Attacks in Paris

I thought this column summed it up rather well:

                                           Hell Comes To Paris

Years spent depicting head chopping fanatics as rebels, moderates, and revolutionaries in an effort to effect the toppling of yet another secular government in the Middle East. Years spent cultivating Saudi Arabia as an ally against extremism and fanaticism rather than treating it as a country where extremism and fanaticism resides. Years spent treating the Assad government, Iran, and Russia as enemies rather than allies in the struggle against this fanaticism. And years spent denying any connection between a foreign policy underpinned by hubris and its inevitable blowback. All of this combined has succeeded in opening the gates of hell.

This hubris was on display just hours prior to the horrific events in Paris, when British Prime Minister David Cameron elevated the killing of Mohammed Emwazi by US drone strike in Raqqa, Syria, to the status of a major military victory in the war against ISIS. Out came the podium from Number 10, and out he came to proclaim that the killing of Emwazi (aka Jihadi John) had “struck at the heart of the terrorist organization [ISIS].”
 

That Cameron could venture such a fatuous boast the very day after an ISIS suicide bomb attack in southern Beirut killed 43 and wounded over 200 people was yet more evidence of the extent to which Western governments are detached from the reality of the Frankenstein’s monster their foreign policy has helped create and let loose upon the world.

There is also the truth that in the minds of people who only allow themselves to view the world through a Western prism, the deaths of Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, and Kurds – in other words those engaged in the struggle against ISIS on the ground – constitute a statistic, while the deaths of Europeans and Americans to the same barbarism are an unspeakable tragedy.

In years to come historians will prepare such a scathing indictment against this generation’s leaders of the free world, it will make the indictment prior generations of historians have leveled against the authors of the Sykes Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Treaty of Versailles, the Munich Agreement, and the Suez Crisis seem like a playful tap on the wrist in comparison. In fact, the only issue of debate in the course of preparing it will be where it should begin and where it should end. Worse, as things stand, it is on track to be open-ended.

In response to 9/11 the decision by the Bush administration, ably assisted by the Blair government, to crash first into Afghanistan without an exit strategy, followed by Iraq in the mistaken belief coalition troops would be greeted as liberators rather than occupiers, we now know beyond controversy marked the day not when a new dawn of democracy and freedom was about to break across the Arab and Muslim world, but the day an unsteady hand first reached for that rusty bolt securing in the place the gates of hell, and slowly started to pull it back. Over the succeeding decade back ever-further the bolt came, inch by inch, until in 2011 the gates finally, and inevitably, flew open with the West’s ill-fated intervention in an Arab Spring in Libya that by then had arrived at the end of its reach.

NATO airstrikes succeeded in dragging the Libyan ‘revolution’ from Benghazi all the way to Tripoli and victorious completion, whereupon the aforementioned David Cameron and his French counterpart at the time, Nikolas Sarkozy, descended to hail the Libyan people for “choosing democracy.” The hubris of those words, the military intervention which preceded them, have sent thousands of men, women, and children to the bottom of the Mediterranean in the years following, the final destination of their desperate attempt to escape Libya’s new democratic paradise.

Regardless, on we continued, driven by a myopic and fatal rendering of the brutal conflict in Syria as a revolution, even as legions of religious fanatics poured into the country, most of them across the border of our Turkish ally while Erdogan looked the other way. In the course of the five years of total war that has engulfed Syria since, the world has witnessed very conceivable variety of bestiality, carried out under the black flag of ISIL. But wait a minute, the barrel bombs, you say. Assad is killing his own people. He is the cause of all of this mayhem and carnage.

If his government was ‘the’ – or ‘a’ – cause of the Syrian conflict when it began in 2011, in 2015 Assad and his government are without any shadow a necessary part of it ending in Syria’s survival. Barrel bombs are an atrociously indiscriminate weapon, for sure, and their use rightly comes under the category of atrocity. However just as the atrocity of the allied firebombing of Dresden in 1945 did not invalidate the war against European fascism then, neither does the atrocity of Syrian barrel bombs invalidate the war against its Middle East equivalent today. When the survival of a country and its culture and history is at stake, war can never be anything else but ugly, which is why the sooner it is brought to a conclusion in Syria the better.

This is where we come to Russia’s intervention, which came at the point where the Syrian government was slipping towards the abyss. President Putin’s forensic accounting of the perfidious calamity of events leading up to Russia’s arrival, in his address to the UN General Assembly, should have heralded the glaringly and obviously necessary volte face required to turn a Western policy responsible for disaster into one approximating to coherence.

But, no, instead a moral equivalence has continued to be drawn between a secular and sovereign government under which the rights of minorities were protected, and a medieval death cult intent on turning the country into a mass grave of said minorities and others deemed superfluous to the requirements of the Caliphate.

This shorthand history of the elemental conflict currently raging across Syria, and also northern Iraq, and which has now come knocking on our door, places the crassness of David Cameron’s boast of ‘striking at the heart’ in its rightful context. We – i.e. the West – are in truth striking at the heart of nothing when it comes to the struggle against ISIS. Russia on the other hand is, along with the Syrian Arab Army, the Kurds, and Iran. The extent to which their efforts are succeeding can be measured in this shocking series of attacks that have been carried out beyond Syria’s borders – starting with the downing of the Russian passenger aircraft over the Sinai, followed by the recent suicide bombing in southern Beirut, and now with this latest grisly episode in the heart of Europe. They reflect the desperation of a group that has suffered significant reverses in Syria and Iraq in recent days and weeks.

No matter, if terror was the aim of the Paris attack, it has undeniably succeeded, leaving the French, British, and US government with a dilemma over how to respond, both in terms of security measures at home and their ongoing role in the conflict in Syria.

Responding to this latest atrocity in the French capital, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev expressed Russia’s condolences and said: “The tragedy in Paris demands that we all unite in our fight against extremism.”

These are no mere empty words. The longer Russia’s call for unity in this struggle goes unheeded and ignored, the longer it will take for the gates of hell to be bolted shut again – assuming, of course, they ever can be.

This article oversimplifies the current situation in Syria.

Like most here, I would welcome the death of ISIS. Unfortunately, between Al-Raqqah in Syria, and Mosul in Iraq, they are embedded in a mostly innocent civilian population of well over a million people. That's why they can't be bombed out of existence. Nobody in their right mind wants to see that many civilian deaths. The only way to rid ISIS from these population centers is street by street, house by house. But who is going to do it? The Kurds? The Shia militias of southern Iraq, Iran and Hezbollah, aided by the Russians? NATO?

A Western-led invasion is exactly what ISIS wants, and it is why the attacks in Paris and Beruit were carried out. It is also why the Russian airplane was bombed. It is what ISIS needs right now to rally large numbers of indiginous Sunnis to their side, and regain battlefield momentum.

There are a thousand different anti-Assad Sunni militias operating in Sryia today. Quite a few are Jihadist, but most are either Syrian army deserters - Sunnis who simply refused to fire on their own people who were protesting against Assad - or just local Sunni communities who have banded together for protection. Most are *not* currently with ISIS. But imagine all Syrian Sunnis rallying under a single ISIS flag. Only a foreign invasion could accomplish that!

The key to peace in Syria is removing Assad from power, and establishing a new coalition government. Only then will we find out how many Sunnis actually want to be part of a secular, multi-cultural Syria. Russia's support of Assad, their indiscriminate bombing of any and all Sunni rebels is hurting, not helping. Imagine if most SunnI deserters returned to the army. A new Sryian government could regain the strength to rid their own country of ISIS. But again, this will never happen with Assad in power.

Hook

PS - Apologies to those here who also visit PFM, where I have posted pretty much the same thoughts.

Yeah let's keep doubling down on that failed policy.  This whole Arab Spring mess is the result of US interventionism in the region.  Removing Assad was NONE of our business.  And still is NONE of our business.  Why Assad?  Why not Kim Jong Un?  Or King Salman? Or Robert Mugabe?  Oh, maybe it's because there aren't sufficient financial interests there.  (Or in the case of Salman, too many financial interests.)

Instead we support Saudi Arabia (heck when Abdullah died I think 90% of Washington ran to Riyadh to kiss butt.)  To boot, now the Saudis have a spot on the UN Human Rights panel.  For God's sake, that is akin to asking a known pedophile to babysit your kid.

And we are killing WAY more civilians than we let on.  The Intercept published a report from a new whistleblower that showed that the drone death toll among civilians is much higher than the US government officially states.  Some how the NYT only thought it worthy of a brief reference in the 24th and 25th (literally) paragraphs of another story.  Free press my fanny.

The US has both wittingly and unwittingly provided arms to ISIS.  The CIA helped start Al Qaida to combat the Russians in Afghanistan. And people who have nothing to do with anything that affects the US or the West die.  And I am tired of them using my money to pay for it all...it really creates an ethical quandary in paying taxes any more.  (Only obviated by the fact that it is more printed money than actual tax collection that funds this nonsense.)

When is the insanity going to end?  And when is the EU going to tell DC "enough is enough - you do NOT have our best interests at heart."  (Because we don't.)  This tragedy in Paris is a clear case of getting fleas from sleeping with the Big Dog.

And you are probably correct about literally going door to door to get rid of them; but that's an impossible task.  Like trying to rid your house of roaches with a fly swatter...it can't be done. US foreign policy has the entire ME region so f***ed up that it is literally impossible to see a way out.

These neocon Masters of the Universe who think they can pull strings and create a new reality to their liking are the bane of the planet - every bit as much as ISIS itself.  And when it inevitably goes wrong as it has for the past 15+ years they act like they are champions who will do something about it, when it fact they are largely to blame for the mess in the first place.

And "moderate rebels" is a US State Deptartment myth created to justify their bullsh*t foreign policy actions.  But the American sheeple don't pay attention, they're too busy keeping up with the Kardashians...and trying to keep their noses financially above water in our "recovering economy" (another line of bullsh*t.)

Your anger hurts your post's coherency. You protest everything, but propose no solutions.

My opinion is that a new coalition government that represents all Syrians is still possible.

I also still believe you have oversimplified what's happening in Syria. It is not simply Assad and his supporters versus the Jihadists. Most estimates say there are almost 100,000 ex-Syrian army defectors in the anti-Assad militias, with over 60,000 in the FSA alone. More sitting on the sidelines in camps in Turkey. These are all people who grew up in a secular Syria, had income and military careers, but then made a moral decision not to fire on their own mostly Sunni people - people who were simply protesting against Assad's brutality. They are being painted by Assad and his allies, including Russia, as all being "terrorists". If they continue to be treated that way, I suspect that is indeed what they will become - and all under an ISIS flag.

My hope is that Assad can be peacefully removed from power, a new coalition can be established, and the ex-army Syrians (and especially the high-ranking officers) can be persuaded with an offer of asylum to return and help govern the country. If they can, then Syria can potentially rid itself of ISIS without direct Western intervention.  Russia, if they choose to, can play a constructive diplomatic role in this process.

What do you propose other leaving everything as is?  Will the Russians listen to you? Will Hezbollah? After the recent bombings, I doubt it.  And after Paris, I sincerely hope that NATO does not give ISIS what it wants so desperately: another Western crusade.

Hook

One or two contributors seem to be implying that there is some equivalence between the (many) civilian deaths in Iraq/Syria which maybe due to western air and drone strikes with what happened in Paris.  I don't remotely buy that argument.  No western government (at least since Hitler) has set out to deliberately target and kill as many innocent civilians as their munitions would allow.  That is exactly what ISIS was doing in Paris both in plan and implementation.   

Never forget the intent.

Those who killed people in Paris were intending to kill unarmed people who had no direct involvement in the conflict.  In both western and sharia law that is murder, nothing more, nothing less.

Excellent point, Huge.  

I did not mean to imply that the West intends to kill civilians, but they are not going to let that get in the way of the overall objective, which is financially and "hegemonically" driven.  To that end they know how many they are killing, but seriously under-report it to not draw the ire of the people they allegedly (but don't) represent.  If you think Victoria Nuland is going to lose sleep over a few thousand brown people dying, well, you don't know the Mistress of Chaos.  (Slavs are open season also.)

And these terrorrists/freedom fighters could not do what they are doing without US arms support.  I am certain the US or British governments would totally accept China supplying arms to people in this country who wanted to overthrow the government.

Watch the Frontline piece "Inside Assad's Syria" - some of those defectors have actually been defecting back.  Pretty good piece of journalism, especially compared to the typical MSM tripe.

And thus far these kinds of illegal (under international law) interventions by the US/West have not gone well at all, but we just keep doing it.  It was actually Russia who first proposed new elections when they began to hit ISIS and so-called moderate rebels.

The FSA is largely a US fiction also (bluntly, propaganda), to re-brand various factions who really are only nominally working in the same direction. 

And I post no solutions (I actually did a few posts back) but none are good, and you don't have one either, because as I said US foreign policy has completely f**ed up the entire region, to where there is no obvious solution.  I would start by getting the hell out, and stop supplying weapons to everyone so my military contractors can have another good quarter of earnings.'

America is no longer a republic, it has (or is trying to be) an empire.  That NEVER ends well.

Agreed Peter. You've used transitive verbs of the kind I was searching for when I first posted on this thread about 12 hours ago!

Cheers, Chris

+1.

Transitive verbs: Much better than intransigent words!

I tend to agree. Sadly, DrMark acknowledged 'proudly' in a recent thread he has not voted since 1992, effectively removing his true voice from the democratic process here in the US. It's a shame to me as he seems passionate and informed on international politics, but without exercising his suffrage his posts on these topics become vacant rants to me. Unfortunately, almost two out of three Americans fail to vote on a regular basis. Bitching about everything that's wrong with the system often becomes their rationalization for not being directly involved by voting. Circular logic to a regular voter.

the independent uk has an article by Sunny Hundal. 

its a good read IMO.

i quote...

....The destruction of the Isis Caliphate must happen, but it must come from a Muslim-led force. After all, ordinary Muslims have been its biggest victims....

That isn’t to say we must do nothing. We have to challenge Islamism and its sympathisers in the west, and we have to stand for our values. There’s also no doubt we must win the war against Isis. But we cannot win it if we’re provoked into the response they want. We cannot win with a response that strengthens them rather than weakens them...

... unquote...

regards

Nice sentiment and policy.

Now, set out the implementation strategy, timescale and mission programme.

We also need to cover the 5th Column ie those who are buying the oil, contributing to the charity appeals, selling the weapons etc

And also the dissolusioned citizens within our western societies who are so ready to cause mayhem.

I presume the current G12 meeting will enable those who could take the necessary lead, to do so ? (I don't expect mpw or anyone else on this forum to do so, but your suggestions might well inform Cameron, Obama, Putin, Holland and others)

Interesting that you didn't say where that piece came from Doc - you obviously didn't have much confidence in your sources.

For the record, it comes from Counterpunch, a site that is not always known for its impeccable sources (or its credibility). It's not even a piece of journalism, just a comment piece by John Wight light on actual facts, some of which it's possible to dismiss, some of which is reasonably acute.

I actually agree with the sentiments of Wight's last paragraph.

If only they would make themselves known!

Doesn't exist as a group , more on an individual scale.

It's also worth adding, Peter, that whenever a moderate Muslim individual or group puts their head above the parapet, they are usually shot down or subject to vicious calumnies by  (predictably) the fanatics, mainstream commentators and, most disgracefully, so-called "liberal" and "left" organisations and publications, chief among them the Grauniad. 

One expects that kind of behaviour from the Islamist apologists of SWP, Counterfire and the Stop The war Coalitiion, but not the self-styled "World's liberal voice".

I hope you read the full article.

Putting the monster back inside the bottle will not be an easy or a tame affair or be done with in a jiffy and its not so simple for mpw or Don Atkinson to lay out a plan on the naim forum 

Unfortunately what many decision makers are realizing that its easier to let the monster out than put it back in.

You know this as well i presume.

best regards..

Kevin you are spot on,

My highlighted comments are the guts of it. It will be an enormous task.

Plenty of sentiment on this forum - that's the easy bit. The hard bit as I indicated is the implementation.

The bit about Cameron and Putin et al was tongue in cheek !

Feel free to join me, Don, in the quest for transitive verbs*. Either here on this thread, or come to that, any other matter of public policy.

Best,

Chris

* Thank you  Mr Jenkinson, my English teacher in Remove B,  c.1974

Hi Chris, English wasn't my strong subject at school, so I'll leave the search for transitive verbs to others.

Dealing with this problem will need action on many "fronts", over a significant length of time. This will include addressing disillusioned, disenchanted, disenfranchised young men and women within western society.

I outlined a few of the other "fronts" that will need action, in my posts of yesterday.

So far, in this post, I think I have managed to avoid any transitive verbs. Perhaps I should ask Mr Jenkinson

The French have increased their Syrian/Iraq airstrikes against these perpetrators. That is one, unremarkable but reported action. I know that the UK has now increased its Iraq airstrike capability, again unremarkable in itself, but IMHO positive action on one of many "fronts". Perhaps targetting oil field installations and the power source/transmission infrastructure will increase.

I don't know, but imagine that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar are under pressure to clamp down on any of their nationals providing charitable donations; and black-market buyers of oil are being tracked down, together with organisers of weapon supply lines.

I am merely trying to illustrate, what in my opinion is the difficulty of deciding what to do, and how to do it. But I think It will take a lot more than merely offering to provide decent jobs in Europe, to disenchanted people of non-european origin and asking them if they could be awfully decent and stop mucking about.