Tweet
STUPIDITY, SILLINESS, & SERIOUSNESS IN SYRIA
http://asbarez.com/113843/stupidity-silliness-seriousness-in-syria/
Friday, September 13th, 2013
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
What a complex mess confronts the world in Syria! And, the worst of
it is, it didn't have to be this way. It is a result of the U.S. and
Turkey, and their twisted, hegemonic or expansionist, respectively,
logic. Had they not started encouraging and arming the Syrian regime's
more extreme opponents, a civil war would not have claimed over 100,000
lives. Who knows, some accommodation might have been achieved that
would have loosened Syria's dictatorship another notch or two.
But now, we have Obama, not noted for keeping his word (think Genocide
recognition) putting himself in a position where he feels compelled
to... keep his word. I refer to his "red line" comments regarding the
use of chemical weapons. Now, if he doesn't act, his and the U.S.'s
credibility will be seriously damaged.
But, it's not even 100% clear the Syrian government launched the
chemical weapons that have triggered the latest phase of this mess.
There are reports that Saudi Arabia has
funneled chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels
(http://original.antiwar.com/dale-gavlak/2013/08/30/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/).
The Syrian regime may be calculating, cold, and cruel, but not crazy.
Why would it intentionally engage in a provocative act that would
trigger action by the big guys on the world scene? Conversely, the
rebels have every reason to use chemical weapons in a way that makes
it look like the regime launched them, so the international community
would provide more support to their side.
Then we have the hypocrisy of U.S. policy. When Iraq, then on the U.S.
"acceptable" list, gassed the Kurds... crickets. But now, using
chemical weapons constitutes an affront to humanity. What about the
cluster munitions, depleted uranium bullets, and drone strikes used
by the U.S.? Are these not similar affronts?
What's really discomfiting, undoubtedly, to many in the White House
and State Department is that the Russians, and specifically Putin
in his op-ed piece in The New York Times, are the ones who seem to
be seizing the rational (if not moral) high ground. His argument is
basically one that endorses the lesser of two evils. Bashar Assad is
no angel, but the alternative is far worse.
Our community in Syria, along with Christian and other minorities,
know who's best for them in power. They have seen, all too clearly,
what happened in Iraq after American intervention when the lunacy and
bloodlust of religious fanatics was left unchecked by the firm hand
of a regime that at least prevented what might be called "sectarian
hate crimes" in American jargon.
Another aspect of Putin's argument is that Syria, like Afghanistan,
Iraq, and even Pakistan, is serving as a training ground for fighters
who will then spread out all over the world (think Chechnia, Xinjiang
[China], and World Trade Center). If the current regime falls, this
will become even more pronounced. It's in everyone's interest that the
nut-jobs running from country to country in the name of religion (in
this case fanatical Sunni Islam) be stopped dead in their tracks. Do
you remember when the target of these same crazies was Artzakh as
they fought against us beside Azerbaijan's pathetic troops?
Initially, I had trouble concluding which side of this conflict I
was least uncomfortable with. The choices were all bad. But now, in
every scenario, it is extremely clear to me that the side which is
best -from a human, American, or Armenian perspective- is the current
Syrian regime of Bashar Assad.
http://asbarez.com/113843/stupidity-silliness-seriousness-in-syria/
Friday, September 13th, 2013
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
What a complex mess confronts the world in Syria! And, the worst of
it is, it didn't have to be this way. It is a result of the U.S. and
Turkey, and their twisted, hegemonic or expansionist, respectively,
logic. Had they not started encouraging and arming the Syrian regime's
more extreme opponents, a civil war would not have claimed over 100,000
lives. Who knows, some accommodation might have been achieved that
would have loosened Syria's dictatorship another notch or two.
But now, we have Obama, not noted for keeping his word (think Genocide
recognition) putting himself in a position where he feels compelled
to... keep his word. I refer to his "red line" comments regarding the
use of chemical weapons. Now, if he doesn't act, his and the U.S.'s
credibility will be seriously damaged.
But, it's not even 100% clear the Syrian government launched the
chemical weapons that have triggered the latest phase of this mess.
There are reports that Saudi Arabia has
funneled chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels
(http://original.antiwar.com/dale-gavlak/2013/08/30/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/).
The Syrian regime may be calculating, cold, and cruel, but not crazy.
Why would it intentionally engage in a provocative act that would
trigger action by the big guys on the world scene? Conversely, the
rebels have every reason to use chemical weapons in a way that makes
it look like the regime launched them, so the international community
would provide more support to their side.
Then we have the hypocrisy of U.S. policy. When Iraq, then on the U.S.
"acceptable" list, gassed the Kurds... crickets. But now, using
chemical weapons constitutes an affront to humanity. What about the
cluster munitions, depleted uranium bullets, and drone strikes used
by the U.S.? Are these not similar affronts?
What's really discomfiting, undoubtedly, to many in the White House
and State Department is that the Russians, and specifically Putin
in his op-ed piece in The New York Times, are the ones who seem to
be seizing the rational (if not moral) high ground. His argument is
basically one that endorses the lesser of two evils. Bashar Assad is
no angel, but the alternative is far worse.
Our community in Syria, along with Christian and other minorities,
know who's best for them in power. They have seen, all too clearly,
what happened in Iraq after American intervention when the lunacy and
bloodlust of religious fanatics was left unchecked by the firm hand
of a regime that at least prevented what might be called "sectarian
hate crimes" in American jargon.
Another aspect of Putin's argument is that Syria, like Afghanistan,
Iraq, and even Pakistan, is serving as a training ground for fighters
who will then spread out all over the world (think Chechnia, Xinjiang
[China], and World Trade Center). If the current regime falls, this
will become even more pronounced. It's in everyone's interest that the
nut-jobs running from country to country in the name of religion (in
this case fanatical Sunni Islam) be stopped dead in their tracks. Do
you remember when the target of these same crazies was Artzakh as
they fought against us beside Azerbaijan's pathetic troops?
Initially, I had trouble concluding which side of this conflict I
was least uncomfortable with. The choices were all bad. But now, in
every scenario, it is extremely clear to me that the side which is
best -from a human, American, or Armenian perspective- is the current
Syrian regime of Bashar Assad.