New documents have leaked on the organization of
British propaganda against Syria. They provide
insight into how bona fide journalists could have
been permanently intoxicated by the myth of the
"Syrian revolution" and why the UK withdrew from
Syria despite the success of this operation.
Democracy presupposes the
ability to hold honest public debates. Therefore,
propaganda would be the prerogative of
non-democratic regimes. Yet history teaches us that
modern propaganda was conceived in the United
Kingdom and the United States during the First World
War, and that the USSR and Nazi Germany were pale
copycats.
During the war against Syria, we have often
explained that the reality on the ground did not
correspond in any way to the image that Westerners
had of it. We denounced the fabrication of evidence
by the US, British, French and Turkish secret
services to conceal Western aggression and to incite
a revolution against a dictatorship.
While the United Kingdom has not been present on
the ground since 2018, journalist Ian Cobain has
just published official British documents in the
Middle East Eye that shed light on how London
massively intoxicated bona fide journalists and then
withdrew (1)
He had already published in the Guardian, in
2016, revelations on the organisation of MI6 in this
matter (2).
Above all, it is important to remember that the
British were not pursuing the same objective at all
as their US ally. London hoped to regain its
influence from the colonial era (as did Paris). The
United Kingdom did not believe that the United
States intended to destroy the state structures of
the broader Middle East as a whole
(Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy). That is why it had
conceived the "Arab Spring" operation on the model
of Lawrence of Arabia’s "Great Arab Revolt" (the
Muslim Brotherhood now playing the role of the
Wahhabi of World War I). Their propaganda was
therefore designed to create New Syria around this
Brotherhood and not to divide it as the CIA wanted
and still wants.
Westerners had already been convinced of
revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It was
therefore easier to sell them a fourth field of
operations.