Al-Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has issued a new video today praising the pro-democracy demonstrations in Syria, saying that the anti-Assad demonstrators are “standing up against his oppression.”
Zawahiri also said he wished his fighters could join the Syrian uprising, but that “the ongoing war between the United States and its allies against al-Qaeda” prevented them from doing so. He urged the protesters not to replace Assad with a pro-US regime.
Despite US claims of a cushy relationship between Assad and al-Qaeda, it is clear that the militants would ideologically prefer a Sunni-dominated government to the Ba’athist regime, and indeed the US and Israel have traditionally accepted Assad’s rule primarily over fear that a free Syria would be more united and less willing to tolerate things like the ongoing occupation of Golan.
But Zawahiri’s backing of the demonstrators, much like the Obama Administration’s decision, is unlikely to be a pure expression of ideology so much as a realization that the Assad regime is weakening, and that whoever backs the protesters may stand to score points with a new government if and when they take over.
It should not come as a surprise that al-Qaeda has joined the coalition to overthrow Bashar Assad. Not mentioned in Mr. Ditz’s story is the help the Assad government provided the United States with valuable information in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Syria provided American intelligence with data they had on al-Qaeda. Before the neocons returned Syria to the “regime change” list, Washington acknowledged Syria’s cooperation. On a negative note, Washington used Damascus for renditions. It did not bother our government nor most of the media at the time.
Second, Mr. Ditz also avoids informing his readers that the Assad regime is far more secular than any of our Persian Gulf clients. Unlike many of the Arab countries, Christians have been welcomed and integrated into the economic, political, and social structures. For forty years, they had no fear of worshipping. When the US invasion destroyed Iraq, Iraqi Christians became targets. Over one million Iraqis fled for safety–not to Jordan or Saudi Arabia, but Syria. In face of this refugee problem we helped to create, Washington did nothing to help in providing food, shelter or medical assistance to Syria. Not given wide coverage by Mr. Ditz or the mass media, a priest told our “brave” ambassador to leave his church. With religious violence on the rise, al-Qaeda will find willing servants to expel minorities from Syria.
Third, al-Qaeda has no love for the Baathists. Just like the lies of Saddam Hussein’s connections with Bin Laden, the history of the Assads have been enemies to the Salafists. The oft repeated battle of Hama that resulted in loss of civilian life (depending on the purpose of the writer I have seen figures used from under 10,000 to over 30,000) seldom puts the violence in context. And in reporting on the current violence, the 1982 shoot-out is used as a mantra of what some Western observers seem disappointed in not recurring. As bad as it is that some 1,600 protestors have been killed, it is seldom mentioned that over 600 security forces have also died. Moreover, with descriptions used in the media of use of machine guns, tank fire, attacks on mosques, surrounding of villages, attack helicopters, etc, the army of Assad that attack Hama in 1982 that resulted in thousands of causalities which have far deadlier weapons today have resulted in 1,600 in over four months while taking 600 plus losses themselves does not add up. A ruthless government bent on suppressing a rebellion would have used its arsenal to crush the first sign of opposition with all the means at its disposal ignoring the body count.
Syria has long been viewed by Washington as an opponent–years before Hafiz Assad came to power. The Palestinian question, the Arab-Israeli conflict, inter rivalry between Arab states, strong anti-colonial feelings, etc have all played a part in erecting this division. With demonstrators being supplied with equipment, money, weapons, and media coverage, it is not surprising that Mr. Assad appears ripe for regime change. It also why most of the coverage has championed a movement that consists of very diverse elements that most reporters have no understanding of. All our efforts are on removing Assad with little regard as what happens to the territorial lines or national unity.
Great post, dmaak! This essay was rife with omissions and you filled them in!
That comment is one of the best definitions of Syria's current dire situation, its historical context, and its likely outcome that I have ever read. You need a taller soapbox, dmaak112!
None of the western imperial powers have ever wanted greater strength or unity in Syria – the cradle of anti-imperial Arab nationalism. Britain and France divided greater Syria between themselves, and then French imperialism – after splitting Lebanon from Syria and giving Arab Alexandretta and the upper Euphrates basin back to Turkey – wanted to carve-up Syria even further, by dividing it into Alawi, Sunni and Druze portions. It was only the strength of Arab nationalism in Syria that prevented this. Unfortunately, that popular feeling has given way to the rise of the Islamic Right, which seems quite willing – through sectarian strife and civil war – to engage in the further partition of Arab lands. The Islamic Right, as usual, is working in concert with Zionism and Western imperialism in achieving and maitainin the overall long-term goal of keeping the Arabs divided and weak.
You are absolutely right,dmaak.Antiwar is socalled antiwar magazine,but in reality many of its columnist support new USA neocolonialism.They only inform public of deaths of socalled peacefull demonstrators in Syria and Libya,they dont care about killed regular security forces of Syria and libya.Antiwar columnist are of opinion that USA is only superpower-policeman in the world and that USA under the pretext of protection of USA interests and spreading democracy in the world had,has and will have every right to intervene militarily in Serbia,Irak,Afganistan,somalia,Libya and in other countries in the future.But it is not about spreading democracy,the primary goal of those intervention is to install puppet governments and to grab natural recources from those countries on behalf of USA and UK corporations.USA can not be considered as democratic country,only two political parties exist on USA political scene and both of them act on behalf of american oligarhs,who are the true rulers of USA.