This article disagrees with much of what I've heard and read from people
whose opinions I respect like max Blumenthal. But Sylvie always posted this
guy's material and he makes some good points about objectivity.
Miriam
How Syria Divides the Left: An Interview With Middle East Scholar Stephen
Zunes
Monday, July 10, 2017
By Dan Falcone, Truthout | Interview
Turkish tanks hold their position on a hilltop on the outskirts of Suruc on
the Turkey-Syria border, following an air strike in Kobani, on October 9,
2014 on the Turkish-Syrian border in the southeastern town of Suruc, Turkey.
(Photo : Gokhan Sahin / Getty Images)
Why are journalists and academics on the left in such dramatic disagreement
when it comes to Syria, Assad and US involvement?
In this interview, University of San Francisco Professor Stephen Zunes -- a
widely recognized scholar of US and Middle East policies and the author of
Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism -- offers his
take on the US left and its respective positions on Syria.
Daniel Falcone: Can you give a background and provide some context on what
you see to be the points of division on the left in regards to the US policy
involving Syria?
Stephen Zunes: Most credible academics and journalists on the left, while
varying to some degree in their analyses, generally agree that the Syrian
regime is horrifically repressive and not particularly progressive by any
measure.
There is also a consensus that the bulk of the armed opposition is dominated
by reactionary Salafist extremists and that the largely nonviolent movement
that first emerged in 2011 had strong progressive and democratic elements,
but has largely been crushed. Further, the United States and other outside
powers (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Britain,
France, etc.) should not be bombing, sending arms, providing troops or
contributing to the carnage in any way.
There are some bloggers who are part of certain small sectarian groups
and/or have gone on Syrian-government-sponsored tours who call themselves
"independent journalists," but they essentially embrace the Syrian
government's line and have little credibility. (In these tours, participants
rely on government-provided translators, cannot interview anyone
independently without a government minder present, only visit areas under
government control and do not meet with any genuine dissidents.)
In certain respects, the divisions parallel those between the more
democratic left and the more authoritarian left, those motivated more by
universal principles versus those motivated more by ideology, and those who
recognize the complexities of situations like Syria versus those with a more
simplistic either/or mindset. Where there is a fair degree of unity between
both sides is opposition to US military intervention, arms transfers or
other actions that would just increase the carnage.
When it comes to Bashar al-Assad, the left seems to have such a varied
approach concerning his actions and philosophies. If I, for example, am
critical of Assad, I could be called an "alt-imperialist." At the same time,
however, if I fail to criticize Assad, I could be called the same. What is
exactly taking place here? Where does the middle ground fall in your view?
The Syrian government is essentially a family dictatorship rooted in the
anti-leftist military wing of the Ba'ath Party. Virtually the only
"liberalization" that has taken place under the younger Assad has been
economic, privatizing once-public assets to various crony capitalists who
pledge fealty to the regime. Just because the United States and other
Western governments oppose a particular leader out of their hypocritical
imperialist interests doesn't thereby make that leader "progressive."
Defending or denying war crimes in the name of "fighting terrorism" -- such
as bombing heavily-populated urban neighborhoods -- is wrong, whether it is
done by the armed forces of Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia or the United
States. As a US citizen, I feel a special responsibility to put my energy
primarily toward exposing and condemning war crimes committed by US forces
and other forces armed by the United States, but it doesn't mean war crimes
are any less wrong if committed by some other government using some other
countries' weapons.
Similarly, one can both oppose atrocities committed by the Syrian regime, as
well as rebel atrocities and US military intervention. Indeed, US
intervention in Syria has resulted in even more innocent people getting
killed -- a reminder that US military intervention generally has little to
do with human rights and a lot more to do with advancing hegemonic
interests.
How would you evaluate and compare the Obama foreign policy regarding Syria
as opposed to how the Trump doctrine might materialize in the region?
Obama was under enormous pressure by both Republicans as well as Democratic
hawks in Congress and his own administration to become militarily involved
in Syria. He ended up rejecting some proposed forms of intervention and
supporting others. Initially, it involved limited training and arms
transfers to so-called "moderate" rebels, which either tended to never gain
much traction or ended up in coalition with hardline Islamists. He then
insisted that aid only go to rebels fighting ISIS, not the Syrian regime,
and focused largely on providing support for the Syrian Democratic Forces, a
coalition led by the leftist Kurdish YPG.
During his final two years in office, the US also began bombing ISIS. While
US intervention has contributed (along with a number of other factors) to
strategic setbacks for ISIS, the United States has had little impact on the
insurgency against Assad -- the initial nonviolent uprising was largely
spontaneous and indigenous, the main rebel groups' arms did not come
directly from the United States, and the carnage would not be substantially
less if Obama had not intervened at all.
Trump, however, has not only dramatically escalated the bombing of
ISIS-controlled areas, resulting in a dramatic rise in civilian casualties,
but he has also begun directly targeting the Syrian government and its
allies, including bombing a Syrian air base, shooting down a Syrian plane
and attacking a government-aligned Shia militia. This is an illegal and
dangerous escalation that could trigger a direct confrontation with Iran or
even Russia and is therefore particularly disturbing (just the sort of thing
Obama was trying to avoid, and which even the Pentagon is concerned about).
Seymour Hersh has just reported that Trump knew of the Assad "false flag"
concerning chemical weapons and bombed Syria anyway. This is not to mean
that Assad doesn't terrorize his own people, but was this simply done to
show that Trump is a "tough guy"?
I've been a fan of Sy Hersh for decades, but I've actually been pretty
skeptical of much of his reporting on Syria. Evidence of Syrian government
culpability in both chemical weapons attacks is pretty strong (including
from credible non-US sources which have also been critical of war crimes by
the United States and its allies). Regarding Hersh's article in Die Welt, I
generally find evidence from medical professionals, forensic experts,
independent strategic analysts and reputable human rights groups more
credible than a single article rejected by the journal that originally
assigned it because they found it based primarily on unnamed sources, and
therefore unconvincing.
I never read the White House report on the Khan Shaykhun tragedy because I
don't trust them and I recognize it's quite possible they could indeed
manufacture an incident or a crisis to justify further US military
involvement. At the same time, I've seen other reports which make a strong
case for Syrian government responsibility and why the alternative scenarios
are not plausible. The bottom line is that, regardless of who was
responsible, the United States should not be bombing Syria, and the left
should be focusing on the illegal and dangerous implications of such
escalation and working on stopping it rather than pushing unfounded
conspiracy theories, which just hurts our credibility.
Recently, Veterans for Peace confronted journalist Amy Goodman for biased
Syrian coverage. Have you seen their letter to Goodman and can you talk
about how this illustrates further the progressive media's divide on Syria?
Where can one get the "correct" perspectives for this conflict?
I certainly don't trust the mainstream US media (which tend to support the
US government line) to tell the truth about Syria, but I don't trust RT,
Global Research or various other conspiracy websites (which tend to back the
Syrian government line) to tell the truth either. I actually think Democracy
Now! has been quite good on the subject. Indeed, Amy Goodman has
demonstrated more integrity and personal bravery than virtually any
journalist I know. She was nearly killed exposing atrocities by the
US-backed Indonesian government in occupied East Timor and has reported on
innumerable crimes by the United States and its allies, exposing some of the
worst aspects of US imperialism. She has also reported on atrocities by
Syrian rebel groups and the ways in which the United States, reactionary
Arab monarchies and others have contributed to Syria's tragedy and how both
the Obama and Trump administration have misled the public.
She is a very credible source of information, so these claims that she has
suddenly embraced a pro-Washington bias are ridiculous. I couldn't help but
note that the open letter presented by that local Veterans for Peace group
called on her to bring in guests they say "who know about Syria." The only
potential guest they mentioned, however, was their vice president, who took
part in one those Syrian government-arranged tours and otherwise has little
background or knowledge of the country. By contrast, Amy's guests have
mostly been reputable academics, journalists and human rights activists who
-- despite differences of opinion on a range of matters involving Syria --
really do know the country.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Dan Falcone
Daniel Falcone is an independent journalist, interviewer, researcher,
activist and teacher. He has a graduate degree in modern American history
and first started interviewing public intellectuals Howard Zinn and Noam
Chomsky after September 11, 2001. He writes for several publications that
cover current affairs, political science, history and education. He teaches
and resides in New York City. Follow him on Twitter: @DanielFalcone7.
Related Stories
Syria's White Helmets - the Most Dangerous Job In the World
By Anna Lekas Miller, Waging Nonviolence | Report
Syrian Refugees Say if Western Countries Close Their Borders, It "Would Be
Better to Die"
By Deena Guzder, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Syria Has Become a Circus of Death: Doctor Warns of Growing Humanitarian
Crisis as War Rages On
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Report
Show Comments
