 |
| Huddlers on the Roof: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin prior to the opening session of the G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, on Nov. 15 2015. |
DDGD November 15, 2015
For speaking opportunities,
interviews, op-eds, book-signings, art exhibitions and ways to support my work
as a blogger, author, a budding digital artist, and a pro-democracy activist, please
reach out to me through this contact form.
Today’s
Post is brought to you by… The Brotherhood of the Giddy
Scapegoats: you fuck things up, and we'll giddily take the blame, and the
fall, all for a small fee deposited into our Cayman bank accounts. No Refunds.
The Delirica
|
In the previous
edition of DDGD, I made the easy prediction that the terrorists involved in
the Paris Attacks were probably inhabitants of the various Parisian banlieues.
Revelations over the last 48 hours confirm this, but also point to a possible
involvement of actors hailing from abroad with some of them trained in Syria,
albeit not Syrians. Some of these actors seem to hail from a
particular banlieue of Brussels, while at least one figure seem to
have been a Syrian who came through Greece as a refugee. Some of the French and
Belgian actors could have been trained by IS/Daesh in one of their camps in
Syria. Be that at it may, and despite the growing complexity of the picture, the
main conclusions are the same:
·
Syrian and other refugees
should not be feared or demonized. After all, we are dealing here with hundreds
of thousands of refugees as opposed to possibly a couple of dozen terrorist
infiltrators. This may not mean much on the popular level as there is certainly
no shortage of opportunistic populist politicians willing to cease the moment
to push for their extremist and racist agendas. Still, reasonable politicians
cannot abandon the scene; their voice is needed now more than ever in order to
tackle the challenges ahead in an objective and rational manner.
·
The push for peace in Syria
should now gain more momentum; the plan introduced by the parties in Vienna is
promising, but gives too much time to Russia, Iran and Assad to create more
untoward realities on the ground that could defeat the purpose of achieving a
serious democratic transition in Syria.
“Surveillance
files have been opened on more than 5,000 suspected Islamic extremists in
France, but security services only have the manpower and resources to monitor a
small fraction of these numbers 24/7. Around 1,000 have traveled to Syria and
Iraq to fight jihad or are in transit there, and those are just the ones French
authorities know about.”
As such, we have three pitfalls
we need to avoid in the coming phase:
·
We cannot dismiss the
existence of an indigenous dimension to the problem of terrorism, that is, the
domestic factors encouraging radicalization of Muslim youth in France, Britain
and elsewhere. Another aspect of this dimension is gun
smuggling from the Balkans and other Eastern European countries, the Paris
Attacks would have been impossible without these smuggled weapons (this is why Donald
Trump’s remark on this matter is such a big fucking bêtise). This
particular problem cannot be effectively tackled without addressing a variety
of problems related to the current relations between East and West Europe,
including the issue of endemic administrative corruption in the East.
Homage to Trump: “Hey Melania honey, don’t
forget to pack your gun for the concert this evening, you know, just in case
the band turned out to be horrible or something. This reminds me: I really need
to get me a new cowboy outfit and holster for my upcoming meeting with Putin.”
Note:
The Syrian Conflict as well as the various terrorist operations that happened
since, in Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Egypt and now France comes a further proof of
the dangerous nature of that macabre and unholy, if you will, three-way linking
autocratic regimes, organized crimes and terrorist networks and which cannot be
handled without an integrated strategy that calls for addressing a variety of
“domestic” and “foreign” challenges.
·
We also cannot afford to
ignore the fact that we are dealing with a growing ethos whose primary causes
stem from problems indigenous to countries in Africa and Asia and inherently
related to structural failures there as well as to failure associated with the
political and religious culture. Interventions in these countries’ affairs from
both the West and the East - with the latter’s role often neglected by
Western-based analysts with their narcissistic obsession with their role in
this world – often serve to amplify the impact of these inherent problems but
they do not create or invent them (see note below). Combatting this ethos,
therefore, requires an integrated strategy that seeks to respond to the root
causes involved, as I
noted previously and as my friend Rami
Khouri argues here today, that is, the three-pronged problem of
authoritarianism, corruption and underdevelopment.
·
Refugees not the problem
and a handful of terrorists should not be used to demonize millions of innocent
refugees. We should fight against all attempts by populist right-wing
politicians to do so, as this is bound to compound the suffering of these
innocent people, as well as create the potential for radicalizing the most
emotionally vulnerable among them.
 |
| United Nations General Assembly Hall |
For this, these
recommendations made by Peter van Buren below with their usual incoherent mix
of folly and righteousness create only paralysis.
“If I had exactly the right
strategy, I’d tell you what it is, and I’d try and tell the people in
Washington and Paris and everywhere else. But I don’t have the exact thing to
do, and I doubt they’d listen to me anyway.
But I do have
this: stop what we have been doing for the last 14 years. It has not worked.
There is nothing at all to suggest it ever will work. Whack-a-mole is a game,
not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. Stop
throwing away our freedoms at home on falsehoods. Stop disenfranchising the
Muslims who live with us. Understand the war, such as it is, is against a set
of ideas — religious, anti-western, anti-imperialist — and you cannot bomb an
idea. Putting western soldiers on the ground in the MidEast and western planes
overhead fans the flames. Vengeance does not and cannot extinguish an idea.”
These are the problem here: there
was no attempt at identifying the causes of the failure of the Global War on
Terror over the last 14 years. We are only left with the inference that
intervention itself was wrong and not simply the manner and scope of it.
Declaring that “Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan” is all too true, but coming
from a man with no plan, as he himself admit, it was bound to lead to
statements like this: “Leave the Middle East alone.” Can we really do so at
this stage, especially considering that we helped create the mess by allowing
for all these previously hidden problems to rise to the surface? Refusing to
fix what you helped broke is not a good moral policy, and creates more
antagonism towards us among the ranks of the people affected by our
intervention, and then, by our departure. On the other hand, should we leave
the Middle East alone, will others do the same? Could we afford not to be
concerned about that?
But of course, van Buren is right
about not compromising our basic freedoms at home and disenfranchising Muslims.
Mixing these clearly ethical stands with a series of foolish and downright
amoral recommendations on the Middle East is exactly why such Libertarian
stands are so dangerous and inconsistent. If we are truly concerned about
values and principles, then, we do have a responsibility towards the peoples of
the Middle East and far beyond. Because when you choose to intervene and
disengage on the basis of the most suitable domestic narrative, and
irrespective of the impact to others, this make you part of the problem that
those others are dealing with. In order to avoid this, we should be more
consistent in the way we apply certain principles. And we are talking here
about the very principles enshrined in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration
of human Rights. So, despite the seemingly ethical and human nature of the
stands iterated by van Buren, among other Libertarian figures, including Ron
and Rand Paul, they are in fact inherently selfish and unethical.
As for bombing ideas, of course
one cannot do so. But when that idea legitimates and calls for killing innocent
people to get a certain ideological message across, and when, despite this, it
manages to attract followers ready to act on it, then, that leaves one little
choice but to act forcefully on all relevant fronts: the ideational, the
socioeconomic, the political, the diplomatic and the military. But leaving the
Middle East alone now when IS/Daesh, Assad, Putin, Khamenei, Erdogan,
Hezbollah, etc. are busy trying to reshape it is not simply unethical, it’s
simply put the wrong strategy to adopt. But then, it is not supposed to be a
strategy, for if it were, van Buren and colleagues would have told us. Instead
they admit that they have no strategy, then, they prescribe this.
The Daily Delirynth
|
“… the White House now believes Putin
may be coming around on the point that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must
go, according to one White House official. The White House says Russia now
supports negotiations led by the United Nations on a transition government
between the opposition and Assad regime that will lead to free and fair
elections, according to the source.”
So, will this huddle seen around
the world lead to a Syrian-owned resolution of the Syrian Conflict. Not really,
for Mr. Putin still “insists Assad should be allowed to run as a candidate. The
White House disagrees.” Putin, then, is “coming around” to accepting the
necessity of Assad’s departure, meanwhile though, he “insists” on allowing him
to run as a candidate in a future presidential elections. This is apparently
his interpretation of the little known legal doctrine of “Huddling for Peace.”
This brings us to…
“In a joint
statement, the countries involved in the talks, including Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Turkey and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, laid out a
plan including formal talks between the government and opposition by Jan. 1.”
As to the fate of Assad,
Secretary John Kerry said:
"We still
differ, obviously, on the issue of what happens with Bashar al-Assad,"
Kerry said. "But we are relying on the political process itself, led by
Syrians, which it will be going forward, and the Syrians negotiating with
Syrians; that that can help bring a close to this terrible chapter."
So, it will probably be up to Mr.
de Mistoura, then, to interact with Syrian opposition and the different
regional and international parties to put together a list of groups and
individuals that will be invited to attend talks with the Assad regime.
UmReeka: Obama
– the Leader from His Behind, the man who, in order to reach a deeply flawed
Faustian deal with Iran, ended up creating a major security concern for the
entire world, and an even bigger humanitarian disaster involving millions of
Syrians. In the process, decades of international legal developments
culminating in the creation and adoption by close to 200 nations of the legal doctrine
of the Responsibility to Protect, were allowed to unravel. The promise of Never
Again made after the Rwandan Genocide became “we
cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force,” then, it magically
transformed into “a
contained” problem. In the interim, we heard things, like no use dwelling
on the past, and lies such as: the situation was always bound to be complex and
the options were always equally bad, etc. Delusions breeding lies which retroactively
justify them. The only thing we really learn from history, it seems, is how to
repeat it. Our progress is forever doomed to remain a mere technological and
ideational phenomenon, while our behavior continues to dwell under the
influence of eons old instincts.
But the New
York Post gets it wrong. Obama is not simply blind to the terrorism
perpetrated in the name of Islam, his blindness, in part willful, is to whole
set of issues far larger than Islam and the Muslim World revolving around
issues of power projection and dispensation. Downsizing the issue to “Islamic
terrorism” serves a domestic political agenda that has little to do with fixing
the problem and more with creating new ones.
In the meantime, Obama supports
France by sticking to fighting ISIS from the air. This is the lesson Obama
learned from Winston Churchill when the latter said in his world famous speech:
“we shall
fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, and that’s
about it. Let others fight them on the ground and the beaches.”
 |
| This is how Daesh rules in Raqqa, not by consent of the populace, but by fear and intimidation |
North
of Holy: Punishing Raqqa: True, Raqqa has emerged as the
Syrian capital of IS/Daesh. But Daesh is practically an occupation force there
and has little indigenous support, quite contrary to the “distinction” made by
Alain Bauer, “a leading French criminologist and adviser to officials in Paris,
New York, and elsewhere.” Mr.
Bauer, his insights perhaps a bit limited by grief, claims that not only is
IS/Daesh “embedded among the civilian population,” but that “[t]hey are
representing the civilian population” there, “at least those who have remained
and sometimes profited from the group’s presence.” “They are not enslaving
them.” He said. “And a war is a war.” This is why he believes “We need to erase
Raqqa.”
But, if Mr. Bauer was blinded by
grief in his analysis, what about Robert Baer, the known CNN analyst? I
personally heard him today on CNN as usual using the destruction of the city of
Hama in Syria by Hafiz Al-Assad in 1982 as a method of how terrorism can be
defeated and peace restored. Now, Mr. Baer made it quite clear that he is not
advocating such a course, but this is what will be needed to destroy Daesh, he
said. So, it’s genocidal maniacs have the solution to our problem. Even though,
it was Assad Sr. himself who was directly responsible, through his repressive
tactics and support for his corrupt coterie, for creating that little problem
with Islamist terrorists that “necessitated” the destruction of Hama. Just like
his son is responsible today for the creating of Daesh today. Don’t you just
loooove realism!
Perhaps, we should just arm
Bashar Al-Assad and give him aerial support, just like the Russian are doing,
and just allow him to repeat his father’s feat, over and over and over and over
again until all of Syria is “liberated” from its people, or at least those
unruly and mostly Sunni ten or fifteen million of them.
Juan Cole does not argue for the
adoption of this course, but he recommends a course that is as equally
impractical and unrealistic as that recommended by Peter van Buren and the
Libertarians, when
he argues that “ISIS is
the most urgent threat to the West stemming from the Syrian war and must be
destroyed. Assad’s murderous dictatorship can be dealt with next.”
So, years ago, Cole and
colleagues argued for engaging Assad because they chose to believe that he was
a reformer. This was indeed a cause célèbre for the democrats up until the
onset of the Syrian Revolution, with top democrats like John Kerry and Nancy
Pelosi, both of whom visited Damascus and sat with Assad, even when the Bush
Administration was seeking to isolate his regime internationally. In fact, mere
weeks after he lost the 2004 elections to Bush, Kerry went on a trip to
Damascus to assure him that he will oppose any action meant to isolate his
regime. A month later, the former Lebanese PM, Rafic al-Hariri was
assassinated, with all evidence pointing at the Assad’s regime involvement at
the highest levels, that is, Bashar, in the matter.
But when the revolution broke
out, these officials, and their academic advisers, directly or indirectly, like
Mr. Cole, were caught off-guard, and they had to immediately disassociate
themselves from their previous position. But, for some, this came as a mere
tactical withdrawal, not necessitating any kind of reassessment of their former
ideological views. Coles was one of those people. He was never on board of
taking any action against Assad directly, so when he recommends dealing with
him later, one has to be wary.
Not that Mr. Cole is some evil
opportunistic character. On the contrary, he is a decent person who often uses
his blog to support humanitarian causes and to
fight against Islamophobia, and takes much flak for it from the right with
which he often deals graciously. The problem here is in part ideological. But
it also involves having he wrong instincts when it comes to the realm of
action. This is why this issue is hard for me, on the one hand I have ample
reasons to respect and appreciate people like Cole, and I do understand their
motivations, or at least I think so, but, on the other hand, they have often
served to undermine any effort I and people like me have are making to get this
administration to adopt a more proactive attitude towards our cause. They are
simply far more influential than foreign-born upstarts like me who often cannot
find a comfortable place for themselves in the political spectrum here. Despite
my vociferous criticism of Cole, other academics, “experts” and “pundits,” and
my strong objections to the Obama Administration policies, including my
ridicule of the Man himself, I actually cannot demonize or dismiss any of them,
nor the legitimacy of many of their concerns.
I just happen to believe that
this focus on fighting the symptoms rather than on the real disease to be
disadvantageous to the two peoples to whom I now belong: the Syrians and the
Americans, with all their ethnic diversity.
But, thank heavens, the Obama
Administration seem to be doing some “coming around” itself, by refusing to
ignore the symbiotic relations between Assad and IS. This
is what John Kerry had to say about this today:
“… make no mistake – anybody,
please – Assad has cut his own deal with Daesh. They sell oil. He buys oil.
They are symbiotic, not real enemies in this. And he has not, when he had a
chance over four years, mounted his attacks against Daesh. The Daesh
headquarters sat in Raqqa for years. It was never bombed by his bombs. It was
children and women and hospitals and schools that were bombed by his bombs.
So that is the
reality here. And I think for him to try to blame what happed in Paris on
anybody other, particularly the West who is trying to save his country and save
his people and who is the biggest single donor to the refugees that he has
created in order to safeguard them, is beyond insanity. It’s insulting.”
So, perhaps there is hope yet,
hope that, somehow, administration will be able to prevail upon the Russians
and convince them of the necessity to remove Assad.
As for Raqqa, Daesh has long
created fortified underground facilities to protect its fighters from air
strikes, as they had ample time to do it. So, the people who are suffering as a
result of these intensified rounds of aerial strike, are the innocent Syrians
who either chose not to abandon their homes and their city, something anyone
who fog to get a roof over their heads should understand, or have been
prevented from doing so by IS fighters who want to use them as human shields. What
Raqqa needs is to be liberated from the ground, not punished from the air, and
though in all cases the innocent will suffer, with a ground campaign people
will have a glimmer of hope that their suffering will end at one point. Limiting
the fight to aerial strikes takes hope away and push people into Daesh’s lap.
The Qalifate: Can
France’s Far-Right Marine Le Pen Use Paris Attacks to Win Power? “Marine Le Pen used the horrific
attacks on Paris to push her right-wing brand of politics. Many fear this could
be her chance to seize power.” What a victory for the Qalifate
that would be! This will be their greatest feat of all. But the people of
France and the free world should know that a vote for hatemongers in the West
is a vote for hatemongers in the East. The politics of fear- and hate-mongering
are not the solution, we need to stand strong by the ideals enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it took us over 10,000 years to
enunciate them, and be vigilant.
The No-Fly Zone: Russia:
Hezbollah not a terror group, their cooperation in ISIS fight should be
encouraged. Of course! Heaven forbids any of their Shia allies get
classified as terrorists even if they behaved like ones. It’s only those damn
Sunnis who should be blamed. Assad, his local Alawite militias, his imported
Shia militias, and his allies, including Hezbollah – they are champions of the
holy resistance against the Sunni population and its criminal demands for
freedom and fair representation. So, let’s simplify the issue, shall we? Ideological Groups for Dummies, and for the Willfully Blind
for When They Choose to See: In the case of any group where membership
is based on adherence to a specific political ideology and attachment to a
specific ethnic background, tribal, national or religious, and which relies on
the support of an armed faction to the extent that the group’s policies and
decisions are intimately linked with the interests of that faction, we can
safely declare that this group is inherently fascist and always willing to
deploy terroristic means to serve its specific agenda. Got it? I sincerely hope
so.
And to finish today’s long round
up, what better way than to reference the first what is bound to be a long
series of conspiracy theories revolving around the Paris Attacks? This one
comes to us courtesy of Iran’s propaganda organ: Press TV: West
needs Paris false-flag attacks to pressure Syria: Barrett.
Quote of the Day
|
“Any Parisian from my generation, and I shouldn't be asked to be — be demanded to stand out louder than any other French. Because being a Muslim doesn't make me naturally close to the attackers.” --French writer, journalist and activist Rokhaya Diallo
Tweets of the Day
|
—
Scott Clark (@_s_clark) November
14, 2015
Cartoons
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please stick to the topic(s) being discussed in this particular entry. Hate speech will not be tolerated.