Millard Grimes: Just whose side are we on?

Before the U.S. commits any more lives, any more dollars or any more prestige to the conflicts in the Middle East, the wise men in Washington need to decide which side we are on. Admittedly that's not easy, and actually there are several sides, but for certain the losers are the people who have suffered through more than 40 years of constant warfare, destruction and enduring hardship.

The U.S. role in that area is a long and tangled one, starting at least as long ago as 1953 when the CIA collaborated in ousting Mohammed Mossadegh, an elected prime minister of Iran, who was threatening to nationalize Iran's oil companies. The former shah was reinstalled as controlling power, which worked well for about 25 years. But ruling a Middle East country is not easy without frequently cracking a few heads.

The shah generally cooperated with the U.S. and other Western nations, and kept the oil flowing at easy prices. Gasoline in the U.S. averaged about $.30 a gallon during most of the shah's regime.

His big mistake was trying to take over land that belonged to the mullahs. They had tolerated his dictatorship, but they drew the line at the threat to their land. In a sudden and surprising revolt, the mullahs overthrew the ailing shah. The result was $1 a gallon gasoline and an anti-U.S. nation, but not a communist nation, which was what had been most feared. Iran and the U.S.S.R. shared a long border.

Perhaps sensing a moment of weakness in Iran, its neighbor, Iraq, which is one-fourth its size, invaded Iran in 1980. Its leader was Saddam Hussein. The U.S. also had trouble choosing sides in that conflict, finally aiding Iran with secret weapons shipments.

The war basically ended in a draw and shortly afterwards, the U.S. declared all-out war on Iraq after Saddam sent troops to conquer the small nation of Kuwait. 'Twas a great and glorious victory for the U.S. as Iraq's army put up little resistance. The problem was Saddam was left in power and Kuwait remained a royal dictatorship.

Still seeking a stronger role in the Middle East, the U.S. again invaded Iraq in 2003 and this time Saddam was taken out, the army and the government disbanded, and a new regime established.

Out of all that turmoil emerged ISIL, a militant and barbarous strain of Muslims, who apparently have no allegiance to any established nation.

ISIL's people behead people, including Americans, destroy ancient monuments and generally create chaos for the people, especially in Iraq and Syria, where the revolution against the Assad government provided an opening in 2011. Four years of war have left thousands dead, and more thousands of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries, to Europe, and even as far as the U.S.

Now, when all this started most U.S. policymakers didn't know a Sunni from a Shi'ite, but in choosing up sides, that is very important to Muslims.

Which side is the U.S. on? You'd think that was an easy question, but it isn't. The U.S. has supported the forces seeking to overthrow the Assad regime, by whatever name they use. This group includes the Islamic State (ISIL), and an Al-Qaeda group in Syria, as well as a myriad of other groups, mainly linked by their determination to overthrow the existing government, which was established by Assad's father in the 1970s.

On Assad's side are the largest organized military force in Syria, which is the Syrian National Army; Iran; its closet and most powerful neighbor, Russia, a long-time supplier of materiel, and now planes and possibly troops; and Iraq, which has been fighting ISIL for years.

Saudi Arabia, which sets the pace in beheading women, is the chief nation on the side of the anti-Assad forces, and Turkey, mainly because the Kurds are helping Assad, and Turkey is afraid its own Kurds will become more militant if they win.

OK, got that?

Then there's the Sunni-Shi'ite difference. Iran and Iraq are mostly Shi'ite; Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni. So is Egypt. Most people are just tired of war.

Into this maelstrom of ancient hatreds, uncertain motives and Third World living conditions. - except for the tyrants and their families - the U.S. comes with its ideas of democracy and advanced weapons and bombs which both destroy and confuse the populations.

But at least we need to choose a side and, as Napoleon once remarked, the side with the most cannons usually wins.

If one side has the cannons of the Russians, Iran, the Syrian army and the U.S., it would be a good bet to win, and while the beheaders and the destroyers of civilizations current and ancient will be the losers.

It is obviously more complicated than that, but President Obama and the other U.S. policymakers, who are still obsessed with ousting Assad before all else, need to consider the record. Assad may be a threat, but like Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi, both overthrown without having strong successors, Assad may be more suited for the people of Syria than the mysterious other forces that we know little of.

Donald Trump, of all people, stumbled upon that unfashionable truth the other day when he said we might be better off to have Saddam and Khaddafi rather than what has followed.

Millard Grimes, editor of the Columbus Enquirer from 1961-69 and founder of the Phenix Citizen. is author of "The Last Linotype: The Story of Georgia and Its Newspapers Since World War II."

This story was originally published October 12, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Millard Grimes: Just whose side are we on? ."