What is "the case for supporting Assad," the brutal Syrian dictator whose government is indiscriminately targeting civilians in a violent, gruesome civil war? For some Syrian civilians, surely, there is a political and tribal case for supporting Assad; for his foreign allies, there is an economic and hegemonic case. And for maniac Islamophobe Daniel Pipes there is the sociopathic case:

Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar Assad.

Here is my logic for this reluctant suggestion: Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.

This is not, actually, so much a "case for Assad" as it is a case for prolonging for as long as possible a conflict that has killed over a hundred thousand people and displaced more than a million. What's the end game, here?

On the happy day when Assad and Tehran have fought the rebels and Ankara to mutual exhaustion, Western support then can go to non-Baathist and non-Islamist elements in Syria, helping them offer a moderate alternative to today's wretched choices and lead to a better future.

Okay. If this seems thin compared to the extensive reasoning backing Pipes' "support" for Assad, it may be because his end goal isn't a "better future" for Syrians so much as it is unceasing violence and death.

[NRO]