Weekend Edition April 20-22, 2012
A Lopsided View of the Conflict
Getting Serious About Syria
The Syrian conflict continued to boil — or
boil over — when Syrian troops fired across the Turkish border on April
9, apparently killing either fleeing refugees or armed combatants.
Then the UN team entered and began monitoring a shaky ceasefire –
shaky because the Syrian National Council in exile and their backers in
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Washington and western capitals don’t want the
fighting to stop. They want to overthrow the Assad government by force
and violence.
However, despite continued words of caution from the Pentagon and
White House about getting into another messy Middle East war, Secretary
of State Hilary Clinton pressed for more intervention. The Syrian
Accountability Act of 2003 began the formal US attempt to bring down
Assad, but Clinton, the imperial princess, now demands Syrian President
Assad resign in favor of the Syrian National Council (SNC). This hastily
formed group composed of exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members, and
other groupings, many in exile, would, magically transform Syria via
fair elections into a good democracy — and sheep will fly.
Washington’s “humanitarian” assistance fund for Syria escalated into
“non-lethal” aid — sophisticated satellite communications equipment, and
night-vision goggles so “rebels” could “evade” Syrian government
assaults.
US and western media have underscored Assad’s butchery, but offered
little of substance on the opposition and its often savage behavior.
Just weeks after the first March 2011 protests – Arab Springtime – the
media disregarded eye witness evidence of armed groups shooting at and
killing members of Syria’s security forces as well as civilians.
Reporter Pepe Escobar witnessed “the shooting deaths of nine Syrian
soldiers in Banyas” as early as April 10, 2011.
By focusing only on Assad’s violence western leaders could promote a
lopsided view of the conflict. In recent weeks, however, the media could
not ignore all “photos and video footage of armed men with heavy
weapons proudly declaring their stripes – some of them religious
extremists advocating the killing of civilians based on sectarian
differences.”
Suicide bombings took place in Damascus and Aleppo, and Al Qaeda
called its minions “to battle.” The US government ignored Al Qaeda’s
role and refers only to the “good” SNC, the majority of whom appear to
ally themselves with Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.
At a March meeting in Istanbul sponsored by Turkey and Qatar,
however, an unlikely source of dissent emerged. Iraqi Prime Minister
Nuri al-Maliki said: “We reject any arming [of Syrian rebels] and the
process to overthrow the [Assad] regime, because this will leave a
greater crisis in the region.”
Al-Maliki questioned the motives of Qatar and Saudi Arabia who “are
calling for sending arms instead of working on putting out the fire.”
Iraq, he continued, opposed “arming” the Free Syrian Army, and, he
feared, “those countries that are interfering in Syria’s internal
affairs will interfere in the internal affairs of any country.”
Maliki, who governs Iraq as a result of the US invasion and
devastation of that country, questioned equating a cause backed by Saudi
funding with freedom.
“What’s wrong with the Free Syrian Army getting funding from Saudi
Arabia? Or, when did Saudi Arabia ever support freedom?” he asked.
These remarks were not featured in headlined stories; nor did TV or
radio news provide coverage of Maliki’s statement. Until recently, we
might have depended on Al-Jazeera, whose Iraq war coverage won it praise
from journalists. However, the network’s Syria reports led some
reporters to resign over the network’s biased reporting. Hassan Shaaban,
the Beirut bureau’s managing director, resigned in March, “after leaked
emails revealed his frustration over the channel’s coverage.” Shaaban
had filed a story showing armed men fighting with the Syrian army in
Wadi Khalid. Al Jazeera dropped the story. Two other Al-Jazeera staff
quit for the same reasons.
Al Akhbar calimed Qatar’s foreign policy influenced the reporting on
Syria. Al Jazeera maintains headquarters in Qatar and the royal family
helped establish the network.
The question in Washington should be: will adding fuel to the
violence make matters worse? Assad’s forces have defeated – with huge
civilian casualties — the formal rebel uprisings, but the SNC could
sponsor a prolonged terrorist war, which would increase civilian
casualties, and not succeed in removing Assad or his Party [the Baath
Party]from power.
Logic and reason dictate that Obama should follow the Syrian
majority. A February 2012 poll showed “55% of Syrians want Assad to
stay,” [NOT] motivated by fondness for his government, but “by fear of
civil war.” The polls also ascertained “that half the Syrians who accept
him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the
near future.” (YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha
Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation, connected to the royal family.
The family has taken a hawkish position on Syria. See Jonathan Steele,
The Guardian, January 17)
These facts have not oozed into State Department consciousness, where
the rush for US entanglement appears contagious. Good sense should
command Secretary Clinton to help save the process former UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan set in motion for a negotiated cease fire. The
opposition and the Assad side negated the April 10 deadline. This means
Syrians will pay a higher human toll. The suffering is already immense.
Washington should weigh in now with Russia, China and the western
powers – not Saudi Arabia and Qatar – to pressure both sides to stop
shooting and start serious talking.
Saul Landau’s WILL THE REAL TERRORIST PLEASE STAND UP screens, in the U of Wisconsin Milwaukee Union Theatre, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd. Monday, Monday, April 23 at 7:00 pm
