Libya. Iraq. Syria. All were countries that suffered under the decades-long reign of brutal dictators. All have been swept up into anarchic spells of violence and terror after the West moved to overthrow those dictators. With last weekend’s news of the slaughter of Christians, Alawites, and other minorities at the hands of Islamist militias in Syria, the West received another lesson in foreign policy: There is a time to exercise restraint.
Bashar Assad and his family maintained a brutal rule over Syria from the time his father seized power in 1970 until rebel groups launched an offensive at the end of last year, forcing Assad to flee the country. The fall of Assad’s dictatorship should not be lamented by any means. Indeed, thousands of people have been brutally killed, tortured, and imprisoned in the time the Assad Dynasty ruled Syria. In a perfect world, his departure would mean the dawn of a new era of democracy, complete with elections, protection of rights, and a vigorous civil society.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, and foreign policymakers should know this by now — at least enough not to get entangled in unsolvable crises.
The U.S. has held a presence in Syria since the Obama administration, when President Barack Obama took it upon himself to get involved, even with the lessons of Libya and Iraq and the not-so-distant past. While Obama was initially slow to get involved, the rise of ISIS led to airstrikes and the presence of thousands of US advisors to train Kurdish forces to fight ISIS.
While these regime changes were done initially to win the War on Terror and hunt down WMDs, the long-term goal was that these places would become thriving democracies. As the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria shows, that was not a realistic goal. If policymakers were hoping the third time’s the charm in Syria, this past weekend demonstrates Syria is also unlikely to see democracy break out in the streets. And while the Kurdish-led SDF agreed to join the new Syrian government, they, too, would be wise to proceed with caution in the new Syria.
A brief review of America’s track record in the Middle East should have warned against this move. Back in the 1980s and 90s, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a menace on the international stage. His invasions of Iran and Kuwaitushered in conflicts that led to the deaths of millions of people, not to mention the thousands of his people that he killed. In the aftermath of 9/11, fearing that Hussein was after nuclear weapons, the United States took it upon itself to destroy his government in 2003. Fears over weapons of mass destruction were well-founded (Hussein tried on multiple occasions to acquire them), but long-term problems began when the Bush administration attempted to establish democracy in Iraq. While nominally a democracy, Iraq has been rife with violence for decades, with various militias battling the central government. Notably, ISIS took control of a sizable portion of Iraqi territory. The U.S. occupation of Iraq from 2003 to 2011 was ill-fated. Even if you argue that removing Hussein was the right move, the idea that he was going to be replaced with a Western-style democracy was naive at best.
Similar events happened in Libya, which dictator Muammar Gaddafi ruled since his coup in 1969. While he brutally ruled Libya and sponsored terrorist attacks early in his reign, by the turn of the century, Gaddafi's threat to the West was minimal. In fact, after seeing what happened to Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi agreed to scrap his WMD program, fearing a similar removal at the hands of the West. However, the bargain was not upheld when, in 2011, NATO forces intervened to assist anti-Gaddafi rebels in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Since the fall of Gaddafi, Libya has continued to struggle with violence and instability.
One would think that such lessons would be hard to ignore, but, unfortunately, the foreign policy establishment has been slow to learn prudence when it comes to regime change.
Bashar Assad, Muammar Gadaffi, and Saddam Hussein were not good people. Just the opposite — all were vicious dictators responsible for the suffering of millions of people. The desire to bring these men to justice and remove them from power is understandable, even honorable. Yet, while many regimes are brutal, there is rarely a viable alternative waiting in the wings. Often, it’s a series of competing organizations who are alike in their capacity for violence and support for Islamist terrorism. The people of Iraq, Libya, and Syria all suffered under brutal dictatorships, but the ensuing anarchy has not done them a lot of favors.
Foreign policymakers would be wise to show restraint before overthrowing the next dictator. Be careful what you wish for — you may not like what comes next.
Matt Cookson is a contributor and a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a U.S. Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in the Mises Institute, Real Clear Politics, the American Thinker, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @MattCookson95.
