I found this commentary to be somewhat shocking and as I read
further I was offended. In a hostile and unstable region the Assad regime (for
all its faults) has long been a friend to the Christian communities in Syria.
An authoritarian regime, these groups have nevertheless been allowed to
function and have been protected from Sunni violence, violence that has
escalated throughout the region as a result of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The US (and their Israeli allies) has long wanted to
overthrow the Assad regime. Indeed, Syria was one of the primary targets on the
Neo-Con 'hit list' which was revealed in the early 2000's. The Syria regime change project is part of a
larger Middle Eastern strategy and the Obama administration pulled the trigger
(so to speak) on Assad in 2011 as the Americans poured fuel on Arab Spring
demonstrations turning protests into a full-fledged insurrection. Washington
and its proxies funneled fighters and weapons into the theatre and it quickly
spun out of control and devolved into a regional proxy war resulting in the
deaths of hundreds of thousands.
The Christian communities have largely stood with the Assad
regime knowing that its fall would mean further fragmentation and a breakdown
in security. The Sunni groups and especially the Sunni jihadi and Salafi
factions would be coming for them as indeed they have done in places like Iraq.
Assad and his Iranian allies were protecting the Christian ethnic communities
from the likes of ISIS and the numerous al Qaeda affiliates who in some cases
have been backed by Western governments including the United States.
However there are always those advocates and activists that
throw their hat in the Western ring. Whether bought overtly or brought to the
position through conditioning, connections or through an induced myopia, they
continue to push the Washington line and demand the removal of Assad. This
thinking is usually connected to an extreme anti-Tehran sentiment which has
effectively tied the fates of Iran, Syria and Lebanon together. They've decided
that Iran is the lynchpin to the situation and that if Tehran's power can be
broken in Syria, it will lead to their fall in Lebanon and thus the downfall of
Hezbollah. And then, on to Tehran, or so the logic goes.
While there's a type of logic to this thinking, it is indeed
short-sighted and will likely produce a great deal more harm than whatever good
might come of it. And of course there is the assumption that a pro-Western
regime in Syria is to be preferred. Ironically, with the exception of the
ayatollah's highly charged religious regime in Iran, the US has (historically)
had its most poignant conflicts with secular rulers. From Nasser, to Saddam
Hussein, Gaddafi and the Assads, the United States has historically feared
nationalism far more than Islamism. Anwar Sadat was a secular exception in that
he was 'flipped' into the Western column. It cost him his life, but his regime
survived in the form of Hosni Mubarak and after a very brief interlude it
re-emerged in the form of general al-Sisi. If the secular ruler is in the
Western camp, then all is well, but if not, then they are marked for
destruction.
As far as the charge that Assad is targeting Christian
communities... well, that's frankly news to me, and I've been following the war
since its beginning. However I will say this. If some of these communities have
(during the period of the long civil war) collaborated with US occupying
troops, then they will certainly face retribution.
It also must be remembered and understood that the official
organs and mouthpieces used by Western media to report on Syria are compromised
and untrustworthy. There are deaths being blamed on Assad that in fact are the
result of Salafi elements. From staged chemical attacks to some of the rather
dubious bombing episodes it's clear that all destruction (at least in the eyes
of Western media) is due to Assad. The campaign continues and clearly the
so-called and grossly misnamed Christian Post is willing to further the
propaganda campaign being waged by elements in the White House, Pentagon, CIA
and other organs of US power. It's hardly a surprise and from the myriad of
think-tanks, NGO's and other organisations there's always a journalist,
academic, activist or some other person to be found who will voice the
arguments for the campaign. This article in The Christian Post is no exception.
It's interesting that even a basic search demonstrates that
the media outlets which argue Syrian Christians don't support Assad are the
very same outlets arguing for war escalation and a revitalisation of the now
largely failed regime-change campaign.
In some cases those being targeted by the regime were
activists and when a civil war of this magnitude has been fought, the regime is
not going to let bygones be bygones. On the one hand there's talk of a return
to status quo ante bellum, but the
truth is that such a scenario is impossible. Wars of this magnitude are not
fought without profound social changes taking place. Assad has survived the
civil war. Those that remained loyal and those that kept out of it will have a
chance of returning to normality. But those that agitated, those that
collaborated, those that worked to bring in the outside forces... they would be
wise to leave and never return. I'm sorry for those that are suffering and I
would not for a moment defend Assad on moral grounds. That's not the point.
There's no morality to any of this. It's lex
talionis, eye for eye vengeance. The spirit of Lamech is being turned loose
and those professed Christians who took up the sword (of which there are many
ways to do so) should have taken heed to Christ's words that they will perish
by it.
They backed the wrong horse and now they have to pay. If they
were so discerning they should have realised the course of events and made
their move to escape at an earlier date.
But what I will not do is be convinced (and conned) by a
newly launched propaganda campaign to step-up or re-ignite the conflict. Have
they learned nothing? Those that argue such are not in service of truth or any
kind of morality. It's pure vengeance and avarice. They still seek power and
are still advocating for violence... hoping Washington will launch a second
more committed and more violent phase of war to take down Assad.
And in the process, should Washington start a war with Tehran
or perhaps Moscow? Where does it end?
As far as Christians being barred from political office...
that's not a concern of the New Testament. But the expression of such as a
frustration on the part of the activists that wrote the piece is telling.
That's what this all about... power and vengeance.
Does the state surveil? Does it cast a wary eye on the
various Christian communities? I don't doubt it. I don't defend it but the
state's paranoia is part of a larger story. Quit looking to the French, British
and Americans to intervene and manipulate the politics of the country and wider
region, and these people will find a secular regime like the Assad's is far
more likely to leave them alone.
The article also contains many lies and contested points. I
found the piece to be manipulative, deceitful and dangerous. The article in the
end is nothing more than a call for war and the escalation of the current
situation. The sooner the US leaves Syria, the sooner the situation can be
pacified. They claim to be part of a group that seeks peace... even while they
advocate for mass bloodshed and the unleashing of another decade of rape and
killing. Shame on them.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.