[News] Red Lines Drawn with Syrian Blood

[Anti-Imperialist News]

August 29, 2013
The Problems With Obama's Case Against al-Assad


  Red Lines Drawn with Syrian Blood

by MUSA al-GHARBI

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/29/red-lines-drawn-with-syrian-blood/

It doesn't matter whether or not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used 
chemical weapons. The US and its allies are likely to carry out an 
attack on Syria in the very near future; the reasons for this have 
nothing to do with the recent incident in Ghouta.

In response to the chemical attack in April of this year, /two months 
later/ the United States declared that the al-Assad regime had crossed 
its "red line" and began to provide arms to the rebels. They provided 
enough assistance 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57594816/syria-rebels-claim-an-increasingly-rare-victory-near-aleppo-but-take-heavy-casualties-in-damascus/>to 
complicate the regime's campaigns in critical areas, but not nearly 
enough support to allow the rebels to march on Damascus.

According to The Washington Post 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-arm-syrian-rebels-was-reached-weeks-ago-us-officials-say/2013/06/14/3cc2d372-d51a-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html>, 
this policy was decided /weeks before /the reports of chemical weapons 
use had surfaced; in fact, CBS News reported 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57576722/ap-master-plan-underway-to-help-syria-rebels-take-damascus-with-u.s.-approved-airlifts-of-heavy-weapons/> that 
these efforts were /already underway/ before the chemical attacks 
occurred---they were merely stepped-up in June. That is, the reports of 
chemical weapons use in Syria were used as a pretext to justify a deeply 
unpopular 
<http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/17/public-remains-opposed-to-arming-syrian-rebels/> decision 
the Administration had already committed to.

There were a number of serious problems 
<http://syriareport.net/weapons-of-mass-deception/> with the Obama 
Administration's case against al-Assad. Having reviewed the evidence of 
the US and its allies, the UN declared it to be unconvincing 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-syria-crisis-chemical-weapons-idUSBRE93P0UG20130426> and 
ordered their own investigation into the incident. Subsequently, their 
chief investigator would claim that the evidence strongly suggested 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505> 
that it was the /rebels /who carried out the attack.

This should not have been surprising---al-Qaeda has a history of 
resorting to these tactics 
<http://syriareport.net/al-qaedas-chemical-weapons/>, and the means, 
motive, and demonstrated intent 
<http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/opinion/musa-algharbi-toxic-discourse-on-chemical-weapons_17457> to 
do so. The attacks were small-scale, using a chemical agent that the 
organization is known to possess. Moreover, the attack was carried out 
on an area which was actually /under government control/ at the time 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/06/syrian-chemical-weapons-reports-get-murkier/>, 
rather than a rebel-held area.

The evidence was so strong /against /the White House narrative that the 
only people to endorse their account were those previously committed to 
intervention (France, the UK, Israel, the monarchs). And even though 
many of the Administration's claims regarding this incident have been 
proven problematic, at best---in an Orwellian fashion, the White House 
continues to put forward their narrative without any regard for the 
facts, and without tempering their claims at all in light of subsequent 
evidence.

The Administration's response to the latest incident has been equally 
disturbing. After demanding a UN investigation, following al-Assad's 
surprise decision to facilitate the inquiry 
<http://www.france24.com/en/20130825-syria-damascus-gives-green-light-united-nations-un-chemical-weapons-arms-probe> (claiming 
he could prove the attack was carried out by the rebels)---the US and 
its allies expressed a total disinterest in whatever the investigation 
may find 
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/25/215397759/u-s-u-k-warn-of-serious-response-in-syria> and 
indicated that they were not going to wait around for the results. They 
never intended to: it was their hope that al-Assad would play into their 
narrative by obstructing the investigation---this would allow the US to 
assert "he must have something to hide," and more easily presume guilt 
in the absence of evidence.  Astonishingly, they have decided to stick 
to this course despite al-Assad's compliance.

The allied powers are already positioning their naval assets in 
anticipation of surgical strikes (despite the fact that the architect of 
this plan has since come out against it 
<http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/category/region/middle_east>); the 
United States is preparing 20,000 soldiers 
<http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/17/world/la-fg-us-jordan-troops-20130418> for 
deployment into the Syrian theater although the Administration does not 
have Congressional approval  to engage 
<http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20233308-growing-number-of-lawmakers-want-say-on-syria-strike?lite> (rendering 
the White House's actions legally questionable). The UK has drafted a 
UNSC resolution 
<http://rt.com/news/uk-resolution-syria-security-council-099/> blaming 
al-Assad for the attack and sanctioning violence as a response, 
declaring their intention to strike even without a UN mandate 
<http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/> (i.e. in 
violation of international law), regardless of the ongoing UN 
investigation, and in defiance of warnings by the UN special envoy 
Lakhdar Brahimi 
<http://news.yahoo.com/military-intervention-syria-u-n-approval-brahimi-102647443.html> (fortunately, 
the British Labour Party has interfered with this plan 
<http://news.sky.com/story/1134206/syria-vote-will-not-approve-uk-military-action>, 
at least temporarily).

What's the rush? As they say, timing is everything.

The Obama Administration's previous decision to arm the rebels came just 
after the fall of the pivotal city of al-Qusayr, as the Syrian Army was 
preparing for a major campaign to purge Aleppo of rebel forces. At the 
time, Saudi Arabia and France argued vehemently 
<http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/06/11/Saudi-Arabia-France-agree-Qusayr-scenario-can-t-be-repeated-in-Aleppo.html> that 
some kind of immediate intervention was needed to interrupt these 
efforts, which were otherwise likely to be successful---and devastating 
for the rebellion. This new chemical weapons incident just happened to 
occur at a moment when the regime is on the verge of a general /de 
facto/ victory over the insurgency 
<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139838/andrew-j-tabler/the-day-after-assad-wins> while 
the world's attention was focused primarily on the unfolding crisis in 
Egypt 
<http://www.sismec.org/2013/08/21/shallow-democracy-v-deep-state-an-archaeology-of-the-crisis-in-egypt/>.

It is disquieting that these chemical weapons incidents happen to occur 
at times when the rebels are in their most desperate need of foreign 
intervention, which also happen to be the times when it would make the 
/least/ sense for the regime to resort to these tactics. Apparently, 
this trend does not worry the Obama Administration, who claims there can 
be "no doubt 
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-civil-war/>" that 
al-Assad carried out the attack. And even though by its own account of 
the events, the Syrian Ministry of Information was outraged 
<http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas> 
by strike, which the state did not authorize, the Administration has 
been labeling the incident as a /provocation/ which demands "punishment."

All of this suggests rather strongly that policy is informing the 
Administration's evaluation of intelligence, rather than having the 
intelligence guide its policies. We saw the same trends in the lead-up 
to the war in Iraq, with the White House calling the intelligence on 
Hussein's WMD's a "slam dunk 
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/>."

Then, as now, the truth or falsity of these claims is irrelevant.

Even if no chemical weapons had been deployed in the Syrian theater by 
/anyone/, given the dynamics of the conflict 
<http://musaalgharbi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/a-reply-to-george-abu-ahmad.html>, 
the Administration would be using some other means of justifying 
intervention. Much like R2P, the "War on Terror," or spreading 
"democracy/ human rights," WMD claims are used almost exclusively to 
justify interventions against "inconvenient" actors. Western powers are 
more than happy to cooperate with agents carrying out the very 
atrocities they are condemning 
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=full> when 
geopolitically expedient (consider for a moment that /Saudi Arabia /is 
one of the primary allies "bringing democracy" to Syria); when there is 
little to gain from an intervention, they are eager to turn a blind eye 
to astonishing human suffering. The ideologies are used to 
/justify/ rather than /determine /policy.

The arguments derived from these tropes are typically heavily-reliant on 
sketchy and politicized intelligence, exaggerated claims, empty 
rhetoric, and at times, outright lies. Syria is a prime example of these 
trends: the popular discourse of the conflict 
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mepo.12003/full> is the 
virtual antithesis of what seems to be happening on the ground.

But even in those cases where the accusations are more-or-less true, one 
cannot lose sight of the fact these intercessors are not acting out of 
altruism, but are exploiting others' tragedy and horror in the service 
of their own geopolitical ends. Often more lives are lost 
<http://musaalgharbi.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/barack-hussein-obama-moderate-neo.html>under 
R2P than stood to be lost without intervention, greater oppression 
follows Western "liberation," greater atrocities unfold as a result of 
Western "punishment" for "crimes against humanity," more extremists are 
created 
<http://musaalgharbi.blogspot.com.es/2013/07/al-qaedas-renaissance-arab-spring-and.html> 
as a result of the "War on Terror." But it is irrelevant whether or not 
the espoused "moral" end is achieved, as long as the geopolitical aim is 
successful.

As the Obama Administration has made abundantly clear 
<http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-war-talk-intensifies-west-says-goal-not-deposing-assad/>, 
the impending Western strikes in Syria will not be aimed at deposing 
al-Assad. The goal is not to resolve, but to perpetuate the conflict. It 
is unacceptable to Western policymakers that al-Assad emerge victorious 
in the conflict, as he stands poised to do in the near-to-medium term. 
However, a rebel victory 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/world/middleeast/general-says-syrian-rebels-arent-ready-to-take-power.html> 
is not a plausible option at the moment either---even if the US agreed 
to a Libya-style intervention (insofar as "victory" is understood as 
liberal or West-compliant factions of the rebels being able to 
effectively seize, wield, and maintain power and legitimacy in the 
aftermath of al-Assad being deposed). So because the "right" people are 
not able to win, the goal is to prevent /anyone /from prevailing 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html>.

The strategy will allow Hezbollah, the Syrian Army, and al-Qaeda to tear 
one-another down, too consumed by the conflict with one-another to pose 
a meaningful threat to the West, its allies, or its interests. 
Simultaneously, the "allied" forces will attempt to build up the 
capacity of the "good guys" until they are capable of rendering a more 
acceptable military solution viable. Finally, laboring under the 
delusion that "equalizing force" will somehow bolster rather than 
prevent a negotiated settlement 
<http://syriareport.net/game-theory-v-syrias-reality/>, they will also 
continue their inconsistent and half-hearted pursuit of a diplomatic 
resolution---even as they continue to undermine these efforts 
<http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/opinion/musa-algharbi-breaking-the-literal-and-rhetorical-stalemates-in-syria_14383> 
by insisting that the President step down as a precondition to 
talks.  One way or another, the war will not be permitted to end unless 
and until the US achieves its goal.

Of course, this strategy is incalculably devastating to the people of 
Lebanon, Syria and the greater region---but that is of little 
concern.  Just as geopolitical interests trump "intelligence," they 
trump morality as well.

/*Musa al-Gharbi* is a research fellow with the Southwest Initiative for 
the Study of Middle East Conflicts (//SISMEC/ 
<http://www.sismec.org/about>/); he has a MA in philosophy from the 
University of Arizona. You can follow him on Twitter @Musa_alGharbi./

-- 
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20130829/972c2b72/attachment.htm>