Parry writes: "The solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy -
letting the people of Syria decide who they want as their leaders - but it
is the Obama administration and its regional Sunni 'allies,' including
U.S.-armed militants and jihadists, that don't want to risk a democratic
solution because it might not achieve the long-held goal of 'regime
change.'"
Secretary of State John Kerry. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Reuters)
Blocking Democracy as Syria's Solution
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
20 December 15
The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a
possible route out of the crisis - a ceasefire followed by elections in
which President Assad could compete. The problem is there's no guarantee
that Assad would lose and thus the dream might go unfulfilled, writes Robert
Parry.
The solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy - letting the people
of Syria decide who they want as their leaders - but it is the Obama
administration and its regional Sunni "allies," including U.S.-armed
militants and jihadists, that don't want to risk a democratic solution
because it might not achieve the long-held goal of "regime change."
Some Syrian opposition forces, which were brought together under the
auspices of the Saudi monarchy in Riyadh this past week, didn't even want
the word "democracy" included in their joint statement. The New York Times
reported on Friday, "Islamist delegates objected to using the word
'democracy' in the final statement, so the term 'democratic mechanism' was
used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the
meeting."
Even that was too much for Ahrar al-Sham, one of the principal jihadist
groups fighting side-by-side with Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, the two key
elements inside the Saudi-created Army of Conquest, which uses sophisticated
U.S.-supplied TOW missiles to kill Syrian government troops.
Ahrar al-Sham announced its withdrawal from the Riyadh conference because
the meeting didn't "confirm the Muslim identity of our people." Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad has sought to maintain a secular government that
protects the rights of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other religious
minorities, but Sunni militants have been fighting to overthrow him since
2011.
Despite Ahrar al-Sham's rejection of the Saudi-organized conference, all the
opposition participants, including one from Ahrar al-Sham who apparently
wasn't aware of his group's announcement, signed the agreement, the Times
reported.
"All parties signed a final statement that called for maintaining the unity
of Syria and building a civil, representative government that would take
charge after a transitional period, at the start of which Mr. Assad and his
associates would step down," wrote Times' correspondent Ben Hubbard.
But the prospects of Assad and his government just agreeing to cede power to
the opposition remains highly unlikely. An obvious alternative - favored by
Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin - is to achieve a ceasefire and
then have internationally supervised elections in which the Syrian people
could choose their own leaders.
Although President Barack Obama insists Assad is hated by most Syrians - and
if that's true, he would presumably lose any fair election - the U.S.
position is to bar Assad from the ballot, thus ensuring "regime change" in
Syria, a long-held goal of Official Washington's neoconservatives.
In other words, to fulfill the neocons' dream of Syrian "regime change," the
Obama administration is continuing the bloody Syrian conflict which has
killed a quarter million people, has created an opening for Islamic State
and Al Qaeda terrorists, and has driven millions of refugees into and
through nearby countries, now destabilizing Europe and feeding xenophobia in
the United States.
For his part, Assad called participants in the Saudi conference "terrorists"
and rejected the idea of negotiating with them. "They want the Syrian
government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don't think anyone
would accept in any country," Assad told Spanish journalists, as he repeated
his position that many of the terrorists were backed by foreign governments
and that he would only "deal with the real, patriotic national opposition."
Kinks in the Process
Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on Friday that he was in
contact with senior Saudi officials and noted, "there are some questions and
obviously a couple of - in our judgment - kinks to be worked out" though
expressing confidence that the problems could be resolved.
A key problem appears to be that the Obama administration has so demonized
Assad and so bought into the neocon goal of "regime change" that Obama
doesn't feel that he can back down on his "Assad must go!" mantra. Yet, to
force Assad out and bar him from running in an election means escalating the
war by either further arming the Sunni jihadists or mounting a larger-scale
invasion of Syria with the U.S. military confronting Syrian and now Russian
forces to establish what is euphemistically called "a safe zone" inside
Syria. A related "no-fly zone" would require destroying Syrian air defenses,
now supplied by the Russians.
Obama has largely followed the first course of action, allowing Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other Sunni "allies" to funnel U.S. weapons to
jihadists, including Ahrar al-Sham which fights alongside Al Qaeda's Nusra
Front as the two seek to transform Syria into a Islamic fundamentalist
state, a goal shared by Al Qaeda's spinoff (and now rival), the Islamic
State.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former head of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, has termed Obama's choice of aiding the
jihadists a "willful decision," even in the face of DIA warnings about the
likely rise of the Islamic State and other extremists.
In August 2012, DIA described the danger in a classified report, which noted
that "The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later
ISI or ISIS and then the Islamic State] are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The report also said that "If the situation unravels
there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist
principality in eastern Syria" and that "ISI could also declare an Islamic
State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Syria."
Despite these risks, Obama continued to insist that "Assad must go!" and let
his administration whip up a propaganda campaign around claims that Assad's
forces launched a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Though
many of the U.S. claims about that attack have since been discredited - and
later evidence implicated radical jihadists (possibly collaborating with
Turkish intelligence) trying to trick the U.S. military into intervening on
their side - the Obama administration did not retract or clarify its initial
claims.
By demonizing Assad - much like the demonization of Russian President Putin
- Obama may feel that he is deploying "soft power" propaganda to put foreign
adversaries on the defensive while also solidifying his political support
inside hawkish U.S. opinion circles, but false narratives can take on a life
of their own and make rational settlements difficult if not impossible.
Now, even though the Syrian crisis has become a tsunami threatening to
engulf Europe with a refugee crisis and the United States with anti-Muslim
hysteria, Obama can't accept the most obvious solution: compel all
reasonable sides to accept a ceasefire and hold an internationally
supervised election in which anyone who wants to lead the country can stand
before the voters.
If Obama is right about the widespread hatred of Assad, then there should be
nothing to worry about. The Syrian people will dictate "regime change"
through the ballot box.
Democracy - supposedly one of the U.S. government's goals for Middle East
countries - can be the answer to the problem. However, since democracy can
be an unpredictable process, it might not guarantee "regime change" which
apparently makes democracy an unsuitable solution for Syria.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Secretary of State John Kerry. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Reuters)
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/12/blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution/
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/12/blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution/
Blocking Democracy as Syria's Solution
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
20 December 15
The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a
possible route out of the crisis - a ceasefire followed by elections in
which President Assad could compete. The problem is there's no guarantee
that Assad would lose and thus the dream might go unfulfilled, writes Robert
Parry.
he solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy - letting the people
of Syria decide who they want as their leaders - but it is the Obama
administration and its regional Sunni "allies," including U.S.-armed
militants and jihadists, that don't want to risk a democratic solution
because it might not achieve the long-held goal of "regime change."
Some Syrian opposition forces, which were brought together under the
auspices of the Saudi monarchy in Riyadh this past week, didn't even want
the word "democracy" included in their joint statement. The New York Times
reported on Friday, "Islamist delegates objected to using the word
'democracy' in the final statement, so the term 'democratic mechanism' was
used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the
meeting."
Even that was too much for Ahrar al-Sham, one of the principal jihadist
groups fighting side-by-side with Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, the two key
elements inside the Saudi-created Army of Conquest, which uses sophisticated
U.S.-supplied TOW missiles to kill Syrian government troops.
Ahrar al-Sham announced its withdrawal from the Riyadh conference because
the meeting didn't "confirm the Muslim identity of our people." Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad has sought to maintain a secular government that
protects the rights of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other religious
minorities, but Sunni militants have been fighting to overthrow him since
2011.
Despite Ahrar al-Sham's rejection of the Saudi-organized conference, all the
opposition participants, including one from Ahrar al-Sham who apparently
wasn't aware of his group's announcement, signed the agreement, the Times
reported.
"All parties signed a final statement that called for maintaining the unity
of Syria and building a civil, representative government that would take
charge after a transitional period, at the start of which Mr. Assad and his
associates would step down," wrote Times' correspondent Ben Hubbard.
But the prospects of Assad and his government just agreeing to cede power to
the opposition remains highly unlikely. An obvious alternative - favored by
Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin - is to achieve a ceasefire and
then have internationally supervised elections in which the Syrian people
could choose their own leaders.
Although President Barack Obama insists Assad is hated by most Syrians - and
if that's true, he would presumably lose any fair election - the U.S.
position is to bar Assad from the ballot, thus ensuring "regime change" in
Syria, a long-held goal of Official Washington's neoconservatives.
In other words, to fulfill the neocons' dream of Syrian "regime change," the
Obama administration is continuing the bloody Syrian conflict which has
killed a quarter million people, has created an opening for Islamic State
and Al Qaeda terrorists, and has driven millions of refugees into and
through nearby countries, now destabilizing Europe and feeding xenophobia in
the United States.
For his part, Assad called participants in the Saudi conference "terrorists"
and rejected the idea of negotiating with them. "They want the Syrian
government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don't think anyone
would accept in any country," Assad told Spanish journalists, as he repeated
his position that many of the terrorists were backed by foreign governments
and that he would only "deal with the real, patriotic national opposition."
Kinks in the Process
Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on Friday that he was in
contact with senior Saudi officials and noted, "there are some questions and
obviously a couple of - in our judgment - kinks to be worked out" though
expressing confidence that the problems could be resolved.
A key problem appears to be that the Obama administration has so demonized
Assad and so bought into the neocon goal of "regime change" that Obama
doesn't feel that he can back down on his "Assad must go!" mantra. Yet, to
force Assad out and bar him from running in an election means escalating the
war by either further arming the Sunni jihadists or mounting a larger-scale
invasion of Syria with the U.S. military confronting Syrian and now Russian
forces to establish what is euphemistically called "a safe zone" inside
Syria. A related "no-fly zone" would require destroying Syrian air defenses,
now supplied by the Russians.
Obama has largely followed the first course of action, allowing Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other Sunni "allies" to funnel U.S. weapons to
jihadists, including Ahrar al-Sham which fights alongside Al Qaeda's Nusra
Front as the two seek to transform Syria into a Islamic fundamentalist
state, a goal shared by Al Qaeda's spinoff (and now rival), the Islamic
State.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former head of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, has termed Obama's choice of aiding the
jihadists a "willful decision," even in the face of DIA warnings about the
likely rise of the Islamic State and other extremists.
In August 2012, DIA described the danger in a classified report, which noted
that "The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later
ISI or ISIS and then the Islamic State] are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The report also said that "If the situation unravels
there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist
principality in eastern Syria" and that "ISI could also declare an Islamic
State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Syria."
Despite these risks, Obama continued to insist that "Assad must go!" and let
his administration whip up a propaganda campaign around claims that Assad's
forces launched a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Though
many of the U.S. claims about that attack have since been discredited - and
later evidence implicated radical jihadists (possibly collaborating with
Turkish intelligence) trying to trick the U.S. military into intervening on
their side - the Obama administration did not retract or clarify its initial
claims.
By demonizing Assad - much like the demonization of Russian President Putin
- Obama may feel that he is deploying "soft power" propaganda to put foreign
adversaries on the defensive while also solidifying his political support
inside hawkish U.S. opinion circles, but false narratives can take on a life
of their own and make rational settlements difficult if not impossible.
Now, even though the Syrian crisis has become a tsunami threatening to
engulf Europe with a refugee crisis and the United States with anti-Muslim
hysteria, Obama can't accept the most obvious solution: compel all
reasonable sides to accept a ceasefire and hold an internationally
supervised election in which anyone who wants to lead the country can stand
before the voters.
If Obama is right about the widespread hatred of Assad, then there should be
nothing to worry about. The Syrian people will dictate "regime change"
through the ballot box.
Democracy - supposedly one of the U.S. government's goals for Middle East
countries - can be the answer to the problem. However, since democracy can
be an unpredictable process, it might not guarantee "regime change" which
apparently makes democracy an unsuitable solution for Syria.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socializehttp://e-max.it/posizioname
nto-siti-web/socialize
