The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Only One View on Syria
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There are a lot of short memories in Washington. The Iraqi National Council, headed by Ahmed Chalabi, was founded to bring about regime change in Iraq. From the start it became a neocon favorite and had instant access to the levers of power in the federal government. It also began stovepiping made-to-order intelligence into the system to make the preposterous claim that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. The information was used, successfully, to make the case for war. Chalabi, it turns out, was also providing intelligence on his US benefactors to the Iranians.

Now we have the Syrian American Council, located on F Street in Washington with a website. It is circulating a letter on Capitol Hill to each congressman blaming all the violence in Syria on Assad, calling for the creation of “safe zones,” and advocating doing whatever is needed to bring about regime change. Like the INC’s questionable propaganda, it is representing the conflict in Manichean terms intended to shape the US public perception so as to see Assad as a threat. It is claiming that Assad is supporting international terrorism, is an ally of America’s enemy Iran, and is in danger of undermining the “pluralistic and democratic elements of the revolution” if the fighting is prolonged, opening the door to “extremists.” On its website SAC supports military intervention in Syria with or without a UN resolution.

As it seems that the extremists are in fact already on the side of the so-called revolution, one might well ask who is funding the SAC, where does its leadership come from, and what can it actually deliver on? Or are we seeing Chalabi revisited? There is a real danger that the United States, in the name of humanitarian intervention, is again stepping into a situation that is poorly understood and which will lead to chaos. A break-up of Syria into constituent ethnic and religious parts would weaken the country and might please regional hegemon Israel in the short term, but it would not benefit anyone in the long term and would create yet another unsustainable power vacuum.

Today, Hillary Clinton again called on Assad to go, saying “We can’t break with the Syrian people, who want real change.” Well, that all depends on whom one talks to. The regime appears to retain considerable support, particularly among minority religious communities like the Alawites and Christians. It is secular for all its faults and would likely be replaced by something with less authority and a much stronger religious identification as has occurred in Iraq (and also Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia).

One can challenge the moral authority of Hillary Clinton and the administration that she represents to make demands on any other country under any circumstances, but a more fundamental question is, “Where is the American interest in this?” As far as I can tell the only real interest would be to hold Syria together as a unified state rather than allow it to slip into civil war, but Clinton’s frequent exhortations for Assad to go will quite likely encourage the centrifugal forces that will tear the country apart. One only has to look at the example of Libya, where reports that Gaddafi was murdering his own people proved to be unfounded but were nevertheless used as a pretext for military intervention. Today, Libya is riven by political and tribal divisions but the White House considers the result something to be proud of. Libya demonstrates that one does not have to go back to the example of Iraq to understand that meddling overseas is a fool’s game.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Syria 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Andy says:

    Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad are I believe evil and corrupt dictators, but neither seemed/seem to me to be a serious threat to The US or their allies.After the experience is Iraq and Afghanistan we don’t seem capable of effecting positive regime changes even if one could make a case that it’s in US interests. Israel for certain seems better off with Assad then the likely Islamist alternative. Saddam was a minor problem to them, as oppossed to Iran which is likely a real potential danger. The Saudis and other gulf States likewise did not want a too powerful Saddam, but a nuclear Shiite Iran is of far greater concern. In Syria does it matter to them who is in control? Given all of the above who other than some vague military industrial establishment stands to gain from another intervention?

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “One can challenge the moral authority of Hillary Clinton”

    That’s putting it mildly. Our worst Secretary of State, bar none. I can’t think of a single success. No gravitas, empty bluster, the contempt of allies and enemies alike, even the applause of her claque sounds hollower these days. They were already headed south under GWB, but under Hillary and her boss our reputation, policy execution and moral authority have tanked.

  3. dangood says:

    There is nothing in Bashir Assad of the “hated dictator”. Mubarak was hated because he was a puppet of the west. Saddam had many enemies and was ruthless. But from all appearances is dignfied and doing his best. There are few defections and much open support for Assad, who walks freely among his people, in his parlaiment and in the streets. He just does not fit the bill of the hated and feared dictator. The Syrian Army is taking many losses and trying to cooperate and somehow get blamed for everything that goes wrong. The attrocities are all on their side. The diverse secret western backed groups are in London and Washington, reminiscent of Ahmed Chalabi. They have no credibiilty. Russia and China happen to be correct on this one and the Europeans are looking like real cowards by stabbing Assad in the back to please the US. It makes no sense.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No US dog in that fight. Let the locals take care of it (Turkey, Arab League, Iran). The only thing Obama and Clinton will do is screw it up even more than it already is.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.