US Role as State Sponsor of Terrorism Implied in US Congressional Research Service Report On Syria

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Stephen Gowans

....The report refers to US efforts to create partners in Syria, a euphemism for puppets who can be relied upon to promote US interests.

“Secretary of Defense Carter described the ‘best’ scenario for the Syrian people as one that would entail an agreed or managed removal of Assad and the coalescence of opposition forces with elements of the remaining Syrian state apparatus as U.S. partners ….” (emphasis added, pp. 15-16).

Also: The Pentagon “sought to…groom and support reliable leaders to serve as U.S partners…” (emphasis added, p. 23).

To create partners, the United States is engaged in the project of building a “moderate” opposition. According to the report:

“On June 18, Secretary of Defense Carter said, ‘…the best way for the Syrian people for this to go would be for him to remove himself from the scene and there to be created, difficult as it will be, a new government of Syria based on the moderate opposition that we have been trying to build…” (emphasis added, footnote, p. 16).....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43911.htm

[leveymg]

1. US role is also as chief opponent of public choice and democracy in Syria according to the CRS study

Democracy has nothing to do with intervention in Syria. Quite the opposite, the CRS study is telling us the Assad Gov't has the support of most Syrians.

3. “Political opposition coalitions appear to lack…grass roots support” (p. 27).

This is consistent with the findings of a public opinion poll taken last summer by a research firm that is working with the US and British governments. That poll found that Assad has more support than the forces arrayed against him.
The survey, conducted by ORB International, a company which specializes in public opinion research in fragile and conflict environments, found that 47 percent of Syrians believe that Assad has a positive influence in Syria, compared to only 35 percent for the Free Syrian Army and 26 percent for the SOC. [1]

An in-country face-to-face ORB poll conducted in May 2014 arrived at similar conclusions. That poll found that more Syrians believed the Assad government best represented their interests and aspirations than believed the same about any of the opposition groups. [2]

According to the poll, only six percent believed that the “genuine” rebels represented their interests and aspirations, while the ‘National Coalition/transitional government,” a reference to the SOC, drew even less support, at only three percent.

Assad has repeatedly challenged the notion that he lacks popular support, pointing to his government surviving nearly five years of war against forces backed by the most powerful states on the planet. It’s impossible to realistically conceive of his government’s survival under these challenging circumstances, he argues, without its having the support of a sizeable part of its population. [3]

4. A moderate opposition doesn’t exist. The United States is trying to build one to act as its partner.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Assad has the "support" of most Syrians

because the public knows what happens to dissenters...

[leveymg]

4. when your choice is the gov't, ISIS, or al-Nusra, it makes sense.

Keep in mind also the finding that most of the Army rank and file are Sunni, yet they have remained loyal by and large. That seems to challenge the convention corporate media and State Dept framing of this subject.

[Blue_Tires]

7. Of course Assad was making dissidents disappear

long before those two came to the forefront, but whatever...

[leveymg]

8. His intel svcs were so effective, CIA renditioned al-Qaeda detainees to Syria before creating our

own "enhanced interrogation" program. World class torturers, all.

[Blue_Tires]

9. So add to that the hundreds of thousands of civilians he's killed

plus the 5-6 million of his former citizens driven into exile abroad, and we're in agreement... Assad is evil and must be dealt with...

So what the hell are we discussing here?

[leveymg]

10. He's bad, but there are no better options.

Two things - the number of civilian deaths may have been overestimated, and the majority of fatalities have been combatants on both sides. Human rights violations by sides in this must be dealt with, including the arms suppliers and financiers (that includes the US and the Saudi/Gulf States).

According to widely-cited sources, the death toll in Syria has been a roughly equal number of victims in a three-way split: Gov't Forces, Opposition Forces, and Civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Death tolls by time periods:

The following figures were all compiled by the SOHR which is considered an authoritative source on the matter.[30] The figures are only for documented deaths, while the SOHR estimates another 90,000 undocumented deaths had occurred.[3]


Time Period Pro-government forces Anti-government forces Civilians
2011)
2012)
2013 ) 52,290 killed[31] 29,083 killed[31] 46,266 killed[32][33]

2014 25,160 killed 32,726 killed 17,790 killed
2015 17,686 killed 24,010 killed 13,249 killed

[Blue_Tires]

11. I'd say any option is better at this point

"No better options" and excuses like that are what kept Ghaddafi and other despots around for so long... The only reason Assad has lasted this long is because he has Russia's financial, military and intelligence support so we can't even starve his regime of resources and let nature take its course...

And last I checked, shipping weapons and funding internationally wasn't really a "human rights violation", but if I'm wrong feel free to indict Putin first, since he's sent more weapons and funding there than anyone...

When I think "human rights abuses" my mind typically goes to stuff like:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/syria
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/20/russia/syria-extensive-recent-use-cluster-munitions
https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/01/30/razed-ground/syrias-unlawful-neighborhood-demolitions-2012-2013
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/13/no-ones-left/summary-executions-syrian-forces-al-bayda-and-baniyas
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria

Shall I go on??

[leveymg]

12. Only a fool pursues regime change when the foreseen result is worse than the status quo

That's precisely what happened in Libya and Syria. Serial regime change led to a worsened quality of life for the vast majority of the population, and death for many. The only benefits were to the Saudis and Gulf Sunnis who could pursue their agenda of ethic cleansing of the Shi'ia, and for Israel that finally had its opportunity to knock off another neighboring state on the neocon list. See, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" (1996), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

If you want to see regime change through to the bloody, grinding end in Syria, either you're a fool, a fanatic or a neocon.

As for the question about whether this policy is a human rights violation, if they start trials in the Hague, they'll have to build a courthouse 1000 meters high to try everyone who's responsible. Maybe they should just hold the trials in Doha.

[Blue_Tires]

13. Libya is bad now, but they're still better off in the long run

or did you think regime change is always going to be bloodless and sanitary??

And if you *don't* want to see regime change in Syria, you're either on the payroll of Assad, the Kremlin, or you're just some useful idiot emoprog dudebro who has the freedom to hate his western values so much that he'll start supporting its enemies just to prove a political point (See? Sweeping generalizations are fun, but don't really add much to the discussion, do they?)

Meanwhile, Assad is literally starving a city into submission:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/middleeast/syria-madaya-starvation/

You say you don't want a "bloody, grinding end" to this civil war? Well I've got news for you: It's going to happen either way with or without our involvement -- The only issue now is will NATO have a seat at the table when it comes to decide what post-Assad Syria will look like, or will Russia and Iran get to make all the decisions like they did before??

[leveymg]

14. That's about 60 perc factually incorrect and 40 perc morally appalling.

I have no more time tonight to explain what's what
N/t

[Blue_Tires]

15. Oh, so now you're a statistician and moral arbiter?

Don't worry about the response... We're done here, chief

[Blue_Tires]

2. Trying to remove Assad is now all of a sudden a bad thing?

Seriously?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. No, not all the sudden, it always was a "bad thing"...

...not to mention HIGHLY ILLEGAL. Washington wants him out because he doesn't agree to selling out his countrymen and becoming just another puppet of the West.

Seriously, Blue Tires, a more informed and enlightened perspective can be gained on these issues by anyone who seeks honest objective appraisal, but you MUST venture beyond Western media for it -- Fox News is not your friend.

[Blue_Tires]

6. But I don't watch Fox News?

And I wouldn't even need to just to learn Assad is an evil piece of shit -- You will note that none of the stories I've ever posted here about the Syria crisis came from Fox News...

If all of "Western Media" is unreliable for news about Syria, where do you suggest I go for updates?? (Please don't say Russia, since they have a vested interest in keeping Assad in power)...

Perhaps you might take a closer look at Assad's history and get back to me?

[CJCRANE]

16. Supporting the islamist rebels doesn't serve US or western interests.

It's serving someone's interests but not our interests as citizens.

The west will be overwhelmed by the (IMO deliberate) blowback of jihadis and migrants swarming to our shores.