For far too long, the Obama administration has resisted recognizing the persecution of Christians in the Middle East as what it really is: a genocide. Given that violence is being used against a whole group of people, with the aim of either removing them, killing them, or destroying their culture and forcing them to change religion, the attacks of ISIS on Christians in Iraq and Syria certainly meet the U.N.’s legal criterion. So did the assaults of Sunni and Shi’ite militias in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, which drove more than one million Assyrian and Chaldean Christians from their homes, churches, and communities dating thousands of years. It has been many months since the mainstream media, including the New York Times, reported on the systematic use of rape against non-Muslim women by ISIS in areas which it controls, with captured wives and daughters of murdered Christians sold into sexual slavery, or handed to fighters as human battle trophies.

As The Stream reported:

In a unanimous vote, 393 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted tonight to call the United States government, as well as the member states of the UN, to recognize crimes against ethnic and religious minorities in the Middle East as war crimes and genocide. The bill had over 200 co-sponsors, including both Democrats and Republicans.

Other governments have recognized ISIS’s genocide, and the U.S. stands in danger of being one of the few “genocide deniers” in the developed world. But the Obama administration refused to grant special refugee status to Christians being targeted by ISIS, while granting such status to a smaller group that is also fiercely persecuted, the Yezidi.

So it’s welcome news indeed that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a resolution declaring that the attacks on Christians amount to a “religious genocide.” One of the resolution’s key supporters, the group In Defense of Christians, praised the resolution as a long overdue gesture of solidarity with Middle Eastern Christians. IDC had jointly sponsored, with the Knights of Columbus, the 300-page report on ISIS’s atrocities which provided the fodder for the resolution.

But there are some long-time defenders of Christians in the Middle East who are worried about the unintended consequences of Congressional action on the region. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a vocal supporter of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, voted and has spoken out strongly against an amendment added to the resolution which expands the resolution’s condemnation of ISIS to include the Syrian government — which for its own reasons, still serves as the only effective defender of Christians in the region, apart from some small Syriac Christian militias allied with the Kurds.

Gabbard also opposed a second resolution: HCR 121, which expands the resolution’s condemnation of ISIS to include the Syrian government — which for its own reasons, still serves as the only effective defender of Christians in the region, apart from some small Syriac Christian militias allied with the Kurds.

A Trigger for U.S. War in Syria?

Gabbard said in a statement after HCR 121 passed the House:

Make no mistake, this is a War Bill — a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of “humanitarianism” as a justification for overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad. Similar resolutions were used in the past to legitimize the regime change wars to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Libya. I will have no part of it. I voted NO on HCR 121. I voted NO against more unnecessary, interventionist regime change wars.

We all know that Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, is a brutal dictator. But this Resolution’s purpose is not merely to recognize him as such. Rather, it is a call to action. Specifically, it is a call to escalate our war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.

…

This resolution urges the Administration to create “additional mechanisms for the protection of civilians” which is coded language for the creation of a so-called no-fly/safe zone. The creation of a “no fly zone” or “safe zone” in Syria would be a major escalation of the war. Such a measure would cost billions of dollars, require tens of thousands of ground troops and a massive U.S. air presence, and it won’t work. Furthermore, it will likely result in a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. Fortunately, President Obama has thus far resisted pressure to escalate the war in this way.

The fact is that the main area in Syria where Christians, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Yazidis and other religious minorities can practice their faith without fear of persecution is in the Syrian territories where Assad maintains control. Therefore, the overthrow of Assad would worsen the genocidal activities by ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations against Christians, Alawites, and other Syrian religious minorities.

If the U.S. learned nothing else in Iraq and Libya, we should have learned that toppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries.

It is undeniable that in both Iraq and Libya, humanitarian conditions today are far worse than they were before those governments were overthrown, and ISIS and other terrorist organizations are more powerful, causing even more human suffering.

If the U.S. is successful in its current effort to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, allowing ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups to take over all of Syria, including the Assad-controlled areas where Christians and other religious minorities remain protected, then the United States will be morally culpable for the genocide that will result.

This is exactly what happened when we overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is what happened in Libya when we overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. To do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome is insanity.

Defenders of Middle Eastern Christians will have to think carefully about the real-world strategic decisions that must be made, among many imperfect or even unsavory choices. The United States is not bound to overthrow every undemocratic regime on earth, nor is it exempt from the moral responsibility for the predictable outcome of its actions — for instance, the chaos and suffering in Libya today, where ISIS seems likely to take control of large swathes of the country.