Syria's religious war
If there was a moment when the United States could have productively intervened in Syria, it looks like that moment has passed.
Shiite militants, including Hezbollah — partly at the behest of their paymasters in Iran — are racing to the defense of Bashar Assad's regime. According to a witness account in The New York Times, there were some 11,000 Hezbollah fighters in the besieged town of Qusair alone.
A Shiite religious student in Najaf, Iraq, told The Times that his colleagues believe the leader of Qatar, a backer of Sunni Syrian rebels, is a long-prophesied demonic figure who, it is foretold, will raise an army in Syria to wipe out Shiites in Iraq. As a result, devout Shiites are racing to defend their faith.
Sunnis around the world, meanwhile, are being called on to join the conflict, with the material support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Sunni Muslim Scholars Association of Lebanon issued a fatwa calling on followers to support the rebels “by words, money, medical aid and fighting.”
The hugely influential Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, a Sunni Egyptian cleric based in Qatar, called on Sunnis everywhere to come to Qusair's aid and proclaimed Hezbollah “more infidel than Jews and Christians.”
In the Middle East, them's fighting words.
The Assad regime, essentially a puppet of Shiite Iran, is a devil we know well. However much the rebellion began as a nonsectarian protest against Assad's corruption, it is now rapidly becoming dominated by al-Qaida and other radical and terrorist forces. One such rebel group has reportedly been involved in the slaughter of Christians — not the kind of crowd many Americans have an interest in supporting.
A good comparison may be to the bloody upheavals that tore apart Europe in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.
Christianity benefits from dogmas and doctrines more conducive to the separation of church and state than those found in Islam, starting with Jesus' injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. When the Roman Empire fell, the seat of political authority transferred to Constantinople, but the religious authority remained in Rome. This created room, conceptually at least, to distinguish political authority from religious authority. But the divine right of kings rendered that distinction operationally moot for centuries.
It wasn't until the bloody religious wars between Catholics and Protestants — as well as different denominations of Protestantism — had exhausted much of the continent that Europeans came to recognize “the essential futility of putting the beliefs of the mind to the judgment of the sword,” in the words of historian C.V. Wedgwood.
In short, the tradition of religious tolerance we take for granted today was paid for with generations of bloodshed. Several centuries of war and religious persecution may not seem all that heartening a precedent.
Edmund Burke was right when he said, “Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.” What is happening in the Middle East is a horror. But some lessons can be learned only after exhausting the worse alternatives first.
There may yet be a role for America to minimize the horror. But a lasting solution can be found only when the people on the ground are ready and willing to take it to heart.
Jonah Goldberg is the author of “The Tyranny of Clichés,” now on sale in paperback.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.