Shane Bauer's articles noted in the interview I just posted. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/behind-the-lines-syria-part-one/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/behind-the-lines-syria-part-two/
Excellent pieces. Summarized here, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/five-biggest-takeaways-shane-bauer-syria-civil-war/ . Trailer: Introducing “Behind the Lines” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIkVOfKwh3U> Michael Pugliese On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 8:28 AM Michael Pugliese via groups.io <[email protected]> wrote: > Via, > https://newlinesmag.com/review/chomskys-america-centric-prism-distorts-reality/ > > A sense of the embarrassing level of Chomsky’s knowledge about Syria can > be seen in the same video interview in which he claims that there was no > uprising in Syria in 2012 (according to our subaltern knowledge, the > uprising started in March 2011) and then implies that, if there were > protesters, they were there alongside the Islamic State and other jihadist > groups. > > We get an equally interesting glimpse into Chomsky’s mode of thought when, > on the issue of humanitarian intervention after the chemical massacre of > 2013, he asks the same Syrian doctor and activist: Who should the Americans > bomb in Syria? The regime? Because that would of course undermine the > “resistance front” to jihadists. > > That is alluded to here. > > In the years since August 2013, Chomsky has said little about Syria. And > to the extent he has, his silences have been more appreciated. Speaking at > Harvard in September 2015, Chomsky scolded a Syrian doctor > <https://youtu.be/JFiCg67cDTs?t=57m40s> for asking if the US should > intervene to protect Syrian civilians. "If you attack Assad, you are > undermining resistance to the Islamic State and al-Nusra, who'll then take > over," he said: "Is that what you want for Syria?" > > Elsewhere he criticized the "meaningless" US strategy > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv7EKQ6Rrrs> because it wasn't > supporting the forces that "are really combatting ISIS": "Iran, PKK, and > the Assad regime". In an appearance on UK's Channel 4 News > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmshN5b92Ic>, he claimed IS was now > "almost a representative of a large part of Sunni Islam". And where was > Chomsky getting all these insights? "One of the main commentators on the > region… one who's been most informed and accurate: Patrick Cockburn." > > Via > https://www.newarab.com/opinion/chomsky-and-syria-revisionists-lefts-moral-cul-de-sac > > The embedded hyperlink, > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFiCg67cDTs&t=3460s , pointing directly > to that exchange at the Harvard Kennedy School, being questioned by a > Syrian Doctor. > > Besides Patrick Cockburn, Reese Ehrlich, early on, was a source for > Chomsky. > > Inside Syria > The Backstory of Their Civil War and What the World Can Expect > REESE ERLICH - FOREWORD BY NOAM CHOMSKY > <https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781633882362/Inside-Syria-The-Backstory-of-Their-Civil-War-and-What-the-World-Can-Expect> > Based on first-hand reporting from Syria and Washington, journalist Reese > Erlich unravels the complex dynamics underlying the Syrian civil war. > Through vivid, on-the-ground accounts and interviews with both rebel > leaders and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Erlich gives the reader a > better understanding of this momentous power struggle and why it > matters.Through his many contacts inside Syria, the author reveals who is > supporting Assad and why; he describes the agendas of the rebel factions; > and he depicts in stark terms the dire plight of many ordinary Syrian > people caught in the cross-fire. The book also provides insights into the > role of the Kurds, the continuing influence of Iran, and the policies of > American leaders who seem interested only in protecting US regional > interests.Disturbing and enlightening at once, this timely book shows you > not only what is happening inside Syria but why it is so important for the > Middle East, the US, and the world. > > > I don't see that Chomsky disputing that there was an uprising here. > > Discussing America’s role in the Syrian civil war: A Conversation with > Noam Chomsky <https://chomsky.info/20220517/>Noam Chomsky Interviewed by > Raghav KaushikMay 17, 2022. *Countercurrents* > <https://countercurrents.org/2022/05/discussing-americas-role-in-the-syrian-civil-war-a-conversation-with-noam-chomsky/> > . > > *Q: Let us begin by discussing the initial US response to the Syrian > uprising. * > > NC: In the early stages of the opposition to the savage Assad regime, the > US stood aside. It had a very easy way to support the opposition, which > didn’t carry the obvious risks of direct confrontation (namely, bringing > the Russians in and escalating the atrocities). The easy way was to > encourage Israel to mobilize its forces along the northern border, a move > that would not produce any objections from the international community and > which would compel the regime to withdraw its forces from a number of > frontline positions and relieve the pressure on the opposition. It was not > done, apparently never considered. > > It’s reported that at the same time that the US was strongly supporting > Assad in this way, a small CIA operation was supporting the opposition. If > so, the most likely conjecture is that the US (and obviously Israel) wanted > to be sure that Assad would be weakened, even if victorious. > > *Q: Commenting on the US policy on Syria, Gilbert Achcar states that: > “Now, what has been the most important intervention of the Obama > administration in Syria? To answer this question, let us compare its > attitude toward the Syrian opposition to the way the United States dealt > with the mujahideen who fought the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. > Washington supported the Afghan mujahideen, along with the Saudi kingdom > and the Pakistani military. It is well known that it armed them with > anti-aircraft missiles, Stinger missiles. Compare that to Syria. Not only > did the United States not deliver any such weapons to the Syrian > uprising—even in 2012, when it was still dominated by what could be > described as a democratic opposition. But it even forbade all its regional > allies from delivering such weapons to the Syrian insurgents. Turkey > produces Stinger missiles under U.S. license, but it wasn’t allowed to > deliver a single one of them to the Syrian opposition—nor were the Gulf > monarchies. That was the crucial intervention of the United States in the > Syrian conflict. And that is what allowed Bashar al-Assad’s regime to > remain in place. It allowed him to maintain a monopoly of air power, which > enabled his regime to even drop barrel-bombs from helicopters—a most > indiscriminate and devastating type of bombing.” Do you agree with Achcar’s > assessment?* > > NC: I think Achcar is making a fair point here. It would be interesting to > look into why the US took this position. But I think the Obama > administration reservations on supplying Stinger missiles to the opposition > are part of a more general concern. These missiles are easily > transportable, and if they fall into the wrong hands, could become a major > threat to commercial aircraft. In contrast, drawing Assad’s troops to the > southern border posed no threat. Failure to do that is the decisive > evidence that the US-Israel were not opposed to Assad’s remaining in power. > > *Q: Now let’s discuss the post-2013 American policy, specifically the CIA > program to arm the rebels. It is clear from all reporting, e.g., Shane > Bauer’s, that the CIA program was (a) big – a billion dollar program, one > of CIA’s biggest covert operations, (b) lethal – it supplied TOW > (tube-launched, optically tracked, wireless-guided) anti-tank missiles to > the opposition, and (c) anti-Assad in its goals.* > > NC: It’s pretty clear that a few years later, Obama had joined the main > European allies in thinking that Assad might be removed. It is clear that > the CIA was by then sending advanced anti-tank weapons that blocked the > offensive actions of Assad’s army, dismissing the warnings by > correspondents on the ground (and anyone who bothered thinking) that this > might incite direct Russian intervention, destroying the weapons and > sharply escalating the atrocities. As happened. At this point Obama backed > off, not wanting to move on to likely nuclear war. > > *Q: Interestingly, Bauer’s piece indicates that what you described was > not just the position of journalists on the ground, but also understood by > the White House itself. Bauer interviewed Philip Gordon, the White House > coordinator for the Middle East from 2013 to 2015. This is what Gordon > stated referring to the Russian intervention: “It was the logical > continuation of what we had already seen, which is that the more that we > intervene, the more they intervene,”* > > NC: Very interesting comment by Gordon. > > *Q: What according to you was the motivation for the CIA program? As > you’ve stated in the past and confirmed by your answers above, the US “may > not like the (Assad) regime, but it is nevertheless a regime that is well > practiced in accommodating their demands and any unknown alternative might > prove worse in this respect.” * > > *Bauer offers an explanation for why Obama launched the CIA program in the > summer of 2013. “The decision in the summer of 2013 to directly arm the > rebels may have had just as much to do with an escalating proxy war against > Iran as it did with Assad’s use of chemical weapons. For more than a year, > the Free Syrian Army had controlled al-Qusayr, a strategically important > town near the Lebanese border and the highway between Damascus and the port > of Tartus. In May 2013, al-Qusayr came under an assault led not by the > Syrian army, but by Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia with decades of > experience in guerrilla warfare. In less than three weeks, al-Qusayr fell > to the regime. It was Hezbollah’s first major offensive in Syria, and many > Syrians felt betrayed to see an organization they had revered for its > opposition to Israel now acting as an occupier. Thousands of Hezbollah > fighters were said to have entered the country to help the regime retake > Aleppo and other opposition strongholds. In Washington, Hezbollah’s > involvement was seen as evidence of Iran putting its finger on the > scale……In June 2013, one month after Hezbollah’s attack began, the White > House publicized the intelligence community’s findings on chemical weapons > and Obama decided to arm the rebels.”* > > NC: The facts are correct. The speculation is conceivable, though I know > of no evidence for it. A simpler explanation seems to me to be that the > US-Israel wanted to keep Assad weak, even if remaining in power. But I > don’t see much point in debating a policy decision about which we have no > evidence. > > *Q: Many activists argue that the opposition was forced to bear arms due > to Assad’s brutality and had to get arms from wherever they could get them > to defend themselves. * > > NC: One can debate whether the CIA should or should not have sent > weapons. I took no stand on it, so I’m not relevant to this debate. > > *Q: The topic of the American role in Syria divided the US left, roughly > between those who exclusively focused on the CIA program and its impact, > and those who exclusively focused on the pro-Assad nature of US policy in > the early days of the uprising. Do you have any thoughts on these > disagreements?* > > NC: I honestly don’t see the disagreement. Few to my knowledge – I can’t > think of one – have discussed the pro-Assad component of US-Israeli policy, > namely refusing to draw his forces to the South to relieve the opposition. > After that, US policy vacillated depending on circumstances. > > The only disagreement I see is whether we have to rigidly impose a > pro-/anti-Assad position to Obama or whether we can consider how policy was > adjusted to circumstances and – crucially — over whether we should have > concern for the fate of Syrians, as Cockburn and Glass had when they warned > about the consequences of sending heavy arms to the opposition – correctly > as it turned out. > > *Q: Another point of controversy – this one concerns your views, but does > not pertain to the core of your arguments which are captured above, but the > way in which you present them – appears to be your emphasis of the legality > of what Iran and Russia did. What you say is correct – Iranian and Russian > interventions were not acts of aggression – but it doesn’t seem > significant. Many activists, myself included, do wonder why you bring it > up. The core of your argument is unaffected by the legality of what > Iran/Russia did. If anything, as a lot of the reaction indicates, it is > clearly distracting people from the core issues.* > > NC: As far as I recall, I once responded to the claim that the > Russian-Iranian intervention was illegal by pointing out that it is not. > That sentence is my total emphasis on the legality of what they did. The > rest is bitter condemnation of their primary role in the horrendous > atrocities. > > In response to tantrums about this correct statement, I have occasionally > reiterated it. > >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#30871): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/30871 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/106824716/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
