Members of Congress know that Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad is the bad guy, but they’re increasingly worried about toppling him from power, after Christian organizations have galvanized America’s religious base.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., worries that the presence of extremist groups linked to al-Qaida within the fragmented Syrian opposition poses a “direct threat” to religious minorities there, including Christians, who make up about 10 percent of the population in a country home to ancient biblical scenes such as the Damascus road on which Paul had his conversion experience. Qaida-linked groups’ vision of a “post-Assad Syria is one with no Christians in it,” Van Hollen told National Journal Daily. “It’s an extremist, intolerant, fundamentalist Islamic state. So this is a very real factor in the whole question of U.S. support for the rebels.”
Syria’s bloody civil war changed Christians’ relatively protected status under Assad, a member of the minority Alawite sect, a Shia offshoot. His primarily Sunni opposition largely sees Christians as Assad’s allies. Extremists seized the ancient Christian enclave Maaloula where the language of Jesus Christ is still spoken, killed a Catholic priest, and two prominent Syrian bishops were abducted.
While Van Hollen would support giving the Obama administration a very limited authorization for the use of force in Syria if needed, he is against arming the rebels because of the risk that extremists, who are the best fighters within the opposition, could get the upper hand in the conflict. “I’m not convinced we have clearly established whose hands these weapons will end up in,” Van Hollen says. “People “¦ don’t want to be dragged more deeply into a civil war that could result in these radical extremist groups taking over.
“Yes, Assad must go, but you don’t achieve your goal if you replace him with somebody as bad or worse.”
Worried about the fate of their Christian brethren in Syria, a swath of Christian organizations have launched grassroots lobbying campaigns to encourage members of Congress to oppose any U.S. military intervention — ranging from a strike to arming rebels — for fear of exacerbating the volatile situation on the ground and putting minority groups in danger — and perhaps on the road to extinction. Tens of thousands of phone calls and letters have flooded Capitol Hill offices in recent weeks.
“There are no good guys in this scenario,” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. “Siding against Assad will only strengthen the hands of those who have direct links to the attacks on Christians.” As members of Congress solicited his group’s opinions on Syria, Perkins said, “we were very clear” that intervention was not in Christians’ “best interest.”
Armenian Christians used to number about 100,000 in Syria; during the conflict, their numbers have been reduced by half as they fled the country or were targeted in attacks. Should the opposition come to power, the Armenian National Committee of America’s executive director, Aram Hamparian, said, “we have no assurances “¦ they would respect the rights of Christians.” That group alone, working through local chapters, spurred 9,000 activists to contact lawmakers.
Hamparian’s concerns appear to be shared by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who believes the dwindling populations of Jews and Christians in Egypt and Iraq could signal a similar fate for Syria’s Christians. “First the Saturday people then the Sunday people,” Wolf laments. He opposes intervention. “You have to be very concerned, or else you’re going to see the Christian community emptied.”
Some groups are looking ahead. Darrin Mitchell, president and chief lobbyist of the American Christian Lobbyists Association, says his group is urging his members to write and call their elected officials to draft legislation that would ask “all Islamic governments, including a new future Islamic government in Syria, to protect and respect the rights of religious minorities including the Christian population in their respective countries” amid fears “that if an al-Qaida backed Islamic government takes over in Syria “¦ that Christian worship would be severely restricted and that Christians in general would experience extreme persecution.”
The fate of Syria’s Christians, said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., resonates with the American people. “When you talk about how there are Christians on the side of Assad, it makes people say, ‘Oh, gosh, what are we going to do now?” Paul said. “I don’t think many people would argue Assad had protected the Christians.”¦ When people hear that and they also hear al-Qaida’s on the other side, al-Nusra’s on the other side, and the Islamic rebels are committing atrocities such as beheadings they put on videotape to show the world, killing priests “¦ it shows it’s not Thomas Jefferson and George Washington versus a tyrant. It’s a little more messy than that.”
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 How Washington Derailed Amtrak
- 3 Smart Ideas: Criminal Justice Reform, Cybersecurity and Fighting ISIS
- 4 State Department Releases More Hillary Clinton Emails
- 5 Secret-Money Group Tied to Marco Rubio Super PAC Has Been Researching Presidential Primary Voters
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”