ought not to trump good sense. Yet each must also recognise that neither can lever its protégé to victory if the other is bent on backing his client to the hilt.

And there are real dangers for us all. A proxy war risks getting out of control if Syria fires Russian anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Nato planes enforcing a no-fly zone.

Since Russia and China are big exporters to us, what interests do they have in cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

But if the West tries to humiliate them over Syria, their hardliners will see it as ‘proof’ that, if Assad goes, the West will back rebels against them next.

What our leaders need to use the G8 to do is to sort out what is essential to them in Syria. Then they’ll know what can be negotiated on.

They should use next month’s proposed Geneva peace talks to knock the heads of their various Syrian friends (and enemies) together.

Diplomacy is needed now. Neither the West nor Russia thinks it’s worth risking ‘our boys’ on the ground to win the war for a local ally.

If they recognise that their interests in the Middle East are better served by compromise than endless proxy war, there is a slim hope for Syria’s long-suffering people.

It may not be pretty but haggling and backroom deals are the best possible route to peace.

After our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, is anyone betting that the West has finally worked out the magic formula for installing peace and democracy by force?