Making Sense of Syria
Most of us have likely seen the horrifying images and videos coming from Syria for the last few years. Invariably, the news agencies bringing these images and videos to us present them as evidence of Assad's "brutal, totalitarian regime." But a little research paints a disturbingly conflicting picture. Would a bloody tyrant provide universal healthcare to all 23 million Syrians, without regard to race, or religion? Would a totalitarian dictator provide state-sponsored education through college for all Syrians? Would a fascist ruler travel freely among his people without fear, or an armed, militarized police unit? Would they likely win a Democratic election... how about 3 of them? When they won, would their people celebrate?
Something's not right here.
When confronted with the specter of MSM propagandizing about Syria, their response is often "why would we lie?". Even when that question is answered, and the answer is "regime change," another question remains. This question is not only unanswered, it's unasked: "Why would independent journalists like Eva Bartlett, and peace activivsts like Madelyn Hoffman, lie?" Why would the Syrian people themselves lie? It's a frustrating hypocrisy that manifests itself on multiple levels when the subject of Syria arises. It's an all-too-common situation when you're just a person, going up against well-established dogma that just happens to be dead wrong.
But no matter what you believe or don't believe about Syria, know this much, at least: The Syrian people do not want the bombings and terrorist attacks to continue. To that end, nobody wants to know the truth about what's happening more than the Syrian people themselves, and nobody wants more for the rest of the world to know that truth. Moreover, nobody would know the truth about what's going on in Syria more than the Syrians.
Yet over and over again, we in the Western world are bombarded constantly by the mainstream media with ideas about overthrowing the government in Syria. Never is it mentioned that the Syrians are under attack from outside; never is it mentioned that the Syrian people are almost universally behind Assad; never is it mentioned that regime change is illegal under international law. All one can see is that Assad is an "evil, brutal dictator," and that we need to disable his air force, to arm and fund his enemies, to impose sanctions on his people, and even to prevent Russia from continuing to protect Syria, which would mean a formal declaration of war against Russia, a nuclear-armed superpower. That is the extent to which the political establishment is willing to go, in order to force the idea of regime change in Syria. That's how important it is to them. It's up to all of us to ask ourselves why that might be.
The US political influence of the events in Syria is well documented, but the problems go much deeper than that. These problems aren't just politicized to promote an agenda, they are created to do so. The US has an election system that is notoriously plagued with security issues, yet we want to cast doubts on the validity of Syria's election, based on the laughably faulty premise that "nobody knew who the other two candidates were"? Let's think about this for a moment. If the Syrian people were being terrorized by Assad (which just makes no logical sense anyway), then why would almost 89% of them vote to keep him in? Wouldn't virtually anyone else seem preferable? Wouldn't you do your best to make damn sure that you knew who the other two, potentially NON-terrorist candidates were, and what they were about? Given ANY choices, wouldn't you investigate them fully?
Here's another question we should be asking ourselves: "If Syria is ruled by a tyrannical dictator, then why do they hold elections in the first place?"
So now we know that mainstream media is lying about Syria. We also know why they are likely doing it.
But why do they want Assad out? Why are they so hellbent on regime change? Though not Democratically elected initially, Assad voluntarily submitted to the results of a Democratic vote in 2000, won by a landslide, and since then has won similar contests for two more consecutive 7-year terms. It was one thing when Gaddafi was targeted by the US, or Hussein. Nobody could say they led Democratic governments. But how can they justify helping terrorist groups to overthrow a Democratically supported ruler of a sovereign nation?
Since 2014, The US and its allies were responsible for over 50,000 bombs dropped on Syria and the Iraq border. The US dropped 12,192 bombs on Syria during 2016 alone. Of these, many contributed to the horrific number of civilian deaths in Syria. In fact, the US was responsible for more civilian deaths in Syria than either ISIL or Russia during March of 2017. But why focus on just the civilian deaths? Many more of those deaths were losses from the Syrian military, which now has even fewer soldiers to fight against the terrorism that the US is at least partially responsible for funding, arming, and supplying.
But if Assad is truly loved by his people, then why is the US bombing them? Why are we not helping them to defeat the forces that attack them, rather than helping those forces to attack? If our only pretext for involvement was humanitarian, then by far the most humane thing we could possibly do as a nation is to withdraw our support from the terrorist rebel forces destroying Syria, and instead lend our aid to Assad. The fact that we are not, and lying to accomplish that, speaks volumes about our motives.
To put it simply, the US will not help Assad because the US benefits more from Syria's division and demise than it stands to gain by helping Syria defend itself. The US lies about Assad being a tyrant because regime change is the ultimate goal. Once deposed, he can be replaced with a despot who will keep the area unstable. Whether this happened or not, territorial wars would likely destabilize the region to a large enough extent if the Syrian government were crumbled.
Let's look at another country that the US has invaded, Iraq. After the invasion was over, the US attempted to rebuild the Iraqi government and society with built-in ethnic divisions inherent within. In short, these societies were rigged to conflict, and that conflict was designed to be ingrained and long-lasting. Where well-integrated, ethnically and religiously diverse communities once existed, insular pools of stagnant mistrust could now fester. Where once people could be unified together against a common enemy, there was now only infighting and division; and where people are divided, they are powerless. Worse, their attention can be diverted away from peaceful endeavor and common purpose, simply by plying this division in a multitude of devious ways, like pawns on a chessboard.
And then look at Libya.
Do you detect a pattern emerging? According to Gen. Wesley Clark, Syria was only one of 7 countries planned for invasion in the subsequent decade. Regional instability is the key to accomplishing this easily, and in spite of the best efforts of the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and above all Israel, the level of stability within the Assad government has been maintained through all of the death and destruction. Syria's stability through 5+ years of terrorist attacks is a testament to the stability of the Syrian government to begin with, but the fact that Wesley Clark's revelations have wound up eclipsing the administrations of 3 Presidents, one Democrat and 2 Republicans, stands as a testament to the irrelevance of partisan opinions on the matter.
One can only fear what lengths the desperate will go to, however, to claim their prize. If the lies and intimidation don't work any more, what will they use then?
And why are they so desperate to destabilize the Middle East?
The short answer is that it's a fight over natural resources — namely oil — but the long answer is much more complicated, though much more accurate. There are two rival factions fighting a "proxy war" in Syria. On one side you have Israel, Turkey, Qatar, the US, and Saudi Arabia. On the other side you have Iran, Syria, and Russia. Israel is pulling the strings in the background, trying to destabilize the region, and the US is not only siding with them, we're sending them billions of dollars per year and bombing Syria directly. This is why the term "proxy war" is used in quotes. Strategically, Syria is Russia's only port on the Mediterranean. Russia is likely to protect that, no matter what. By even being involved in this at all, we put the US in danger of direct armed conflict with Russia.
In spite of all of this, there will be many who simply cannot wrap their heads around this level of corruption in the US government, and on a global scale. Even people who are well versed in the antics of the CIA, and trust the government about as much as a bloated can of soup, are hard pressed to account for callous indifference to human life on this scale, and the extent to which the lies and deceit have spread. It's staggering and disheartening. But account for it we must, and soon.
During the Eisenhower Administration, a report was compiled that asked the question "why do Arab people seem to hate us, when Arab governments do not?" The results of this showed that there was a vast mistrust of the US for its involvement in the overthrow of stable, independent governments that are sometimes even striving toward Democracy to replace them with weaker, more totalitarian governments, in order to control the flow of oil through the region. Unbelievably, the report not only agreed that their suspicions were correct, it held that this policy of destabilization was important to maintaining control of oil in the region.
Apparently subsequent administrations were listening.