Syria's Stalemate - Vali Nasr - July 27, 2012 - ABC News Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-27/syrias-stalemate/4159398
Take this clip with a
pinch of salt though. Consider, for instance, these issues:
1. The problematic characterization of the
conflict as primarily a "sectarian war". Given the involvement of many regional and global powers in Syria, the equation is much more complicated than just a communal-political conflict among different sects;
2. There is no probe into who
this "international community" is and its interests and hypocrisies.
For instance, why all of a sudden the monarchical states of the Persian Gulf
have become the champions of human rights and democracy?;
3.
No probe into the role of this "international community" in
supporting and sending al Qaeda and other militant elements to Syria;
4. No
probe into the role of this "international community" (and its
propaganda machinery of media, political pundits, and gullible, involuntary, or fake lesbian
bloggers) for not seeing the distinctions between Saddam's Iraq and Qaddafi's
Libya on the one hand and Assad's Syria on the other**. For one, Assad still
retains significant popularity among the masses, as Vali Nasr points out in the
above clip, and even greater numbers of Syrian people are against a regime
change, as verified by the Qatar Foundation. This "international
community", however, actively supported the more uncompromising and militant
elements in the opposition*** to hijack the whole opposition movement (to sabotage the possibility of the pro-democracy opposition pushing the Assad's government to engage in democratic reforms, which the Assad's government was willing to concede to stop the early protests and violence);
5. No probe into the impact of a debilitating Syria on the anti-colonial/hegemonic resistance in the region;
6. And,
whether, perhaps, this debilitation of Assad's government was the goal of (at
least some elements of) this "international community" from the first day? As discerning analysts knew from the beginning that the
hegemonic forces could not have toppled Assad's government that easily, and
even if they did, the alternative would not have been very desirable to them. Instead,
perhaps, the "international community" wanted to make Syria engulfed
into internal conflicts and bloodshed, so that it could not play its regional
role in support of the anti-hegemonic resistance?
Another scenario is that perhaps the global and regional powers have already extracted enough from the Syrian turmoil -- in terms of weakening the regime and in terms of dividing the public/activist opinion (in the Middle East and beyond) and dividing the public/activist support for the anti-hegemonic resistance efforts -- that these powers now do not feel that a regime change would be necessary (they probably took into consideration the alternatives of either al Qaeda type extremists taking over power or the eruption of a full-fledged civil war if Assad's government were toppled. Either of these options would have destablized the border regions, and that would not have been desirable to the bordering countries, including Israel, Turkey, and Lebanon).
In both of these scenarios it is also possible that the foreign powers were hoping to remove Assad but retain the government (to keep Syria from a plunging into a full-fledged chaos), but haven't been successful at that, yet (despite their attempts to demoralize Assad's aides -- through rumors, bribes, bombings, defections, and so on).
Another scenario is that perhaps the global and regional powers have already extracted enough from the Syrian turmoil -- in terms of weakening the regime and in terms of dividing the public/activist opinion (in the Middle East and beyond) and dividing the public/activist support for the anti-hegemonic resistance efforts -- that these powers now do not feel that a regime change would be necessary (they probably took into consideration the alternatives of either al Qaeda type extremists taking over power or the eruption of a full-fledged civil war if Assad's government were toppled. Either of these options would have destablized the border regions, and that would not have been desirable to the bordering countries, including Israel, Turkey, and Lebanon).
In both of these scenarios it is also possible that the foreign powers were hoping to remove Assad but retain the government (to keep Syria from a plunging into a full-fledged chaos), but haven't been successful at that, yet (despite their attempts to demoralize Assad's aides -- through rumors, bribes, bombings, defections, and so on).
** The emphasis on this distinction is not meant to support Washington's wars on the former two states.
***This was a repeat of the "strategic victimhood" and prolonging of conflict that was seen in the case of Darfur. As Kuperman argues in the following op-ed, the rebels became uncompromising because they believed that the Western powers and its support (including the Save Darfur movement) were behind them: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/opinion/31kuperman.html
In conclusion, no morality tale is being told here with the above questions -- just exhortation of doing a realistic assessment of the situation.
Some references:
""al-Qaeda"
All Over Syria"
"Al Qaeda Taking
Deadly New Role in Syria’s Conflict"
On Arab League's human
rights concern for Syria, see
And, simultaneously, see
this: "Saudi Arabia condemns Russian comments on human rights"
On Qatar Foundation's
poll, see:
"Most Syrians back
President Assad, but you'd never know from western media"
On the fake lesbian
blogger, see
Here is an honest
blogger who is rethinking his earlier assessment of Syrian violence
(A clearer map of Syria's neighbors:
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/online-atlas/images/map-of-syria.gif )
US Congressman Ron Paul on Washington's involvement in Syria (June 19, 2012)
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/online-atlas/images/map-of-syria.gif )
US Congressman Ron Paul on Washington's involvement in Syria (June 19, 2012)
"There’s
no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging
civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria. Falsely charging
the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary
provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre
perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war
propaganda. Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war
against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government,
something the neo-cons openly admit. Controlling Iranian oil, just as we have
done in Saudi Arabia and are attempting to do in Iraq, is the real goal of the
neo-conservatives who have been in charge of our foreign policy for the past
couple of decades."