Deciding whether or not to oppose Syria’s rulers has been the recent dominant preoccupation of many anti-imperialist and left-leaning movements. This hesitant attitude towards the Syrian struggle for freedom is nurtured by many anti-regime actions that were recently taken by many Western and Middle-Eastern countries, whose main interest lies in isolating Syria from Iran. However, I believe a better question to ask with respect to Syria is whether the leftist movement should support, or not support, the struggle of the Syrian people.
What I find lacking in many of the analyses relating to the Syrian crisis, which I find oftentimes biased and politically motivated, is how well the interests of the Syrian people who are living inside are taken into account. Dry and unnecessarily sophisticated in nature, these analyses ignore simple facts about why the Syrian people rebelled against the regime in the first place.
A brief historical context is probably the best way to bring about some insight with respect to the events that are unfolding in front of our eyes today. Before doing so, it is important to highlight that, unlike many other Arab countries, Syria is not a religiously homogenous Middle-Eastern country. I am mentioning this because it is through religion that the majority of Arabs identified themselves for centuries. As it stands today, Syria’s population is composed 74 per cent of Sunnis (including Kurds and others), 12 per cent Alawites (including Arab Shia), 10 per cent Christians (including Armenians) and 3 per cent Druze.
Syria earned its independence from the French rule in 1946. As has always been the case with any occupying and imperial force, France worked diligently to ensure that Syrian minorities were placed in top government and military positions. The Alawites’ share of the pie was the military. By the time France left Syria, Alawites became well entrenched in this crucial government institution.
After two decades of military coups and counter-coups, it was no surprise that Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite and minister of defence at the time, seized power in a bloodless coup in 1970. Within a few years he was relatively able to bring about economic and social stability -- which made him a hero in the eyes of the majority of Syrians, regardless of their religion or ethnicity.
Bolstering power
A cunning politician and an experienced military officer, Assad knew that unless he solidified his rule, the time would soon come when other military officers would mount a coup against him. Over the span of few years, he made sure the top brass of the military and intelligence was filled with fellow Alawite officers who, thanks to France’s pro-minorities policy, were available in abundance.
These Alawite officers were also less likely to mount a coup against a fellow countryman. To deprive the mukhabarat ["intelligence service"] of the opportunity to be able to mount a serious coup against him, Assad created 13 different intelligence agencies – completely independent of each other. Assad also made sure that the most powerful agency was the Air Force Intelligence which he could trust blindly as he himself, a pilot, was a graduate of that particular school (that explains why this particular branch is the most ruthless and the most loyal to the regime).
Over the years the Mukhabarat earned a well-deserved reputation of notoriety within the circles of Syria’s civil life, mainly because on their payroll were hundreds of thousands of informants who regularly filled reports with respect to the slightest activity that in their judgment was deemed a threat to the security of the state. People were arrested and tortured for offenses as simple as seeing and relating a dream in which Syria was portrayed as a kingdom instead of a republic (I heard direct testimony regarding this ‘crime’ from many fellow detainees.) If anything, this almost-surreal example shows that the Syrian regime has never tolerated, and would never tolerate, any form of peaceful dissent.
When I was detained at the Sednaya prison in 2003, a 60-year-old man told me of a conversation that took place between him and a general in the Political Security Directorate. The old man was trying to have a rational dialogue with the general during the interrogation, by advising the him that the regime must treat people like human beings if it wanted to rightly earn the respect of the Syrian people.
The general responded: “We want to rule people by our shoes.” This is a famous Syrian expression akin to: “We want to rule people with an iron fist, humiliating them.” This example sheds some light on the type of mentality that dominates the inner circles of the Assad regime even today. Understanding this point in particular is crucial to understanding the violent response that the regime showed towards the protesters since day one.
Another important factor that explains why the regime reacted violently to peaceful dissent is that pillars of the regime had never imagined that the ‘subjects’ they used to humiliate would one day challenge their authority. Assad’s deniability with respect to this matter was apparent during the interview he afforded to the Wall Street Journal only six weeks before the uprising in Daraa erupted.
Crushing dissent
Those who still buy Assad's anti-imperial rhetoric should know that the old man whose story is mentioned above was imprisoned simply because he and other fellow citizens organised a small rally to denounce the illegal US invasion of Iraq.
In fact, it is not uncommon to find prisoners -– including some of those I met in Sednaya prison -– whose only “crime” was to help Palestinian groups. Also, how could a regime that claims to be anti-Israel not even dare to protect itself against the frequent Israeli air incursions throughout the past decade?
I remember vividly the day I was released, when Israeli warplanes bombarded a site inside Syria under the pretext that it was being used to train Palestinian fighters. Syria’s response on that day was mute – as had always been the case. Finally, it is no secret that Syria, like many other Arab countries, cooperated closely with the U.S. in the so-called “war on terror”. I am only one of few living examples of this covert cooperation.
I hope this brief historical context and the few stories mentioned above contain enough information which can now help us analyse the current situation. Contrary to the conspiracy theory type of analysis, which accuses the U.S. and its allies of starting the unrest in Syria, it is now an established fact that spontaneous and peaceful demonstrations erupted after the government refused to hold to account those who tortured those teenagers who sprayed anti-regime graffiti on school walls.
In fact, the initial demands of the protesters were very simple, and did not contain a single slogan which demanded the downfall of the regime. To add insult to injury, when the families of the teens inquired about the fate of their loved ones they were told that they “should forget about them.” When the families persisted in their demands they were humiliated and were told to “go make other children and if you don’t know how to do it bring us your women and we will show how to do it.” How more humiliating could this be?
As peaceful demonstrations widened, and spread from one city to the next, Assad’s security forces naively thought that by using lethal force to crush these growing protests, the barrier of fear that was starting to collapse would be immediately restored. Contrary to their wishes, however, the more lethal the force they used, the more Syrians became determined to overthrow the regime -- by then most had lost hope that their simple demands were going to be met.
When it became clear that there was no genuine commitment that security forces and affiliated Shabiha gangs were going to refrain from using force to crush the demonstrations, people felt the need to defend themselves against the excessive aggression and atrocities committed by state agents – some of whom had reportedly gone totally rogue.
Emergence of the opposition
It is amid this atmosphere that political and armed opposition groups started to galvanize, resulting in the emergence of opposition coalitions -- the largest of which was the Syrian National Council (SNC), mainly comprised of Syrians living abroad. The composition of the SNC came back to haunt it later, as dissidents living inside Syria accused the SNC of being detached from the true demands of the people on the ground.
For instance, the main point of contention between a newly spun group led by longtime dissident Haitham al-Maleh and the SNC was the issue of how best to respond to the regime’s growing brutality. Al-Maleh believed that the priority was to arm what is called the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a group that was mostly formed, reportedly, from army defectors. It seems that al-Maleh was responding to the popular will of the people inside Syria who had lost hope in peaceful means to bring down the regime. It also seems that revolutionaries inside Syria had also lost hope that sanctions, which the SNC heavily lobbied Western countries for, would have any meaningful effect on the regime. People also came to realise that outside military intervention would never happen.
It is worth highlighting that, despite its name, the FSA is composed of hundreds of independent groups. Their emergence is a miracle, considering that the regime has become known for taking revenge upon the families of defectors. It is also worth mentioning that Syrian conscripts are usually assigned to detachments that are hundreds of miles away from their home town (another regime tactic which makes it more likely that soldiers will obey orders to kill.)
The FSA's disorganised nature, in the sense that it does not have a single command structure, is -- in my opinion -- a strength and not a weakness, at least given the circumstances with respect to the excessive brutality of the regime, and the fact that the regime has a huge network of informants. Because of a lack of any other viable alternative, many Syrians see the “FSA” as their last hope.
Exaggeration of 'outside influence'
Now to claim that there is no outside, foreign interference in Syria’s internal affairs is to deny the obvious. But in my opinion this “interference” has been exaggerated (the analyses I’ve read with respect to this issue are based on speculations that are not supported by facts on the ground). Yes, there are countries who have always had a strong desire to see the Syrian-Iranian marriage fall apart. But to what extent these countries are influencing events on the ground is far from certain. For instance, the efforts reportedly led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to equip the rebels with heavy arms have not yet borne fruits, and it seems the FSA is mostly using light to medium weapons.
Most of these weapons have either been bought from corrupt army officers, or have been acquired by raiding weapons caches. Qatar and Saudi Arabia reportedly would want to make sure that weaponry would only be distributed to those groups that would pledge allegiance to them. While some groups may accept the deal, it is far from certain that all groups would accept any preconditions -- as recently reported by Time magazine.
While the CIA may be present near the Syrian-Turkish border, all evidence points to the fact that the US is not very keen to arm the rebels, out of fear the arms would eventually fall in the hands of al-Qaeda and like-minded groups. In fact, Washington, despite the anti-Assad rhetoric we read about in media headlines, is not very keen on replacing the Assad regime with one whose allegiance to the US would be uncertain.
The two reasons just mentioned explain why the U.S. has so far refused to supply weapons to Syria’s armed opposition. The latest discussions that took place in Geneva demonstrate that the US still prefers “a political solution” (whatever that means).
The fact that Syrian revolutionaries are not receiving the help they need to win the battle against the Syrian regime will certainly prolong the conflict. While many Syrians are disappointed by this indifference, I believe it is better for the future of Syria and its independence.
Syrians have already demonstrated mind-boggling courage and determination. They have made sizeable gains over the past year and they will certainly continue to make more. The signs are clear: the murderous Assad army, the regime’s iron first, is disintegrating, albeit slowly. While it is no reason to celebrate, it is the Syrians' last hope, and if I were living inside Syria, I would hope the same.
This article is reprinted with permission from Prism Magazine. A shorter version of this article appeared on the al-Jazeera English website.
I disagree with the article's portrayal of the syrian people as a homogenous group unified in its desire to overthrow the Syrian regime. So when the author pledges the leftists to support the Syrian people. I ask which Syrian people? There is a big chunk of Syrian society still behind the regime inlcuding religious minorities and Sunni middle class which is often downplayed by the media.
I find it hard myself to support either side of the conflict. While I denounce Assad use of brutal force, I find it hard to support the rebels who have commited documented atrocities. The secular opposition in Syria is non existant. Even the mildest rebel groups have some form of an Islamic agenda. One third of Syrian Christians have left the country which brings a parallel with the Iraqi Christian community that is now almost extinct. The Alawites of Syria are also fearing a genocide if Assad regime were to fall.
It's interesting to note the rebellion is predominately Sunni which is never talked about. The sectarian nature of the civil war is downplayed despite being quite evident. This adds another layer of complexity to a conflict that is far from being so black and white as portrayed in this article.
The international meddling in the Syrian civil war and the escalation by the media were there from the start. THe US and Western European governments have used their puppet states namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar along with Turkey (predominately sunni states) to send arms and money to the rebels. Qatar also played a major rule in financing the elections in Egypt in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Syria is being punished for its independent policies. It's about time for the west to bring about another puppet state in the Middle East (Irony is intended).
Mahar brings some sobering facts into the examination of the Syrian crisis. I have to say, though, that this statement caught my attention: "Contrary to the conspiracy theory type of analysis, which accuses the U.S. and its allies of starting the unrest in Syria..." The first time I came across such a claim was just now, with Mahar's article. Which doesn't make it untrue. But, as Mahar indicates, there wasn't any need for uncle Sam to target Syria that way, which isn't to say that that could not happen. The Syrians themselves, unsurprisingly, rose up and said "Enough!" Also, I'm surprised at Mahar's cheery acceptance of the Free Syria Army. He should read Alex Snowdon's rabble piece, if he hasn't already (http://bit.ly/PH1ERZ). As well, I do believe that with Obama's obscene 'red line' speech, effectively his clear announcement of the America-led corporatocracy's intention to forcefully seize Syria, Mahar's idea that Assad is a 'respected' asset of the 'West' may need revisiting.
Otherwise, I like Mahar's plain talk. And others'. Phyllis Bennis says plainly what a lot of those fancier analytical pieces say, or seem to say, in very roundabout ways, namely, that the regular people of Syria bravely said "Enough!" to the despotic regime of Bashar al-Assad, opening the door for a flood of powerful special interests who don't give a damn about democracy or those who deserve it. Those initial protesters are still there, but silenced by the guns of foreign funded, and often foreign, fighters in and allied with a Free Syria Army (in possession of chemical weapons that the US-backed rebels in Libya possessed previously, as Global Research reports http://bit.ly/SWaONK) that is no more democratic or less bloodthirsty than the paranoid, backward regime of Assad.
Imperialism, as Alex Snowdon explains, plays a large role in what is happening in Syria right now. But just as Mahar notes that Assad isn't, in fact, all that anti-Western, So too, 'Western' isn't solely Western, in my view. Are the global south countries rising up to denounce this latest country-jacking by the king of the world, uncle Sam? (In the interest of fairness, I will investigate. But all I do is read and I've come across no reportage that indicates what the global south countries think or are doing in response to the Syrian crisis.) I call it corporatocracy. It may look like they are all independent nation states, and dramatic references to an unprecedented alliance of China and Russia that opposes the West seem to buttress that idea. But then, Those states (whose own people are attacked by them in various degrees) are all part of a family and single states share certain characteristics with each other that clearly indicate that fact, as Phyllis Bennis notes when she reminds us how Putin's fleet in the Black Sea is more important to him than democracy for Syrians, just as Obama's fleet in Bahrain is more important to him than democracy for protesters there, who the (American financed) Saudi army (Saudi!!!) was allowed to suppress because uncle Sam so loves democracy! (http://bit.ly/N9zxIE)
Some families are not normal. Some are cannibals.
This is glasnost American style. Key figures in the USSA are actually telling the world what the war planning department's agenda is.
n
While I feel uncomfortable disagreeing with Maher Arar, I have to wonder if he's living in the same universe I am. Every day our media is packed with denunciations of the latest atrocities committed by the Syrian government and its proxy mobs. Reporters in the Globe and Le Devoir openly deplore Russia and China's veto of U.N. military intervention. Reporters (generally uncredited) treated us to awe-struck analyses of last week's FSA offensive and glowing assessments of its prospects. A report on Syria's human rights record is plastered on the front page.
And with all due respect, I find the evidence of outside interference on a large scale quite compelling.
And again with all due respect, the issue doesn't need to be framed in terms of how bad the Ba'athist government of Syria is. It's bad. The framework of this article seems kind of disingenuous to me. The question is, do "we" want to continue feeding arms and money into a country so that somebody can overthrow the government there? Do "we" want to continue sending paid foreign fighters into a country for the same reason? Do "we" want to bomb the country into rubble and chaos on the off chance that things will turn out better for the survivors later?
We must be very careful how we determine what is myth and what is reality when it comes to Washington's plans for the "New World Order".
As F. William Engdahl recently pointed out in an excellent article on Global Research (www.globalresearch.ca): "Aligned on the side of violent regime change in Syria are a bizarre coalition that includes, in addition to Washington and its European “vassal states” (as Zbigniew Brzezinski called European NATO members), most prominently Saudi Arabia, hardly a regime anyone would accuse of being a paragon of democracy. Another lead role against Damascus is being played by Qatar, home to US military as well as the blatantly pro-NATO propaganda channel Al-Jazeera. In addition, the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is providing training and space to prepare armed mercenaries and others to flow over the border into neighboring Syria.
Even the ultimate US establishment newspaper, The New York Times, has been forced to admit that the CIA has been pouring arms into the Syrian opposition. They reported, “C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”
"In fact, Washington, despite the anti-Assad rhetoric we read about in media headlines, is not very keen on replacing the Assad regime with one whose allegiance to the US would be uncertain."
---
I find that hard to believe given all the squawking from Hillary Clinton and colder warriors saying that Assad is finished. And after Gadaffi was brutally murdered by NATO supported "rebels", Hillary boasted, "We came, we saw, he died."
Gladio Gang not interested in regime change? Pull the other one.
Iraqi survivors of the illegal military bombings and military occupation said the torture was less severe under Saddam.
Survivors of another "civil war" in Afghanistan said the Soviets also used electric shocks when torturing, but the beatings by the Americans and their colonial army are more vicious.
The OSS-CIA and their Nazi pals wrote the book on torture after 1945, and SOA/WHINSEC has been a prolific exporter of torture and right wing death squads long time. I don't like what's in store for ordinary Syrians with this latest NATO spring opportunism.