Trump Foreign Policy Agenda Subverted?

(And what will happen to Christians in Syria, if so?)

By Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

Last November 8, millions of American citizens, including a majority of Catholics, voted for change—they voted to begin what they hoped would be an effort to challenge, perhaps overturn, the political and managerial Establishment that has dominated the massive government apparatus that increasingly controls the destiny of this nation. President Trump’s agenda promised that, in no uncertain terms, he would "drain the swamp" and "make America great again." Implicit in that promise was, also, a pledge to protect America’s religious institutions from the incursions of a powerful, secularist Federal government.

And, indeed, since his inauguration the president has issued a number of Executive Orders to do just that...on trade, on jobs, on building a border wall, on immigration, on lobbying.

On these issues he has attempted to fulfill his campaign promises, despite fierce opposition not only from most Democrats (who accuse him of being an illegitimate president), but also from many Establishment Republicans and Neoconservative publicists. The Deep State elites have been enraged, and they have done their best to derail those much-needed changes.

Significantly, the naming of conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Unites States Supreme Court (far from perfect but a significant improvement over the radically liberal activist a President Hillary Clinton would have had in mind) was greeted by those deeply concerned by government overreach in religious matters with relief and hope. Might this signal the beginning of a real recovery?

But just as President Trump has done these things, there have been some troubling signs, as well. Only three days after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated [March 31], unequivocally, that "

regime change in Syria is not the policy of the United States government," it appears that the foundational position that Donald Trump repeated numerous times during his campaign has been reversed. Due to what? – a chemical attack in a terrorist Islamist rebel-held village in a remote part of Syria, an attack whose responsibility has yet to be confirmed by independent observers on the ground. The Syrian government has pleaded for an international investigation—which is opposed by the rebels who control the site.

Last year Donald Trump repeatedly stated that the United States could not solve every political—and "human rights"—crisis in the world. The United States should not be sending its young men to fight in every jungle or over every desert oasis for the (decadent) concept of "democracy." We should only get involved if a particular crisis involved us directly. Indeed, the new global threat was—and is—Islamic (and vicious anti-Christian) terrorism; and here in the United States, the threat to national and internal security is undoubtedly illegal immigration.

The president argued strenuously and eloquently against the use of American arms to solve the world’s problems. His motto was "America First"—that we had enough serious problems here to occupy us, and that only in the case of direct attacks upon us and our interests should we be involved in placing our troops in harm’s way.

But now comes the attack on Syria. Let’s take a brief look at the factions involved in Syria. The parties in the Syrian civil war include: (1) the established Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, supported by the totality of the large Catholic and Orthodox Christian minority and Assad’s own more moderate Alawite Muslims; (2) the Al-Qaida Islamists (mostly Sunni Muslims) and their Syrian allies, the extremist al-Nusra Front; (3) the ISIS Islamists, who wish to establish a universal Islamic caliphate by terror and violence; (4) the Kurdish separatists in Eastern Syria who want a Kurdish state; (5) Turkey, which opposes Assad and the separatist Kurds, who also are at war with them; (6) Shia Muslim Iran, which supports Assad and opposes the Sunni Muslims; (7) Israel, which fears the Hezbollah Muslims, who have some connections with Iran; (8) Saudi Arabia, tacitly allied to al-Nusra and who have supplied weapons and poison gas to rebel groups; (9) Russia, allied with Syria for forty years; and, alas, now, (10) the United States, which has sent about 700 troops into Eastern Syria to support the Kurds in an attempt to take the ISIS capital, Raqqa...and has also launched cruise missiles against Assad’s air force.

I did not mention the so-called "moderate" Syrians, the Free Syrian Army, because it has been more or less absorbed by al-Nusra and has now ceased to exist, and it never was very "moderate" (despite the claims of John McCain).

The simple fact on the ground—up until last week—is that President Assad was winning his civil war, had retaken the major cities in his country, and that, importantly, he enjoys the support of a majority of the Syrian people. In fact, given the intractable mix of violent factions in Syria, Assad’s government is the only force able to in any way keep any kind of order in that war-torn country.

As the acknowledged father of American "conservatism" and my mentor, Russell Kirk, repeated more than once, you cannot have liberty unless you have order first. The United States has had a long history of, by necessity, supporting and being allied to leaders who are "dictators," including Mubarak in Egypt, the Saudi leaders, Saddam back when he was engaged in a war with Iran, and in the past, even "Uncle Joe" Stalin (in the effort to defeat Hitler). Recall the dictum: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It may not always apply smoothly or allay our moral concerns, and it may be just temporary, but it does indicate a realistic consideration in international politics.

Remember what Franklin Roosevelt replied when an advisor complained about American support for the dictatorial leader of the Dominican Republic, Trujillo: "He may be a SOB, but he’s our SOB!" Such a template does not please those who entertain zealously unchained dreams of a global "liberal democratic" utopia. Their nostrums nearly always mean that such views must be enforced by the sharp bayonets held by American boys (many of whom will perish in the effort): funny how many peoples across the globe just don’t want to have foreign ideas imposed on them!

Look at our recent history of attempted "regime change": 1) American efforts in Egypt with the overthrow of our "friend" Mubarak, with American connivance, produced the rise of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (and now we are back with a military dictatorship); 2) the overthrow of Gaddafi in Egypt, again with American involvement, resulted in total anarchy and the Benghazi attack; 3) sending troops to Bosnia under Bill Clinton, which only insured the breakup of the Serbian state, civil war, and the establishment of an Islamist state, Kosovo, protected by American arms, in the heart of Europe; 4) the deposition of the brutal Saddam Hussein who was certainly a dictator, but again a zealous protector of Iraq’s historic Christian population, who was replaced by an Islamist Shia government in league with Iran!

Even going back to our strategically disastrous support for the assassination of the Catholic President Diem in Vietnam, the policy of attempting to "police the world" and impose democracy and equal rights on countries that may not desire those "fruits" of the modern West has been singularly unsuccessful and, indeed, has had generally disastrous consequences.

It is even more so now since world Communism as an opposing force has collapsed. Just maybe regional nationalism and religious fervor are much stronger factors than all the enticements of "liberal democracy," American-exported feminism, and samesex marriage!

My hope and prayer is that the attack on Syria was only a momentary aberration and that the oft-stated Trump agenda of realism in foreign policy will get back on track. Yet, the signs do not augur well; indeed, since his election, many of those former #NeverTrumpers—the frenzied globalist Neoconservatives— have been clambering back toward the president, attempting to surround him, and, if possible, subvert his agenda.

The Syrian attack indicates that they have had some success. And that should be worrying for both patriotic Americans and Christians concerned about our co-religionists in Syria, for whom President Assad has been a stouthearted protector. His departure would mean that the various Islamist factions would no longer have an obstruction to their efforts to "cleanse" Syria of its ancient Christian population. And that, indeed, would be a "crime against humanity" greater than anything a fevered mind of a Neoconservative pundit could imagine.■

Who will save our Christian brothers and sisters in Syria?