Wars only destroy

Imagine the countless benefits if the two current Arab wars in Syria and Yemen were to be ended. If so, why do the parties locked in such futile fights not opt for the most obvious alternative: Stop the war, end the destruction, save lives, save money and rescue any remaining possibility for restoring normal peaceful relations within the same Arab family?

False pride is part of the answer. Admitting responsibility for wrong decisions, particularly when of such magnitude, is not that easy.

False pride is a human disease that hits people at all levels. Some heads of state often act in the same petty manner as the most impulsive uneducated primitive humans, who fail to foresee the potential cost of foolish decisions based on stubbornness and “devil may care” or “after me the deluge” logic.

Whether war decisions are taken by irresponsible individuals, or by a group of equally irresponsible evil-minded conspirators, such as in the case of the unjustified 2003 war on Iraq, the result is the same. In both cases the war makers fail to see the terrible outcomes of their deeds. They fail to recognise the futility of their decisions, and like gamblers, they continue to desperately accumulate losses in the hope that the next attempt will reverse the trend.

Although it is often tempting to conclude that unnecessary war perpetuation, if the mere idea of war is ever necessary, could be the responsibility of both warring sides, it is not that easy to apply this same formula to the two wars in question; Syria and Yemen. Certainly this inference does not apply to the chronic Arab-Israeli conflict, where the responsibility of continued war and continued failure to reach peace settlements lies completely and squarely on the ever-intransigent Israeli side. But I am not dealing with this issue in this short op-ed this time.

In the case of Syria and Yemen, it is not easy to accurately determine where the responsibility for starting the war lies or, to be more specific, for allowing the war to drag on for so long despite the massive cost, the misery, the destruction, the loss of life, the disease, the hardships, the displacement of millions of otherwise normally living people and the hopeless pursuit of any benefits.

Neither in Syria nor in Yemen was the war initiated by the legitimate government. In Syria, there was a peaceful national uprising seeking political reform, democracy and fair government. But the uprising was soon submerged by various armed forces from everywhere, including known terrorists, mercenaries, outright criminals and thugs, who descended on the country to fish in the troubled waters by way of activating a pre-planned conspiracy in favour of toppling the existing regime and opening the country for endless chaos.

Nevertheless, many insist on blaming Bashar Assad for what happened to his country, even “killing his own people”, as they often say.

Had Assad responded promptly and positively to legitimate demands from his people rather than opting for delaying tactics, procrastination and dithering, the conspiracy would have been circumvented right from the beginning, those who insist on condemning him claim.

Yet, there are many others who commend Assad for standing firm in defence of his country against an open and massive illegal foreign aggression. He could have escaped with his family to live comfortably in a foreign capital, leaving behind a collapsing state structure and an abandoned country open for desecration and devastation by the worst brands of terrorists, armed criminal elements as well as hostile regional powers seeking Syria’s destruction the way the Iraqi state was undone when the country was invaded by presumed foreign and regional “liberators” led by the US in 2003.

Instead, Assad decided to sit still, exercise his right to defend his country, seek foreign help, liberate Syrian soil up to the last inch and confront the conspiracy.

Like all wars, the seven-year war in Syria has left enormous tragedies, vast destruction and cost countless precious innocent lives. This is the inevitable reality of every war. The question is would that have been avoided if Assad had run away for his life right from the beginning?

Slightly different is the case of Yemen, where a local militia, the Houthi Ansarullah, led an armed rebellion against the existing state. As a result of their occupation of the capital Sanaa, and many major military bases, the government of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi collapsed and fled the country.

At that point, Saudi Arabia with Arab allies, decided to take action in favour of the ousted legitimate government against the Houthis, believed to be supported, if not driven, by Saudi regional arch enemy Iran.

The Saudi action, which was expected to be drastic and quick, has been bogged down in a deeply complicated quagmire, with no visible exit in sight after more than three years of inconclusive, exhaustive and yet very devastating war.

So far, the war has only been destructive and accumulating losses on both sides with no end in sight, and no winners.

Had there been a functioning UN system, both conflicts could have been resolved by UN-sponsored negotiations without war. Sadly though, the UN system has long been disabled; being the victim of superpower manipulation, particularly when such powers’ interests are served by the permeation of such deadly proxy conflicts.

The same can be said about a long-disabled Arab League.

The striking and obvious question that requires urgent consideration is this. Why should the participants in those wars insist on involvement in fighting losing battles and totally counterproductive wars. Would it not be wiser to cut losses, rebuild bridges and save the potential for reconstruction not only of buildings and cities, but of souls and sound healthy communities as well?