Photo of Syrian refugees coming ashore on the Greek island of Lesbos that accompanied the Guardian‘s editorial (9/3/15) condemning “the refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad.” (photo: Angelos Tzortzinis/Getty)
It didn’t take long for the universal and entirely justified outrage over a picture of a dead three-year-old to be funneled by the “do something” pundits to justify regime change in Syria. The “do something” crowd wants us to “do something” about the refugee crisis and “solve” the “bigger problem,” which, of course, involves regime change. To create the moral urgency and to tether the refugee crisis to their long-standing warmongering, these actors have to insist the US has “done nothing” about Syria. Here’s the Guardian editorial from Thursday:
The optimism of the Arab spring is spent. Colonel Gaddafi was a tyrant, yet Libya has unravelled violently in the aftermath of his removal. The refusal to intervene against Bashar al-Assad gave the Syrian president permission to continue murdering his people.
Here’s London Mayor Boris Johnson in the Telegraph:
I perfectly accept that intervention has not often worked. It has been a disaster in Iraq; it has been a disaster in Libya. But can you honestly say that non-intervention in Syria has been a success? If we keep doing nothing about the nightmare in Syria, then frankly we must brace ourselves for an eternity of refugees, more people suffocating in airless cattle trucks at European motorway service stations, more people trying to climb the barbed wire that we are building around the European Union.
And here’s an op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post from the same day:
At many points during the past four years, even relatively small actions might have reduced the pace of civilian casualties in Syria. How hard would it have been to destroy the helicopters dropping barrel bombs on neighborhoods? A number of options well short of major intervention might have reduced the regime’s destructive power and/or strengthened the capabilities of more responsible forces. All were untaken.
But this is all a fantasy. The US has been “intervening” in the Syrian civil war, in measurable and significant ways, since at least 2012—most notably by arming, funding and training anti-Assad forces. According to a report in the Washington Post from June:
At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents the Washington Post obtained from former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
US officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.
In addition to this, the Obama administration has engaged in crippling sanctions against the Assad government, provided air support for those looking to depose him, incidentally funneled arms to ISIS, and not incidentally aligned the CIA-backed Free Syrian Army with Al Qaeda. Regardless of one’s position on Syria—or whether they think the US is somehow secretly in alliance with Assad, as some advance—one thing cannot be said: that the US has “done nothing in Syria.” This is historically false.
Most of those advocating for the removal of Assad probably know this, but can’t say “the US should do more,” or “they haven’t done enough,” because this would raise the uncomfortable question of what they have done already. And the answer to that, as is with most US meddling in other countries, is a lot of covert programs US officials—and thus their court press—can’t openly acknowledge. So those in the establishment media are left to do a strange dance: at once ignoring all the US has already done while insisting the US should join a fight it’s been a party to for over three years.
Another idea being advanced, for instance in the Guardian op-ed above, is the creation of a no-fly zone to help stem the tide of refugees:
To begin restoring that hope will inevitably mean international intervention of some kind. The establishment of credible safe havens and the implementation of a no-fly zone must be on the table for serious consideration.
Two things before discussing this further:
A) A no-fly zone would only be applied to Assad because anti-Assad forces don’t have an air force.
B) While it may sound like a simple humanitarian stop gap—and that’s no doubt how it’s being sold—literally every no-fly zone in history has eventually led to regime change. Which is fair enough, but those pushing for one should at least be honest about what this means: the active removal of Assad by foreign forces. Indeed, if one recalls the NATO intervention in Libya was originally sold as a no-fly zone to prevent a potential genocide, but within a matter of weeks, NATO leaders had pivoted to full-on regime change.
But here again, there’s some serious fudging going on by the Guardian. While there’s no doubt many of the refugees are escaping Assad’s bombing of cities, the boy in question, Aylan Kurdi, wasn’t: He was escaping ISIS and the US bombing of his hometown of Kobani, far from anything the Assad government is doing. A no-fly zone would not have saved his hometown. An absence of fueling jihadists by the United States and the subsequent bombing of said jihadists by the United States? Perhaps.
Once again, the disease becomes the cure, because a holistic diagnosis is not being advanced by Western media—only an evil dictator vs. freedom fighter cartoon. And why wouldn’t it? These nuances complicate the messy narrative of “If we get rid of Assad we can solve the crisis,” which has been US and UK orthodoxy since 2011. But the Guardian still has all their work ahead of them: If the West removes Assad, then what? Will the tens of thousands of radical, medieval wahabbists that have flooded in simply go away? Will the US bombing of ISIS simply stop?
The US funded, armed and fueled the very crisis its partisan media are now calling for it to swoop and in save. The moral ADD required by those pushing further US involvement in the Syrian civil war in the face of this fact is severe. That some in the media, eager to settle old scores, would so blatantly ignore history to indulge this fantasy is as pernicious as it is predictable.
The fact is the Obama Administration HAS “done something” in Syria…the only problem is the group the U.S. trained was easily defeated. So much for doing something…
“A number of options well short of major intervention might have reduced the regime’s destructive power and/or strengthened the capabilities of more responsible forces.”
We shouldn’t doubt this for a second. Unfortunately, the US followed the only course which could increase the suffering of the people of Syria – flood their country with small arms, and train up the most brutal, dangerous elements to use them.
The idea that the US wants peace in Syria is laughable when one compares to that fact all the actions undertaken by the USA. Where were/are the peace conferences? Where were/are the negotiations? Where were/are the attempts to make sure neither side could get more weapons? Where were/are the attempts to make sure that the USAs most ideologically fanatical allies stayed out of the conflict?
The fact is the US wants this war, and the death and suffering there won’t stop until the USA gets its way.
What crap. Just like when the Baathists attacked East Ghouta with sarin gas, FAIR dared to suggest that it could be a false flag operation. You people reek. I wish I could get back all the money I contributed in the 1980s.
TRUTH! Speak it. Sad as it is…
As just one example of were this piece fails to be far and accurate, it says Obama “provided air support for those looking to depose him [Assad]” and it links to a piece about Obama pledging air support for the US trained Division 30, but those US trained Syrian rebels are only to fight ISIS. In fact, they had to sign pledges not to use their weapons or training to fight Assad. So this story is factually wrong.
The Libyan people were fighting for “regime change” while NATO was sitting on its hands watching Libyans get slaughtered. They only got involved because they needed Libyan oil and they could see Qaddafi wasn’t going to settle things anytime soon. No it was humanitarian interests but so what? The no-fly zone kept Benghazi from looking like Aleppo and kept the death toll for the Libyan conflict down to less then 10% of what it is already in Syria.
Jacobin used the same Washington Post quote to justify saying the US has sent 10,000 figher into Syria, so I’ll just repeat what I said about that:
http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2015/08/jacobins-war-on-syria.html
“In other words” the basis of their claim that “the United States launched a full-scale war against Syria” is that the CIA has “trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years.” This claim appears to be based entirely on anonymous US intelligence officers. Obviously Jacobin believes them. The question is: Should we? After all, such people have been known to lie, especially to tell people what they want them to believe and they want everyone to believe they are working real hard to help the people defeat Assad, remember that is their official line, so they have every reason to exaggerate what they have done.
So we don’t know anything about these 10,000 but we know quite a bit about the last 54. They were 90 in May when US defence secretary Aston Carter announced that they were being trained at “a secure location.” The rebel group they were to join or become is known as Division 30. Its commander is Col. Nadim Hassan, and its press spokesman is Capt. Ammar al Wawi. According to McClatchy “al Nusra snatched many of the 54 graduates of the $500 million program on July 29,” as they were first entering Syria to fight ISIS. They have been like the “F Troop” of the Syrian conflict. They had to pledge not to use their weapons or training to fight Assad before they could join the unit. This is the main reason recruitment went so poorly.
If Jacobin has any further information that would make their 10,000 more believable, like what units they are in or what name they are fighting under, what battles they made a difference in, how they are paid and supplied, how the US exercises command and control, etc. all the minutia of actually fighting a war, they aren’t saying. But now we are in a position to do a little creative math of our own. If the US spent $500 million on 54 rebels or $9.26 million per soldier, the cost to “train and equip” Jacobin’s imaginary “10,000 fighters” would be a whopping $92 billion not $1 billion as Jacobin claims. However did they hide that in the budget?
Now imagine for a minute that you are a student, and you are looking for a school, maybe a trade school, college, it doesn’t matter. This man tells you that he has “over 10,000 successful graduates” but when you examine the public record, the only thing you find documented is a single class of 90 that produced 54 graduates and half of those failed their first real world test. Do you write him a check for tuition? If you do, I have a theme park in Anaheim I can get you a real bargain on and a “Left” publication you should write for.
It is simple opportunism that allows these “Leftists” to believe Obama’s claim that he is for regime change and CIA claims that they have already dispatched 10,000 to do the job without demanding anything like a shred of evidence.
And you oppose a no-fly zone because it would only apply to Assad, and if his strategic advantage of being able to wantonly slaughter civilians anywhere is Syria is taken away, he won’t be able to maintain his grip on power. You people disgust me!
You are also wrong to claim that little boy was fleeing “far from anything the Assad government is doing. A no-fly zone would not have saved his hometown.” Here is some more background:
Abdullah Kurdi, the father, was detained for 5 months in Air Force Intelligence in Damascus. While in detention, he was tortured and his teeth were pulled out. He had to sell his shop in Damascus in order to bribe the officers to let him out. This cost him 5,000,000 Syrian Liras (around $25,000)
After he bribed his way out of jail, Abdullah fled to Aleppo with his wife and sons, Alyan and Ghalib. The situation in Aleppo became dangerous due to the constant bombardment, so he fled again to Kobani, his hometown.
When ISIS attacked Kobani last year, the family could no longer live in their hometown, so they fled to Turkey. Once in Turkey, the Turkish government did not provide them with assistance, so they paid almost $6,000 to secure 4 spots on a rubber dingy to the Greek island of Kos.
While on the boat, rough waters caused the boat to flip. The lifejackets they were given were fake. His sons and wife all drowned in front of his eyes, in his arms.
Their problems started with Assad [who also helped form ISIS] do you see now why I find your defense of Assad so disgusting?
Its always interesting to see how “anti-imperialists” prove their imaginary Obama war against the Assad regime, for example, your statement “fueling jihadists by the United States” links to a Business Insider article for proof, and that links to a NYTimes article that was discredited long ago, as I did here: http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2014/05/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-away.html
You should update this article. Kurdi’s hometown wasn’t Kobani, it was Damascus. He fled from Damascus to Allepo in 2012 and was displaced from there to Kobani. So the Syrian regime did affect his displacement
http://www.afp.com/en/news/family-drowned-toddler-repeatedly-displaced-syria
@j
You’re correct that he fled Damascus but their hometown was Kobani according to FT.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/da385366-52fe-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3kxG4DFy
Some people seem to think I’m suggesting Assad is not also, if not largely, responsible for the crisis. This fact seemed so obvious to me I don’t feel it needed repetition my pointing it out once. Of course he is, the scope of the peice is to show that the US and UK also bear responsibility for fueling the conflict in such a wanton way. A fact that would be less bothersome if the western press wouldn’t continuely obfuscate it.
Its not that you don’t say the obvious, that Assad is a mass murderer. It that you think this mass murderer should continue to run Syria, you don’t acknowledge that millions of Syrians demand “regime change.” Ask the refugees how they feel about Assad – very different from your affection for him.
Plus you spead stories about US support for the Syrian revolution that are both Baathist propaganda and NATO propaganda at once, so I challange you here and now to comeup with anything like a shred of evidence for your 10,000 US trained fighters.
We’re always promised deliverence from evil
But these “saviors” only assure a further descent into hell
Parts of this article could have been written a little better so as to be clearer. But the point is made and a good one for us to keep in mind.
That Kobani is being attacked by ISIS, and therefore the US, has not been prominently stated in any of the accounts of the Aylan Kurdi tragedy I’ve read. The world needs to have it’s attention drawn to that.
There have been quite a few good reviews of the Aylan Kurdi tragedy here in Canada, with quite a few details highlighted. There’s Karl Nerenberg’s Rabble piece. There’s Jeremy Nuttall’s piece in The Tyee. And there’s Roger Annis’s piece in The New Cold War: Ukraine And Beyond. It’s titled “Canadian government’s web of lies over Syrian refugee tragedy.”
It’s up to people to pay attention. And they too often don’t. I was stunned when no one during our first English language leaders’ debate (our national election campaign) corrected Stephen Harper when he bragged about helping Kurds to fight ISIS when in fact NATO member Turkey is bombing them. I came across a video in which the frightening Donald Trump, in a radio interview in which he stated that he’d to the military real good (a la George W), answered a question about Quds, the Egyptian military, with ‘I support the Kurds!’ (I might not have known that Quds was the Egyptin military, but the rest…). Again, Trump supports the Kurds, which NATO member Turkey is bombing! Huh?! (NATO means the US by the way, for those who don’t know that. – http://bit.ly/1PRviSo)
That has always been the nature of the beast.
Reminder to the fools blabing nonsense
Assad received over 92% approval in the Last election.
FACT IS THE. AMERICANS WANT ARABS DISAMENTED SO THAT ISRAEL IS TOP DOG IN MIDDLE EAST
Wake up fools:-)
Hey George,
Assad got over 97% in 2 elections before that. Do you think he is really that popular in spite of running a dictatorship? Do you really think those have been fair elections that you can wave around like Assad to show how popular he is?
Hey ‘Clay Claiborne’ — so… how’s that trolling for ISIS (or is it Al Queda?) going for you? I hope they’re paying you well. But can’t you think of a better phony name? (Alliteration is SO ‘yesterday’…)
For all those countering with “But Assad is A BAD MAN!”:
Stop with the underpants gnome shtick.
Is Assad worse than Saddam? How about Gaddafi?
The facts are: Our “humanitarian” regime change operations have resulted in far worse outcomes for the Iraqis and Libyans than anything those two ever did.
How many times do you have to see this happen before you admit it’s a feature and not a bug?
~
Il be completely true with you, and i have followed this thrue out.
Fooled sveral times, yup, and somehow, all what I intitally belived is been utterly crushed.
Your coments base their perseption of the events true the lense of the MSM unconditionaly or not, it sips thrue.
I hear it every f…. day.
The lies, and forgerys of whatever “prof” there was, storys, images, is beasicly flatout propaganda and therby lies, an mass, Gaddafys Libya was an solid state, funcitonal and peacefull.
Beutifull people.
How could this change so fast, because the facts are right infront of you, its all staged.
The Arab spring is one massive coverup.
Cups arent even talke about like Mali, by the preacfull and democratic France.
huh
Your ignorance is massive.
Period.
Everything is a lie.
Yemens is the lates bigg lie, the Hutis have all the legitimasy for their absolutt rightfull and just fight for their own land and people.
There is nothing else to say about that.
Then why does the EU/UssA/Saudis/Israel bomb Yemen.
Alqueda is the Hutis main enemy, and then why isnt WE helping Yemenits, and country far more ancient than moust of you are aware of.
Yemen is the ancient bibblical homeland, not the Levante.
its an shame to vitness this treason comitted in broad daylight, its a m…f…. shame.
peace
This is a total joke, being orchestrated by the “intelligence” community.
During the Vietnam conflict, my team and I were consistently inflicted with CIA “advisors”. Our missions were to protect CIA drug routes through the “Golden Triangle”.
Fortunately, we managed to loose over a dozen CIA agents in the jungle who never found their way back to base :(
Anyone of you that thinks that the government or military (under BOTH parties) is your friend and looks after your interests, You need to stop drinking the government Kool Aid.
It doesn;’t matter which party you support, they ARE out to get you.