Syria

[sukeban]

Folks following the news probably already know what's going on here, but in case you don't here's a brief primer:

 

What began as the Syrian variant of the "Arab Spring" movement has, after two years of violent repression by the Bashar al-Assad regime, turned into a violent civil war that has claimed the lives of ~100,000 people and created some ~two million refugees. Current news has Obama "confirming" the use of chemical weapons against the rebel faction, and the Administration is considering options for intervention.

-------------

 

However, the potentially straightforward case for humanitarian intervention is complicated by this unavoidable fact: that the most powerful and influential elements of the opposition are aligned with al-Qaeda, the Sunni Islamic group that the United States has been "at war" with since at least 2001. Digging deeper, we can uncover several more disturbing facts that might shake our faith in the rationality of intervention:

1. That the conflict has devolved into a clearly sectarian struggle, pitting the majority Sunni against the combined religious minorities of Syria: the Shia, al-Assad's Alawites, and Christians.

2. That the conflict serves as a proxy war between the greater Sunni and Shia blocs in the Middle East, with the repressive and fundamentalist Gulf monarchies supporting their Sunni clients and Iran and Iraq backing their allies.

3. That the conflict is strategically important to more powerful parties such as Russia, yet is of little geopolitical concern to the United States or Europe.

 

-------------

 

Given these things, I cannot fathom any rational reason that the United States or Europe should involve themselves in this crisis. Al-Assad is certainly reprehensible and has committed innumerable crimes, but he is better than al-Qaeda any day of the week. My policy prescription would be to allow the country to break up along communitarian lines (a la Yugoslavia, Eritrea, South Sudan, etc.) or else to stay out and not interfere as Russia and Iran continue to back al-Assad. IMO, the worst possible outcome is to allow the rebels to capture the country, as that would likely result in the cleansing of Syria's religious minorities at the hands of al-Qaeda-aligned militas... not to mention potentially create a 1990s-era Afghanistan close to the borders of Europe.

 

Whereas I was originally inspired by the Arab Spring, it appears as though the inadequacy of secular civil society in these countries, coupled with the ousting of secular authoritarians, has served no other purpose but to allow fundamentalist groups to dominate politics and state machinery. IMO, the best strategic move that the United States and Europe could make would be to disengage from the Middle East entirely, but barring that, I feel as though the secular devil we know is preferable to the fundamentalist devil we do not.

 

Your thoughts?

Edited June 13, 2013 by sukeban

[TRoaches]

The "Arab Spring" phenomenon has never been the spontaneous grassroots movement that the media portrays it to be. In each nation it is set in motion or aided by American and European intelligence agencies. The goal is to destabilize the society, foster civil wars, label the situation a humanitarian crisis to justify military intervention, and eventually install a puppet government that will sell off the country's resources at wholesale prices. It has already happened exactly this way too many times for any reasonable person to consider it a coincidence. It doesn't matter who wins the civil war because they will either be in our pocket or will be replaced. If al-Assad retains power it will be through enough bloodshed that he will be labeled a chemical weapon wielding tyrant and be toppled through military intervention. If the Al-Qaeda rebels win then the justification for intervention will simply be "remember 9/11!!!!" and they will be replaced through military intervention. Either way Syria becomes Iraq 2.0 with US and UK troops occupying it for the next few decades. Syria is not particularly rich in natural resources compared to its neighbors, but its location is itself a resource that makes it an important piece in the strategy of global power resource wars.

 

What burns my ass about the narrative of "That tyrant attacked those poor innocent freedom fighters we must give them aid!" is the thought that armed rebels should not be subjected to such treatment. If the police stopped a pickup truck with 10 guys carrying rifles and rocket launchers riding in the back heading into Washington D.C. they would not be referred to as "protesters", and they would most likely be killed for their attempted insurrection. When Libya was going through its engineered destabilization the media narrative actually referred to armed rebels as "protesters", as in "Gaddafi deployed helicopter gunships against protesters!". I don't doubt that some civilian protesters were caught in the crossfire and collateral damage, but I do doubt that the military was wasting such resources on people who were chanting and holding signs while a sophisticated militia that had been armed and trained by our notorious intelligence agencies was banging down the palace doors. These were not some poor rednecks with shotguns. In the early days of the conflict someone posted a video of a Libyan fighter jet being shot down by a rebel SAM. That requires a fairly sophisticated weapon, and the list of entities who had the motive and ability to supply such a weapon and necessary training is a very short one, with the US and UK right at the top.

[JimboUK]

We need to stay well out of this, sadly our idiot government here in the UK want to arm the rebels, a large number of them (as said) being aligned to al-Qaeda. Syria is only part of a bigger picture, a middle east cold war. On one side the Saudis and their Gulf neighbours supported by the west, on the other Iran supported by Russia and China. Bashar al-Assad is an ally of Iran, that's why the west want rid of him, even if it means arming al-Qaeda.

[Hardwaremaster]

I'm going to chim in here, since yesterday I've done a lot of digging, and TRoaches is standing right on top of it. The following video features Hillary Clinton candidly acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. Back then they we're called the Mujahideen, interesting enough they've been removed from the terrorist watch list. And if you really feel like digging further check the bottem link, it leads to a server with a ton of links, that I'll have to check out later when I have the time. Further more if you have the time check out the Snowden thread, I've stumbled across a mess and my fingers hurt from all the typing lol. But suffice it to say were are being lied to every day.

 

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-we-created-al-qaeda/5337222

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19767043

http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/bibliography.html

 

 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[JimboUK]

We know from leaked documents that both western and middle eastern governments do nothing but tell lies, they constantly say one thing for public consumption while saying something completely different to other governments. The Mujahideen go back further than the soviet invasion, the British were fighting them in the 19th century, they're not really Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda isn't a group as such, it's more of an ideology.

[sukeban]

TRoaches, on 13 Jun 2013 - 4:50 PM, said:

 

"What burns my ass about the narrative of "That tyrant attacked those poor innocent freedom fighters we must give them aid!" is the thought that armed rebels should not be subjected to such treatment. If the police stopped a pickup truck with 10 guys carrying rifles and rocket launchers riding in the back heading into Washington D.C. they would not be referred to as "protesters", and they would most likely be killed for their attempted insurrection."

 

Glad to hear this sentiment articulated. I've long marvelled at the ability of the press to completely overlook that these guys are engaged in an armed rebellion, something that would get them 1000% dead in any Western country, even (or especially!) the US.

 

I would also agree with you, that we appear to be on a mission to Afghanistan-ize the Middle East, e.g. to topple existing, strong (in a Mideast sense) states and replace them with a series of tribal patchwork quilts masquerading as states. Now that the era of strongmen is apparently over and the communitarian genie is out of the bottle, attempting to hold together these states--containing populations that seem to intractably hate each other--seems a doomed endeavor.

 

@Jim

 

Indeed... but I think the UK and France are having some serious Mandate nostalgia.

 

Also, I do not really understand why, from a self-interested foreign policy persepctive, we are so preoccupied with perpetuating Sunni power in the Middle East. Last I checked, the overwhelming bulk of terrorist incidents conducted against the West have been carried out by Sunni groups, many/most of which are funded by the very Gulf monarchies we go to such great lengths to prop up. As far as I am concerned, the whole "Shia are the enemy" notion is nonsensical, as it has been Sunni extremists--funded by our supposed "allies" in the region--that have been responsible for like ~99% of Western casualties from terrorism to date, from Parkistan to India to Kenya to Indonesia to Tanzania to Somalia to Yemen to Mali to Chechnya to Afghanistan to Iraq to London to Madrid to Moscow to NYC.

 

@Hardware

 

I would hope that by now we would all learn from our history, yet... it would appear as though we are jumping in (again).

Edited June 14, 2013 by sukeban

[JimboUK]

@sukeban It is rather odd, we've found ourselves on the side of Al Qaeda inspired groups who are trying to kill us. I can only guess that they see a few Jihad Joes as less of a threat than a nuclear capable Iran, Israel certainly would, they must understandably be alarmed at the thought of Iranian nuclear weapons.

[TRoaches]

I would also agree with you, that we appear to be on a mission to Afghanistan-ize the Middle East, e.g. to topple existing, strong (in a Mideast sense) states and replace them with a series of tribal patchwork quilts masquerading as states.

The nations that are the targeted in these types of ops are always the ones that have strong nationalist policies. It is sold to our public as being about human rights but this makes no sense if you look at the human rights offenders that we tolerate, such as Saudi Arabia. For example, Libya was toppled because they were unwilling to bend to the pricing and mineral rights demands of companies like BP, Shell, and Exxon. Libya was also holding on to a vast national treasury of precious metals, which was looted following the coup. In some cases we have given support to a tyrannical leader as long as they follow our orders, only to topple them as soon as they step out of line. Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega are both examples of former "allies" who received plenty of material and financial support prior to being rebranded as dangerous dictators. Both Iraq and Libya were relatively progressive societies compared to many of their neighbors.

 

If we were truly interested in assisting in a humanitarian crisis there are plenty of places where the people are far worse off than they are in Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Liberia comes to mind. This short documentary should be required viewing for anyone who advocates "humanitarian" intervention in an oil-rich country while Liberians are literally eating each other. SPOILER ALERT: They have no plumbing so the beaches and streets are covered in human crap, pure tar heroin and cocaine are available at bargain prices, 15-20 in 100 people have AIDS, around 20% of the children are malnourished, and there is one doctor available for every 100,000 citizens.

 

 

Liberia wishes it was rich in oil just so the US would come and steal it and bring some order and civility while doing so. They have no infrastructure, no medicine, no education, no arts, no science, no hope. Our military could clean that country up in a matter of weeks or months, spending a fraction of the blood and treasure we have spent in Iraq. The only reason that we have not done this is because they lack exploitable resources.

 

On this thought, The Onion nailed it. Comedy always provides the best political insight:

 

 

Tortured Ugandan Political Prisoner Wishes Uganda Had Oil

NEWS IN BRIEF • World • Oil • Africa • ISSUE 39•15 • Apr 23, 2003

 

KAMPALA, UGANDA—A day after having his hands amputated by soldiers backing President Yoweri Museveni's brutal regime, Ugandan political prisoner Otobo Ankole expressed regret Monday over Uganda's lack of oil reserves. "I dream of the U.S. one day fighting for the liberation of the oppressed Ugandan people," said Ankole as he nursed his bloody stumps. "But, alas, our number-one natural resource is sugar cane." Ankole, whose wife, parents, and five children were among the 4,000 slaughtered in Uganda's ethnic killings of 2002, then bowed his head and said a prayer for petroleum.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2013 by TRoaches

[sukeban]

It is rather galling that intervention in Syria is now considered a "done deal" by the Obama Administration. NYT reports that only a mere 25% of Americans support intervention--not that, of course, public opinion means anything once Washington sets its mind on something. In any case, today it is "small arms," tomorrow it is "heavy weapons," the next week it is a "no-fly zone" and the next month it becomes a full-scale bombing campaign with special operations support. Then we get some al-Qaeda militiaman (erm, "freedom fighter") giving lip-service to "democracy," who forms a weak central government and winks and nods as religious thugs take control of the rest of the country. We conveniently ignore reports of religious minorities being eliminated and Washington pats itself on the back for their historic advancement of freedom. "Mission Accomplished," and onward to Iran!

 

@Jim

 

Personally, I am not particularly fearful of a nuclear Iran, but that's just because I don't buy the hype about Iran's religious "irrationality" on the world stage. Rather, I'd subscribe to the school of thought that postulates that states, by and large, act rationally and in their own self-interest. There is nothing rational about nuking Israel or Saudi Arabia and, in turn, being nuked into oblivion. If the leadership of Iran simply wanted martyrdom, they could have had that already; why bother propping up friendly dictators like al-Assad, al-Maliki in Iraq, and the quasi-government of Hezbollah in Lebanon, especially when it comes at the cost of domestic unrest? To me, that seems as though they're attempting to maintain a sphere of influence amongst states on or near their borders, the same as Russia does with Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and Central Asia, China does with Myanmar and Mongolia, and the United States does with Latin America. In my eyes, they are doing their best to create a buffer zone of friendly states in order to insulate themselves from the very real threat of Western-backed regime change.

 

Like a way bigger version of Hezbollah's missiles, a nuclear weapon would provide Iran with their best possible deterrent to Western aggression and would allow them to project their power in Shia areas of the Middle East more effectively. And to me, this is completely rational (much as I dislike nuclear weapons), especially in light of our current hyper-aggressive rollback policy in the region. So I believe that the most productive course would be to practice deterrence with the inevitably nuclear-armed Iran. If we grant them a sphere of influence over Shia-majority lands--backed up by our own deterrence--I believe that their international behavior would calm considerably.

 

But ultimately it just boils down to whether or not you consider them to be a rational actor in the first place.

 

@Roaches

 

That video is plenty scary, but echoes some of my friend's experiences in Sierra Leone (where teenage soldiers shoot up gunpowder and heroin). While I'm largely with you in terms of analyzing our motivations, the only event that seemingly bucks the pattern is allowing Mubarak to be toppled in Egypt, as he was a consumate client leader, if nothing else. Being replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't really seem to be an improvement in terms of our relations with them, though I suppose as long as the military aid keeps flowing, we will always retain at least some degree of clout.

 

That said, biggest winner in all of this has been China, as they've been able to avoid all conflict, yet have reaped the majority of oil contracts in Iraq and the rare earth mineral extraction rights in Afghanistan. Couple that with them essentially buying up Africa and I would say that they've had quite the Third World windfall in terms resources and political influence--all free of cost.

Edited June 15, 2013 by sukeban

[TRoaches]

A few more thoughts on the topic....

 

Cameron seems eager to throw some UK "aid" in there as well, though I question why anyone would call adding more weapons to a conflict that has already killed almost 100k people a form of "aid".

 

The source of the chemical weapons claim seems to be deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. He is the same guy who gifted us with my favorite newspeak of late when he said, in reference to our bombing of Libya, that we were engaging in "kinetic military action", and explained that this is not the same as war. Seems legit!