Do we really know who the good guys are in Syria?

Please excuse the tone of jubilation, but I have been dancing around my kitchen for the past couple of days, in a state well beyond elation, at the removal from power of Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in Syria and its successors who, I am convinced, are a little like some of the West’s liberal democrats, except with powerful rifles.

No matter how deranged the dictator, whoever is trying to oust him will be about ten times worse

An expert from a Washington, DC thinktank told the BBC that some of those who had marched through from Homs to Damascus were “moderates.” This was the line taken up, so far as I am aware, by the corporation itself and indeed most other broadcasters — hence my delight. It may be the case that some of them had previously been combatants for the Islamic State or al-Qaeda — but we were told they had put that little bit of naughtiness behind them. We are all foolish and headstrong in our younger years, are we not? Even when it is discovered that the name under which these freedom-lovin’ democrats have been fighting — HTS — actually stands for “Chop off the infidel’s head and stick it on a pole” or something, we should not rush to judgment too quickly. Anything is better than Assad, isn’t it?

I don’t know why western liberals are like this, unless it is just a simple case of abiding stupidity. I mean, I understand where the impulse comes from: all regimes are inherently wicked and therefore any instance of “freedom fighters” overthrowing a regime is to be welcomed because it must be for the better, because freedom fighters are good people who have been terribly transgressed and persecuted. That this is a grotesquely naive and mistaken assumption is proven every single time a regime is overthrown, without fail — and yet still they cleave to it. Assad was Nasty, so anybody who overthrows him must be Nice.

I remember very clearly the euphoria in the voice of a gentleman on the BBC’s From Our Own Correspondent speaking in 1996 as the Taliban advanced on Kabul. This was a true working-class uprising, the man opined, and the people of Afghanistan were crying tears of joy.

Then there was the Arab Spring of 2010-12. This was cheered on, day after day, by the western broadcast media dispatched to Tripoli, Cairo, Tunis, Riyadh, Damascus and so on. Even Wikipedia still suggests that it was a mass movement of people who simply wanted freedom from authoritarian regimes, as was surely their right. This view was arrived at because the western journos spoke to a handful of literate middle-class activists in the capitals of each Arab nation who were not remotely representative of the general mood in the country. It was another example of wishful thinking.

Now we have the overthrow of the “butcher” Assad and the tacit assumption that whatever follows must be “better.” Now, I have no affection for the deposed thug. If, upon going for my yearly eye check-up, I saw old Bashar smirking from behind the ophthalmoscope, I would say my goodbyes and maybe consider private treatment. But it is a golden rule of Middle Eastern and North African politics that no matter how deranged and murderous the dictator, whoever is trying to oust him will be about ten times worse. That dictum probably goes for most of the third world, in fact.

It would not matter very much if all it meant was that the cheerleaders for the usurpers were later to be proved wrong and we could all say: “Hey look, Orla — those freedom fighters you were talking about last month have started pushing gays off the top of large buildings and banning women from eating.” But it isn’t — because that naivety, that stupidity, that wishful thinking lies at the heart of the West’s neo-liberal foreign policy. It is a basic misunderstanding of mankind and has lead to western-backed atrocities which are easily the match of anything the Arabs come up with themselves.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was based upon just such a miscomprehension. If only we could oust Saddam Hussein from power, the grateful Iraqis would as one rise up, give their thanks, and in a scrupulously observed general election give their votes tothe Iraqi equivalent of Menzies Campbell. That did not happen, did it? And a good many Iraqis — those who aren’t actually dead — rather miss the brutal stability imposed by Saddam. A few years after that catastrophe, western leaders like Britain’s Tony Blair urged the Palestinians to go to the polls and back a nice sensible movement which might negotiate with the Israelis. What did the Palestinians do? They elected Hamas, which wishes to see Israel stricken from the map. Following this came the Arab Spring and a whole bunch of Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, somewhat surprised at being suddenly championed by armchair warriors in western capitals.

At the heart of this liberal delusion is the mistaken assumption that everybody in the world thinks the same way as they do and wishes for identical outcomes. It is a staggeringly arrogant, not to mention dim-witted, world view, and leads us to meddle where we shouldn’t be meddling and putting our faith in people who would be better off in the secure unit at Rampton. People do not wish for the same thing the world over, and it may just be that the dictators in the Middle East are the best of a really, really unpleasant bunch. You may view the Saudi royal family with grave distaste, but it is also sadly the case that if the Saudi Arabian people were allowed a free vote, someone far less palatable would be elected to office.

Hell, it’s Christmas. I wish Syria good luck. But I also suspect they’re going to need an awful lot of it.

What are Rod’s reflections on the year? He joined the Christmas special of The Spectator’s Edition podcast to discuss, alongside Lionel Shriver, Matthew Parris and Mary Wakefield: