Well, okay, yes, there are some “good guys” in Syria: People trying to live their lives in the midst of civil war, doctors treating the wounded and, yes, almost certainly some who are genuinely fighting for freedom.
But neither of the two sides of that civil war are worthy of support. Everything which either side gains comes at the expense of the “good guys.”
On the one hand, we have Bashar al-Assad’s brutal “National Progressive Front” regime: Dominated by the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, operating along Hitlerian fuhrerprinzip lines, internally oppressive and externally manipulative and periodically belligerent.
On the other hand, an “uprising” which seems to be animated at least as much by foreign intervention as by internal dissent, and aimed less at procuring freedom for the masses than at tearing Syria away from its current alignments (with Iran and Russia, for example) and incorporating it into a new Middle East order in service to US, Turkish and Israeli interests.
If the Syrian National Council gains power, the real changes that follow will occur primarily on the “balance of power” chessboard around which various Westphalian nation-states perpetually huddle — Russia may lose its navy’s only Mediterranean port, Israel may be able to reduce the cost of occupying (or even turn back over) the Golan Heights, Iran may lose a client state and three-quarters (if Syria goes, Iran’s influence in Lebanon wanes and its routes of material support for Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank will be partially interdicted), and so on.
For the average Syrian, though, “change” will largely, and at best, be a matter of changing some nameplates on government office doors, and perhaps giving the Idarat al-Amn al-Siyasi (Political Security Directorate — the regime’s secret police) a warmer, fuzzier name and some fresh paint for its torture chambers. A few political prisoners may be freed. After all, they’ll need to make room for the new ones. Rally ’round the remodeled flag, boys. New boss, same as the old boss.
It is for this kind of “revolution” that the “international community” — assorted governments no better than Assad’s, and “non-governmental organizations” drawing their paychecks from those governments — calls upon Syrians to shed their blood, and assists them in doing so whether they want to or not.
When states play their games, the people always lose. And while I understand the impropriety of lecturing the oppressed on how to deal with their oppressors, I believe I’m on solid ground in urging the Syrian people not to waste their blood and treasure for no better purpose than getting themselves out of the frying pan they know so well and into the fire beneath it.
Nor are the oppressed of other lands, in particular those whose governments are involved in this latest gambit, in any way served by the interventionist machinations of their masters.
The only revolution worth having — or encouraging or aiding — is a revolution which abolishes not just a particular state, but the state as such. Anything less is at best a tactical move probably not worth the cost, and at worst a mere change of labels worth nothing at all.
Citations to this article:
- Thomas L. Knapp, Syria: There Are No “Good Guys”, Deming, New Mexico Headlight, 03/11/12
- Thomas L. Knapp, Syria: There Are No “Good Guys”, Carroll County, Maryland Standard, 03/08/12
- Thomas L. Knapp, Syria: There Are No “Good Guys”, St. Joseph, Missouri Telegraph, p. 10, 03/08/12
- Thomas L. Knapp, Syria: There Are No “Good Guys”, Baltic Review, 03/08/12
- Thomas L. Knapp, Syria: There Are No “Good Guys”, Antiwar.com, 03/08/12
Excellent article.
It's always good to start the day with a refreshment like this.
It seems to have become currency (at least with the lifeless/ thoughtless crowd that claims to report news – through the big money channels anyway) to parrot the lines and anti-concepts of the "assorted governments no better than Assad’s, and “non-governmental organizations” drawing their paychecks from those governments" as if it is beyond the reproach of a serious question.
Another good example (as Jon Stewart pointed out last night) is the auditorium full of 'reporters' at Eric Holder's press conference wherein he explained that 'due process does not mean judicial process', in reference to the President's power (he has powers – not rights – to execute his duties) to kill anyone of his choosing. It's because of terrorism , you know. And after he said that, not a question or a raised hand or even a slightly indignant cough was heard.
I attribute that to the fact that 'they are so wicked smart … we can't understand them.' That must be it.
Get out your combat gear boys, Syria needs our help (they need a new dictator. The old one is worn out.).
Sorry to change the subject there. It is stunning (to me) that anyone would seriously consider any enterprise such as intervening in Syria, any kind of revolution. I can't be sure, but I think we had a revolution here – a while ago – before everybody knew the only way to get one was to beg a foreign government to invade your country, and, as if by wizardry, convert the natives into 'insurgents'.