Considering Syria

Where To Begin?

What’s the best way to grapple with massively complex geopolitical issues? Can we be reasonably expected to grasp the significance of events in Syria? It can be incredibly difficult to even grasp the scale of a particular event, especially in the news as of late. The whole idea of a 24-hour news cycle means that there is often more time than significant developments or newsworthy items. To fill, the news networks look for more stories that will be the most engaging to the most viewers (please note that this is a distinctly different critique than accusations of political or “deep state” bias in mainstream media). This can lead to content that is overblown, to put it lightly. Once engaged, it is not an easy cycle to break out of.

I think what I hear most often is that “The news is just too much. I don’t watch it at all anymore,” or something along those lines. It is easy to default to near-isolation to escape the seemingly never-ending torrent of news, opinion, and punditry of various colors that permeates the modern television and Internet news networks. I tend to stray towards the always engaged side myself, which carries with it its own dangers. There have been moments in my life where I have been overwhelmed and retreated from everything. but often an early indication is when I find myself uninterested in the news. As such, I believe that it is important on a personal level, not just an intellectual level, to read and understand what is happening in the world around us.

Now you may be wondering why I haven’t engaged with the titular subject yet – Syria. However, if you read my first post, I want to emphasize one particular point: context. It is difficult, if not impossible, to hold what could be reasonably considered an informed opinion without understanding the context of an issue. Yet, as I alluded to in the opening of this particular post, it is massively difficult to grasp geopolitical issues without doing significant work. What I aspire to do with this post, and more generally this blog, is to do some of the heavier lifting of presenting context. Which raises the question: where do we begin?

Using and Abusing a Narrative

I have done a small bit of research and reading on the ways which we use language. When I was a philosophy student, the role and purpose of language became the keystone of many discussions on wildly varied subjects. I’ll spare you the details – they go over my own head at times. One of the core beliefs that I was left with as a result of these discussions is that a primary functions of language is to tell stories. The human race is spread across the globe and split into a myriad of different cultures, but a common tradition in almost all of our cultures is a sharing of myths, origin stories, and instructional tales.

What this suggests to me is that stories are a way in which we use language to make sense of what is going on around us. A strong way, even. So, faced with a difficult and complicated issue, let’s see if we can break it down into its component pieces and build a central narrative. This central narrative cannot capture every single facet of what is going on, but it can help us break things down and build a manageable representation. This carries its own risks, of course. Listening to a story implies that you have some trust in the storyteller, or you risk being mislead. For the moment, I’ll ask for your trust. How do we build a story of Syria?

Building Blocks

Every story has, well, a story – no matter how complicated it might get. I don’t know what they teach the kids these days™, but I learned them early in elementary school. The 5 W’s: Who, What, When, Where, Why (and occasionally How). These building blocks are the base of any successful story. Who is doing something? What are they doing? When are they doing it? Where are they doing it? Why are they doing it? If a storyteller answers these five questions, I’m probably going to at least get the gist of what is going on. Can I come up with some sort of answer to these questions for Syria? I believe the answer is yes.

Who is doing something?

There are two basic classes of actors in the Syrian drama: nation states, and their representatives. This classification starts to break down when you consider the break-down of the Syrian state (more on that later!), but it works well as a general guide. I am going to experiment with bolding the key actors and actions, to see if that helps – leave me a note and let me know. The key nation states that I have identified in this drama are the United States, Turkey, and Russia. There are a host of other actors, like Syria and Iran, but they play a smaller role as nation states.

The United States is a democratic republic, and their foreign policy is traditionally driven by the chief executive, the President. The legislative branch of government, Congress, plays a role in shaping foreign policy largely by trying to influence and/or restrict the actions of the President. The current President of the United States is Donald J. Trump. He is controversial largely for his partisanship – to put it lightly – and his impulsive actions. President Trump is a former celebrity businessman, which is to say his business was largely built around a personal brand – see The Apprentice.

Turkey is nominally a democratic republic of the parliamentary variety. This is to say that in a period of normal function, the citizens of Turkey elect members of Parliament, and the Parliament chooses a head of state – the President. However, Turkey is not particularly known for having robust democratic institutions, and their current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is widely regarded as an autocratic ruler. Without going into too much detail, President Erdogan survived a military coup attempt in 2016 which resulted in a purge of the country’s supposed dissidents. He was the Prime Minister of Turkey from 2003 – 2014, at which point he was elected president.

Russia is another nominally democratic country which is not known for having particularly fair elections. Their current President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, has been in power in one form or another since 1999. President Putin is a former KGB agent, the intelligence apparatus of the now-defunct Soviet Union. In other words, he was a spy. While not he was not President of the Russian Federation for the duration of his power, he was largely regarded as the true power in Russia.

Please note that these summaries, while they are as accurate as I could make them, are dramatically quick. As such, they are not sourced as strongly as could be, though I did my best to ensure that they are accurate.

I was planning on writing more of the answers to fundamental questions out in this post, but it is already getting quite long. This post really only touches the tip of the metaphorical iceberg, and so I hope that you will stick around to read the rest. “Who?” is only the very beginning of this particular story – and you haven’t even met all the actors yet.