
Armed rebels in Syria. The U.S. has admitted that al-Qaeda has joined the ranks of rebel forces against the Assad regime. (Photo: Press TV)
The Southeast Asian country of Laos in the late 1950s and early 60s was a complex and confusing patchwork of civil conflicts, changes of government and switching loyalties. The CIA and the State Department alone could take credit for engineering coups at least once in each of the years 1958, 1959 and 1960. No study of Laos of this period appears to have had notable success in untangling the muddle of who exactly replaced whom, and when, and how, and why. After returning from Laos in 1961, American writer Norman Cousins stated that “if you want to get a sense of the universe unraveling, come to Laos. Complexity such as this has to be respected.”[1]
Syria 2012 has produced its own tangled complexity. In the past 18 months it appears that at one time or another virtually every nation in the Middle East and North Africa as well as members of NATO and the European Union has been reported as aiding those seeking to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad, while Russia, China, and several other countries are reported as aiding Assad. The Syrian leader, for his part, has consistently referred to those in combat against him as “terrorists”, citing the repeated use of car bombs and suicide bombers. The West has treated this accusation with scorn, or has simply ignored it. But the evidence that Assad has had good reason for his stance has been accumulating for some time now, particularly of late. Here is a small sample from recent months:
According to your favorite news source or commentator, President Assad is either a brutal murderer of his own people, amongst whom he has had very little support; or he’s a hero who’s long had the backing of the majority of the Syrian population and who is standing up to Western imperialists and their terrorist comrades-in-arms, whom the US is providing military aid, intelligence, and propaganda services.
Washington and its freedom fighters de jour would like to establish Libya II. And we all know how well Libya I has turned out.
Note
[1] William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, chapter 21
MarigoldRan
November 3, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Libya I actually turned out rather well. Or at least better than what it was before. Would you rather live in Libya now, or under Gaddafi?
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 3, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Libya turned out rather well? Tens of thousands dead, chaos and lawlessness reining, with the US-backed al-Qaeda-allied armed rebels committing massacres and ethnically cleansing entire towns, the entire region destabilized and flooded with arms, to overthrow a government in violation of the US Constitution and international law. If this is your idea of a positive result, I’d had to think of what you would consider a negative outcome.
Leningradov
November 11, 2012 at 2:46 am
MarigoldRan was joking i guess… . Libya I was one of the most socially secured and comfortable countries to live in. Even inherently agressive tribes behaved decently and respected others.