Standing with Syria
By
Margaret Kimberley
“There is only one question now:
when will America tell its minions
to stop fighting?”
September 16, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "BAR"
- American and NATO aggressions must
be opposed wherever they surface in the
world. That statement ought to be the
starting point for anyone calling themselves
left, progressive, or anti-war. Of course
the aggressors always use a ruse to diminish
resistance to their wars of terror. In Syria
and elsewhere they claim to support freedom
fighters, the moderate opposition and any
other designation that helps hide
imperialist intervention. They label their
target as a tyrant, a butcher, or a modern
day Hitler who commits unspeakable acts
against his own populace. The need to
silence opposition is obvious and creating
the image of a monster is the most reliable
means of securing that result.
The
anti-war movement thus finds itself confused
and rendered immobile by this predictable
propaganda. It is all too easily manipulated
into being at best ineffectual and at worst
supporters of American state sponsored
terror.
For
five years the United States, NATO, Saudi
Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey have given
arms and money to terrorist groups in an
effort to topple Syrian president Bashar
al-Assad. Some of those bad actors felt
flush with success after overthrowing and
killing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. They had
high hopes of picking off another secular
Arab government. Fortunately, Assad was hard
to defeat and the barbarians cannot storm
the gates. Most importantly, Russia stopped
giving lip service to Assad and finally
provided military support to the Syrian
government in 2015.
“American presidents, beginning with Jimmy
Carter, have all used jihadists at opportune
moments when they want regime change.”
The
United States government is responsible for
the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria.
The so-called barrel bomb doesn’t kill more
people than conventional weapons provided by
the United States and its puppets. There
would not be bombs of any kind, sieges,
starving children, or refugees if the Obama
administration had not given the green light
to the rogues gallery.
Whatever their political beliefs or feelings
about Assad, Syrians did not ask the United
States to turn their country into a ruin.
They don’t want ISIS to behead children, as
they infamously did on camera. American
presidents, beginning with Jimmy Carter,
have all used jihadists at opportune moments
when they want regime change. The name of
the country under attack changes but the
story ends with massive human suffering.
Instead of siding unequivocally with
America’s victims some in the anti-war
movement instead live in greater fear of
being labeled “pro Assad.” Assad didn’t
invade Iraq and kill one million people.
George W. Bush did that. Assad did not give
support to jihadists to destroy Libya, kill
50,000 people, ignite a race war and create
another refugee crisis. Barack Obama did
that. The list of human rights abuses
carried out by the American government is a
long one indeed. There is torture in the
United States prison system, the largest in
the world. American police are given tacit
permission to kill three people every day.
Yet the fear of being thought of as an Assad
supporter is so powerful that it silences
people and organizations who should be in
the forefront of confronting their country
domestically and internationally.
Of
course American propaganda is ratcheted up
at the very moment that sides must be
chosen. Any discussion or debate regarding
Syria’s political system was rendered moot
as soon as the United States targeted that
country for destruction. There is only one
question now: when will America tell its
minions to stop fighting?
“The
fear of being thought of as an Assad
supporter is so powerful that it silences
people and organizations who should be in
the forefront of confronting their country
domestically and internationally.”
Obama didn’t start a proxy war with an
expectation of losing, and Hillary Clinton
makes clear her allegiance to regime change.
The United States will only leave if Syria
and its allies gain enough ground to force a
retreat. They will call defeat something
else at a negotiating table but Assad must
win in order for justice and reconciliation
to begin.
Focusing on Assad’s government and treatment
of his people may seem like a reasonable
thing to do. Most people who call themselves
anti-war are serious in their concern for
humanity. But the most basic human right,
the right to survive, was taken from 400,000
people because the American president
decided to add one more notch on his gun.
Whether intended or not, criticism of the
victimized government makes the case for
further aggression.
The
al-Nusra Front may change its name in a
public relations effort, but it is still al
Qaeda and still an ally of the United
States. The unpredictable Donald Trump may
not be able to explain that he spoke the
truth when he accused Obama and Clinton of
being ISIS supporters, but the anti-war
movement should be able to explain without
any problem. Cessations of hostilities are a
sham meant to protect American assets
whenever Assad is winning. If concern for
the wellbeing of Syrians is a paramount
concern, then the American anti-war movement
must be united in condemning their own
government without reservation or
hesitation.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom
Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is
widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a
frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms.
Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be
reached via e-Mail at
Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.
|