Syria: A conflict of egos

Russia’s supporters, of course, refuse to accept the fact that Moscow is also fighting a turf war and that it is entirely fair to question the legality of Russia’s actions

The United States has the power to decree the death of nations, wrote Stephen Kinzer in the Boston Globe. Kinzer’s article was entitled: “The media are misleading the public on Syria.” In his piece, the scholar at a Brown University Institute contested that his country’s media misinformation on Syria is leading to the kind of ignorance, which is enabling the American government to pursue any policy, however imprudent, in the war-torn Arab country. The US government can “decree the death of nations” with “popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story,” he wrote.

Kinzer, in principle makes a strong point. His article, however, was particularly popular among those who see the Syrian government entirely innocent of any culpability in the ongoing war, and that Iran and Russia are at no fault whatsoever; better yet, their intervention in Syria is entirely morally-guided and altruistic. That said, Kinzer’s assertion regarding the US government’s dangerous meddling in Syria’s affairs, renewed Cold War with Russia and ill-defined military mission in that country, is all true.
Neither is the US, nor its allies, following rules of war nor adhering to a particularly noble set of principles aimed at ending that most devastating war, which has killed well over 300,000 people, rendered millions displaced and destroyed the country’s wealth and infrastructure. So what is the truth on Syria?
The only truth that all parties seem to agree upon is that hundreds of thousands are dead and Syria is shattered. But, of course, each points to the other side for culpability of the ongoing genocide. An oddly refreshing, although disturbing “truth” was articulated by Alon Ben-David in the Israeli Jerusalem Post last year.
The title of his article speaks volumes: “ May it never end: The uncomfortable truth about the war in Syria.”
“If Israel’s interest in the war in Syria can be summarized in brief, it would be: That it should never end,” Ben-David wrote.
“No one will say this publicly, but the continuation of the fighting in Syria, as long as there is a recognized authority in Damascus, allows Israel to stay out of the swamp and distance itself from the swarms of mosquitoes that are buzzing in it.” Of course, Israel never truly “stayed out of the swamp,” but that is for a separate discussion. Aside from the egotistical, unsympathetic language, Israel’s “truth,” according to the writer, is predicated on two premises: The need for an official authority in Damascus, and that the war must continue, at least, until the fire burns the whole country down, which is, in fact, the case.
Russia’s supporters, of course, refuse to accept the fact that Moscow is also fighting a turf war and that it is entirely fair to question the legality of Russia’s actions in the context of US-Russian regional and global rivalry while, at the same time, attempting to underscore Moscow’s own self-seeking motives.
Not least, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US has not only scarred, but truly devastated the Middle East — killing, wounding and displacing millions — and has no intention of preserving Syria’s territorial integrity or the human rights of its people. The only country in the region that Washington is truly and fully committed to in terms of security is Israel, which has recently received a generous aid package of $38 billion. Keeping in mind Ben-David’s reasoning, it is no surprise that the US is in no rush to end the war in Syria, if not intentionally prolong it. The American “truth” on Syria is largely centered around demonizing Russia — never about saving lives, nor even — at least not yet — about regime change.
For the US, the war is largely pertinent to American regional interests. So, when Secretary of State John Kerry called recently for a war crime investigation into Russian bombings in Syria, we can be certain that he was not sincere, and his impassioned appeal was tailored to win only political capital.
Despite massive platforms for propaganda, there are still many good journalists who recognize that, no matter what one’s personal opinion is, facts must be checked and that honest reporting and analysis should not be part of the burgeoning propaganda war. Yes, these journalists exist, but they fight against many odds. 
It is rather sad that years after the war in Syria ends, and the last of the mass graves is dug and covered, many unpleasant truths will be revealed. But would it matter, then?
Only recently, we discovered that the Pentagon had spent over $500 million in manufacturing propaganda war videos on Iraq. 
The money was largely spent on developing fake Al-Qaeda videos. Unsurprisingly, much of the US media either did not report on the news, or quickly glossed over it, as if the most revealing piece of information of the US invasion of Iraq — which destabilized the Middle East until today — is the least relevant.
The truth on Syria is that, regardless of how the war ends, Syria has been destroyed and its future is bloody and bleak; and that, regardless of the “winners” of the conflict, the Syrian people have already lost. 

Eurasia Review

Syria: A conflict of egos

Russias supporters, of course, refuse to accept the fact that Moscow is also fighting a turf war and that it is entirely fair to question the legality of Russias actions

The United States has the power to decree the death of nations, wrote Stephen Kinzer in the Boston Globe. Kinzers article was entitled: The media are misleading the public on Syria. In his piece, the scholar at a Brown University Institute contested that his countrys media misinformation on Syria is leading to the kind of ignorance, which is enabling the American government to pursue any policy, however imprudent, in the war-torn Arab country. The US government can decree the death of nations with popular support because many Americans and many journalists are content with the official story, he wrote. Kinzer, in principle makes a strong point. His article, however, was particularly popular among those who see the Syrian government entirely innocent of any culpability in the ongoing war, and that Iran and Russia are at no fault whatsoever; better yet, their intervention in Syria is entirely morally-guided and altruistic. That said, Kinzers assertion regarding the US governments dangerous meddling in Syrias affairs, renewed Cold War with Russia and ill-defined military mission in that country, is all true. Neither is the US, nor its allies, following rules of war nor adhering to a particularly noble set of principles aimed at ending that most devastating war, which has killed well over 300,000 people, rendered millions displaced and destroyed the countrys wealth and infrastructure. So what is the truth on Syria? The only truth that all parties seem to agree upon is that hundreds of thousands are dead and Syria is shattered. But, of course, each points to the other side for culpability of the ongoing genocide. An oddly refreshing, although disturbing truth was articulated by Alon Ben-David in the Israeli Jerusalem Post last year. The title of his article speaks volumes: May it never end: The uncomfortable truth about the war in Syria. If Israels interest in the war in Syria can be summarized in brief, it would be: That it should never end, Ben-David wrote. No one will say this publicly, but the continuation of the fighting in Syria, as long as there is a recognized authority in Damascus, allows Israel to stay out of the swamp and distance itself from the swarms of mosquitoes that are buzzing in it. Of course, Israel never truly stayed out of the swamp, but that is for a separate discussion. Aside from the egotistical, unsympathetic language, Israels truth, according to the writer, is predicated on two premises: The need for an official authority in Damascus, and that the war must continue, at least, until the fire burns the whole country down, which is, in fact, the case. Russias supporters, of course, refuse to accept the fact that Moscow is also fighting a turf war and that it is entirely fair to question the legality of Russias actions in the context of US-Russian regional and global rivalry while, at the same time, attempting to underscore Moscows own self-seeking motives. Not least, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US has not only scarred, but truly devastated the Middle East killing, wounding and displacing millions and has no intention of preserving Syrias territorial integrity or the human rights of its people. The only country in the region that Washington is truly and fully committed to in terms of security is Israel, which has recently received a generous aid package of $38 billion. Keeping in mind Ben-Davids reasoning, it is no surprise that the US is in no rush to end the war in Syria, if not intentionally prolong it. The American truth on Syria is largely centered around demonizing Russia never about saving lives, nor even at least not yet about regime change. For the US, the war is largely pertinent to American regional interests. So, when Secretary of State John Kerry called recently for a war crime investigation into Russian bombings in Syria, we can be certain that he was not sincere, and his impassioned appeal was tailored to win only political capital. Despite massive platforms for propaganda, there are still many good journalists who recognize that, no matter what ones personal opinion is, facts must be checked and that honest reporting and analysis should not be part of the burgeoning propaganda war. Yes, these journalists exist, but they fight against many odds. It is rather sad that years after the war in Syria ends, and the last of the mass graves is dug and covered, many unpleasant truths will be revealed. But would it matter, then? Only recently, we discovered that the Pentagon had spent over $500 million in manufacturing propaganda war videos on Iraq. The money was largely spent on developing fake Al-Qaeda videos. Unsurprisingly, much of the US media either did not report on the news, or quickly glossed over it, as if the most revealing piece of information of the US invasion of Iraq which destabilized the Middle East until today is the leastrelevant. The truth on Syria is that, regardless of how the war ends, Syria has been destroyed and its future is bloody and bleak; and that, regardless of the winners of the conflict, the Syrian people have already lost. Eurasia Review