A Legacy Of Failure

How The World Left Syria To Burn

This post contains opinions that do not reflect the opinions of all of Alder's Ledge's contributors and writers. They are personal in nature and may be considered offensive to some. We suggest that you read this post with an open mind and consider it polite debate rather than an argument or fact.

We watched in Bosnia as the aggressors were rewarded by UN apathy as the blue hats dragged their feet. The tin star blue hats watched as the Serbs sat up their artillery and began to shell civilians. We were so close to the fight that we could watch the snipers pull their bloody triggers. So damn close that we could watch as another mother took her last breath as she fell in sniper alley. Yet we did nothing to stop the sniper in the first place. Instead we made certain that the Bosnian civilians were disarmed and unable to fight back. Thus making the slaughter possible.

The notion of peace through talking died in Bosnia. Over and over the Bosnians watched as their politicians pleaded with the Serbs to end the war. Over and over again they watched as the Serbs took their brothers and fathers off to die in camps the UN knew about from day one. Peace never came to Bosnia through talking to the tyrant. Instead all the Bosnians got from the fight was a legacy of broken promises and failure.

In Syria the peaceful protests were met with aggression unparalleled by modern fascists. Yet the world turned their eyes away as they hoped their beloved "Arab Spring" would pan out elsewhere. Nobody wanted to imagine that a little resistance to the "change" Obama claimed to inspire would end up like it has today. We didn't want to believe that 100,000 lives (and counting) would be lost to the arrogance of a tyrannical regime.

Had we decided to respond then maybe things might have worked out differently. Just perhaps if the world had decided to intervene then maybe more Syrians would be alive today.

When Libya went to hell the world responded by siding with a group of rebels that we deemed to be the lesser of two evils. We didn't have a bloody clue who we were arming or who were helping to kick Gaddafi out of office. But we took our chance to finish off the old persistent pain in Northern Africa. The thorn in the West's paw was finally removed.

Of course there were anti-war isolationists who wanted to defend their position of zero tolerance for war at all (and any) cost. And the one thing they got in the whole mess that was Libya was that UN/US never put "boots on the ground". Even when the rebels began to slaughter black African civilians as they "liberated" Libya from Gaddafi, we never put a blue hat on the ground. Even as the rebels began committing summary executions in retaliation for the times they suffered defeats at Gaddafi's hands, we never put a single boot on Libyan soil. We maintained our support in the air above while ignoring the atrocities happening below.

If the US does in fact decide to send in a few rockets or jets they will most definitely be committing themselves to a longer war than that of Libya. They won't have the option to keep their precious boots off the bloody soil below. What lay ahead for Syria if America gets involved isn't just war... it will be hell on Earth.

Where We Failed

From the very start in Syria's "civil war" we should have noted who the aggressors were and exactly what war crimes they were committing. At that moment it would had been clear to realize that Assad's regime was willingly attacking it's own people. And from that moment the international community should have begun to act. 

But we didn't...

In March of 2011 the first chance we had at breaking Assad's grip on Syria slipped away. With the initial abuses by Syria's security forces the world should had began applying heavy economic pressure upon Syria. The most direct method would had been to freeze the accounts of Syrian leaders and those actively supporting the regime from the outside. Cutting the regime off from it's supply of money would had gained the attention of even the most hardline supporters of the Assad government. 

Yet we didn't...

From the start Assad has been purchasing the weapons he needed to "restore order" from the Russians. Countless reports have shown that Russian arms companies have been the lifeblood for the struggling Syrian leader. Had these companies faced the economic muscle of the outside world they would have found it hard to justify two years of losses while supporting Assad. But since the pressure was never applied upon the arms companies those would be losses have been translated into massive profits. 

Had Russia faced history making sanctions for it's support of Assad's barbarism the world would had been forced to take notice. If either Western Europe or the United States had found their courage and stood up to Putin the world at large would have had to stop and look. What would have looked like the Cold War erupting after a short intermission would have gotten even Assad's attention as he continued to slaughter his own. 

But again, we didn't...

As the fighting grew and refugees began to pour over the border into Turkey the world had the opportunity to document the war from the outside. Had information been extracted from the refugees methodically and published for all the world to see the war in Syria would have been recorded as starting in early 2011. Instead the "internal struggle" in Syria was routinely sidelined as the world media refused to take the matter seriously and label it for what it was. 

In June of 2011 when Assad laid siege to Jisr al-Shughour and 10,000 refugees almost immediately fled to Turkey the world had another chance. Their stories told the world of a military that was readily placing heavy artillery fire squarely upon civilian homes that had no discernible military significance. They were amongst the first ones to testify that Assad's air force was readily strafing city streets and dropping bombs on public buildings. These were the first ones to tell the world that what was happening behind the curtain wasn't war... this was systematic slaughter.

So where was the world? One word... Weiner.

While the United States and the rest of the West should had been pushing for immediate economic and political retaliation against Assad and his regime, we were focused on congressmen who couldn't keep it in their pants. While we should have been focusing on stopping the flow of conventional weapons into the country we were too focused on trivial sideshows. So while the US was talking about wieners, Assad was purchasing weapons from companies like Rosoboronexport.

Rosoboronexport isn't talked about however since the company has partners all across the world. Making lucrative deals with India, Italy, Malaysia, Brazil, China, France, Kazakhstan, and Peru (just to name a few) the company shows no sign of pulling back. And why should they? The world has shown absolutely no outrage while companies like Rosoboronexport supply the weapons for genocidal regimes across the globe.

As long as companies like this one produce "conventional weapons" for embattled regimes the world has no real say in the matter. If the country buying the weapons feels like using them to kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens... well that is just up to the country now isn't it?

And that is where the next major failure came when dealing with Syria's barbaric leadership.

The Ultimate "Red Line"

Since the very start of the League of Nations following World War One the world community has battled the question of state sovereignty. In the most simplistic analogy the question can be compared to an apartment building. When one neighbor hears their neighbor beating his wife there is supposedly a question of how and when to intervene. The United Nations (the modern League of Nations) is supposed to act like the cop in this scenario. Yet what if the cop never goes to even check about the supposed domestic violence?

In the world community this has been one of the major problems with the United Nations. In times of blatant abuses committed across the globe the UN has neglected all such incidents unless they cross a border. As long as the beating (killing) is contained to the apartment (country) the UN appears far to willing to ignore the scenario all together. And in many cases the abuses have been tolerated even when the blood starts to pour over national borders.

In Bosnia the genocide was tolerated by simply applying the term "ethnic cleansing". In Rwanda the genocide was tolerated due to the deaths of 11 Dutch blue hats. And in Cambodia the world was happy to ignore genocide since it was just a poor country killing it's own. Containment of the crime seemed preferable to stopping it all together in every case.

This trend however didn't start with the 20th century. One of the main reasons for the United States not signing the Genocide Convention was the fear that our own sins committed against the First Nation would be rehashed. After all, many of those crimes were committed on lands we technically didn't own at the time. And if we could be accused of the crime than why should we go punishing others for the same offense?

At the end of World War Two the United States managed to kill it's conscience by pushing forward the Nuremberg Trials. While we watched Nazis commit suicide rather than face the music over crimes the US had committed in its past, Washington claimed the moral high ground. The hypocrisy of the fact that Washington was (and still is) committing a slow cultural and ethnic genocide of the Native American community wasn't up for question. We were after all punishing a genocide that had spread across borders, seas, and continents.

So why do we hesitate to punish acts of genocide when they occur within the confines of a nation's borders?

Syria's Alawite controlled government has long kept it's boot on the throat of Syria's religious majority. By offering protection through a bolstered military the Assad regime pretended to be protecting the national interest of self-defense. Offering planes, tanks, and germs to guard against the ever lingering "Jewish threat", Assad built up the arsenal he knew he would eventually need to maintain control. All the weapons, all the lies, were just to maintain power.

To the outside world this lie of legitimate interests in protecting Syria's desire for self-determination
of it's own fate seemed almost heroic. Here they had a minority leader placing the rights of all Syria ahead of his own self interest. The flimsy facade was varnished over by the platitudes of weary Western nations. Nobody wanted a repeat of the Yom Kippur War after all.

So while Syria built up it's chemical weapon stocks the West ignored the abusive regime. From as early as 1968 the government of Syria was publicly showing interests in the obtaining and use of a weapon the rest of the world had banned. Syria's increase of interests in the unconventional weapons was ignored in the 80s as the regime began to bolster it's military with chemicals and scuds.

It never occurred to the world to tell Syria no. After all, they hadn't shown any intention to use them across any border (except Israel's). And as long as the weapons were being contained to their own country, why should the world act?

When Iraq and Iran began using chemical weapons in their little recreation of WW1 the world turned a blind eye. However all the while the West and East were supplying the very chemicals that Iraq and Iran needed to keep the blood flowing. Washington didn't even blink when Iraq launched it's al-Anfal campaign against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq. And why should they? That was still technically within Iraq's borders right? And they hadn't complained when the same weapons were used on Iranians...

With Syria the question of national sovereignty was still the issue. The West needed to attempt to chip away at the shell Syria had built around itself. Questioning a state's sensitive attachment to it's ego (national sovereignty) wasn't exactly the way to warm Assad's government up to the "great Satan". And complaining about weapons that Israel is still believed to have wasn't going to help either.

Had the world used sanctions perhaps there would have been a way to work around the egotistical posturing that was taking place between Syria and the West. By limiting the influx of weapons into Syria in both the 20th and 21st century the world could have weakened a regime that we all knew was a danger to sustainable peace. And yet it is in this aspect of applying sanctions and embargoes that the liberal minded war opposing majority gets lost.

Crossing The Line Of State Sovereignty 

(Peacefully)

When applying sanctions with the intent of crippling a regime and forcing unrest with the long term goal of peace you generally lose the fringe elements on both ends. The idea of causing internal crisis with no clear idea of what comes out on the other side is generally considered interfering rather than intervening. And in cases such as Iran, the United States has proven just how piss poor that strategy works.

In the case of Syria the ideal way to force Assad to either change or leave would had been to reward surrounding states for cooperating with us while forcing Syria into further isolation. It isn't a perfect strategy, but it is far more preferable to the options we are left with today.

In this method the world should not have leaned upon the United States and the UN should have stood up and questioned Syria's state sovereignty. The continued abuse of Syria's own people when seeking a change in their own right to self governance should had been our first response as a world community. In 2008 the world should had spent more time forcing Assad to meet the standards of the international community rather than accept his brutal methods of governance. This would have of course continued the international isolation of Syria from the West. Yet it would have kept the Syrian government in a position where it had no bargaining chips to play.

However the opportunity to political and economic muscle was passed up as France bent over instead.

At that point the world should have begun to stand up to Assad's main cheerleaders in Moscow and Beijing. By implementing roadblocks between the flow of oil, weapons, cash, and chemicals between Assad's main backers the world could have drastically shortened the crisis that we are watching today. This method would have been of course portrayed as the West interfering and playing political brinksmanship with Putin and Assad. Yet the flow of weapons would have at very least been interrupted.

Just as JFK had done with Cuba, the United Nations should have said screw the rules and enforced any measures possible to stop the influx of helicopters and ammunition. Unlike Russia in the 1900's however, Putin would had been more than willing to see just how bold the West really is. And that is where the entire plan goes to hell.

Without the will to play chicken with dictators like Putin the world community can only expect more bloodshed like that in Syria. If the world is not willing to accept some destabilization of countries like Syria in an effort to end the imperialistic aspirations of countries like Russia then the cycle of purges will continue.

Syria should have been pushed to the brink while the world community prepared to bust in the door with the first misstep Assad took. Isolation, deprivation, and the promise of relief being kept just out of reach are all three methods that (while risking war) have the chance of ending in peace.

Of course history doesn't show us this. And for most that have read this far this post is just a bit too far to accept. But all you really have to do is ask yourself if you want to see another Syria? Another Bosnia? Or another Cambodia?

(close enough to watch it all come tumbling down)

The Alternative

Had the UN prepared themselves to shoot anyone from either side that dared cross the line in Bosnia the genocide may have never happened. However the Serbs had seen how blue hats responded to even the slightest hint of violence. It was for this reason that the Serbian guerrillas exercised extreme violence in the face of blue hat observers. The utter lack of fear of reprisal or accountability was blatantly obvious.

The main fear on the part of the UN was getting themselves involved in a shooting match. The idea of having multiple nations in one area where the bodies are bound to start piling up seemed way to far out in right field. Yet it was in their obvious fear of using their guns that the UN showed their lack of commitment to ending the killing.

The one thing history has shown us in Bosnia, and all other such cases, is that no army of savages has ever been stopped by asking them politely.

Kosovo showed the world what brutal aerial bombardment could do to the moral of a ground bound foe. The world watched as jets and rockets filled the air and the Serbian aggressors began their retreat. Digging in, the hardliners waited for their number to be called.

Had the UN ordered ground units into the area to mop up the resistance the Serbs across the map would had taken notice. The will to fight would had been crippled. The desire to die for a cause they had no possibility to achieve would had died right there and then.

No man wants to die so that another man can be oppressed by his blood. We either fight for freedom or we fight because that is the lie they have fed us. For the Serbs the fight for soil would had been far less appealing had they known that the world would not tolerate their genocidal efforts.

But all that requires a world where we are willing to question the morality of imposing ideals of national sovereignty over the ideal of basic human rights. It requires a world where the division between West and East is ignored and abandoned. It requires a world that simply ask what we would do to stop the crime rather than how we are expected to handle it.

Overly Simplistic?

For me the moral obligation to refrain from inflicting pain upon another person has always been thrown out when faced with things I know to be wrong. When faced with watching somebody who is outnumbered and outgunned I have always thrown my hat in on the losing side. Not because I wanted to fight, but because I wanted to end the fight. And once it was over I have always saught to resolve the conflict with words rather than fists.

Those who have read this blog for any length of time know that I (the main author) was a punk growing up. All those years of running around with spikes and chains didn't teach me much, but they did show me that sometimes fighting is preferable to the guilt of not doing so when you should.

Is this view of Syria overly simplistic?

Hell yes.

Is it realistic?

Well that we may never know.

Want to reply to the author of this post? 

Contact him on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Source Documents:
(Not All Sources Listed)

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/04/09/cold-blood-0

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17344858

WW4 Report
http://ww4report.com/node/12589

Africa News Network
http://www.ann7.com/article/2566-2708201327082013all-we-are-left-with-is-god-ghouta-survivor-says.html#.Uij9fLypYXy

International Business Times
http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-chemical-weapons-program-helped-western-companies-selling-precursor-nerve-agents-1395301

NTI
http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/syria_chemical.pdf?_=1316466790

Behold Us Caesar...

...Those Who Are About To Die
(part of The Darkness Visible series)

(Herero Victims During German's Genocidal Campaign in Namibia 1904-1907)

Genocide is a heartless act that knows no bounds. When it begins it is often hard to define and often hidden from view. But once it is underway, once the dead start to pileup, genocide is almost impossible to mistake. We know it because we have all at one time participated in it in one role or the other. We have seen it. We have felt it. We are the reason it still exist. 

Without the cooperation of good and decent people genocide has no ability to rack-up the horrific numbers it achieved in the 20th century. Without complacency of the virtuous portion of the population it is powerless. And yet in the last century it has killed more people than the number of those who died in combat in both world wars. A feat that would be unimaginable had it not been for the lack of resistance to it from the civilized world. 

The deads' voices still linger to this day. Their faces peer back at us from faded images and grainy video reels. Like ghost, they wait to be acknowledged. They wait for justice to be served. And yet to this day we as a world community seem unwilling to give them the peace they so desperately desire. 

The pain of the holocaust still shows up from time to time. The Armenians' agony still rips its way through modern flesh as the heart of a people breaks every April. The sorrow of the Herero still lingers in modern Namibian society as the people of a forgotten genocide still try to cope with what was done to them. All of these murders were committed by men and women who are all gone or near dead today. And yet the wounds still remain open. 

(Jewish Boys In Ghetto During The Holocaust)

These wounds refuse to heal for a reason. They will never nor can never be closed till the world learns to deal with genocide when it is happening and as it is happening. It would be a crime against our tragic past to forget the sorrows our ancestors lived through only to have to witness those same events over and over again. 

Today there are more genocides occurring at one time than we have ever seen in modern history. From ethnic cleansing, deportations, to campaigns of total extermination... genocide is on the rise. And it will only continue to spread as long as the morality within our societies remains numb to its presence around us. 

In Syria we have watched for over two years as a minority sect of Islam has sought to subjugate the majority through political tyranny and genocidal military action. Even as the world community rallied around the consensus that Assad needed to step down from power we ignored the massacres he had committed in the name his faith and lust for power. It was a step too far for us to recognize the intentions of the beast. The UN and its supporters seemed to believe it was the right of a regime to kill its own people as long as the blood stayed within its borders. 

Sudan continues to grind down it's undesirables through a ruthless and never ending genocide. Starvation, massacres on grand scales, and aerial bombardment are all hallmarks of the Sudanese government in Darfur. And despite the dire situation in which Darfur civilians are forced to live the West remains silent. Taking only small steps to "persuade" the Sudan toward a "desirable" outcome, the UN refuses to bare its teeth with the homicidal leaders in Sudan's government.

Somalia, a regular offender of human rights and perpetual state sponsor of genocide, has continued to operate outside the realms of international law. Its government uses tribal hatred to help control a population it can not bring under its boot. Groups who find themselves on the wrong side of even a minor issue are up for grabs. And yet the living memory of "Black Hawk Down" keeps outsiders on the fence when it comes to dealing with ethnic cleansing and the genocidal tendencies of the Somalian warlords. 

Christian communities throughout the Arab world affected by the "Arab Spring" continue to feel the pain of being a religious minority in countries turning toward fundamentalist Islam. In Libya the world ignored the hints of ethnic cleansing of Coptic Christians and black Africans as Gaddafi fell from power. In the typical rush to be first to back a popular movement, the Western world failed to insure the safety of minority groups across Libya as Islamist leaning rebels took control. This was repeated in Egypt and Syria as the Arab Spring fever spread unchecked. And as one government collapsed the power vacuum it created proved detrimental to Coptic Christians and other minority religions. Yet the UN and West all together failed to recognize the potential for genocide and continued to blindly support a "democratic" movement that has failed to produce a representative government since it first began. 

Then there is Bahrain. While the Arab Spring seemed more profitable for the West in other countries it never panned out in Bahrain. Instead the continued oppression and bloodshed remains under a cloak of darkness as the world tries desperately to ignore the tragedy all together. And yet it was in Bahrain where we first heard the genocidal government refer to its people as "cockroaches". This phrase should have send chills up the backs of those who remember Rwanda. But nothing ever happened. Instead the West closed its eyes to the suffering of the oppressed and turned their attention to Egypt... the payday of the Arab Spring. In doing this they have let the politicide of the Bahrain go unchecked and unabated. 

(Roma Being Deported By Nazi SS, World War Two)

Burma. A country that just recently opened up to the outside world... or at least cracked the door a little. It was a fleeting moment in time when we all thought that Myanmar was actually moving toward democracy. That brief moment where Aung San Suu Kyi was first paraded as the symbol of hope and freedom for a religiously and militarily oppressed country. Where the hell did that go?

During the summer of 2012 the old junta reared its head in the Arakan as the Nasaka and military helped perpetrate genocide against the Rohingya people. In response to religious propaganda and political pressure from the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party the pogroms began. Whipped into a frenzy with the excuse of a single crime, the Rakhine majority descended upon the Rohingya minority. And every since the story has remained the same. A radical group of monks or politicians spreads hate filled propaganda and soon after the Buddhist majority is up in arms and ready to kill. Yet the UN and Western world seems to be unable or unwilling to recognize the simple progression genocide takes (both in Burma and everywhere else it takes root). 

The pogroms of the Rohingya people illustrate the very reason the wounds of past genocides never seem ready to heal. The very reason for their existence in the first place is still with us. The very act that put these wounds in place has not yet been removed from us. So for what reason should they heal?

It is in the shared history of our cultures that we are able to relate to those still suffering this affliction. Once, no matter how long ago, we too where put through these same flames. The faces of our past now look back at us, if not from faded images, but rather from living flesh and blood. So how is it that we still find it possible to look away? 

If we do not deal with genocide here, today, we will deal with it again in the very near future. It does not go away simply because we detest it so. Instead it seems rather persistent in showing its ugly face throughout the pages of history. As if it too seeks some form of rationalization... an end.

When the victims of the circus in Rome were dragged out before Caesar their faces portrayed the imagined words of Shakespeare. In their eyes said what their lips could not, "Behold us Caesar, those who are about to die." 

Today the Western world is our Caesar. We hold the power to save lives or damn them. Our wealth, our power... all of this puts us in a place of responsibility. And yet as the innocent victims of genocide are paraded before us we seem unwilling to spare them this fate. Even in situations where their plight could be diminished or ended, we do nothing as they perish. 

Their voices are crying out. Their screams just need help to be heard. And in this world where genocide is treated like the ancients' circus, they look to us for help.

More Lies From The Tablecloth

Obama's Ghost Prisons

(Obama Signing The Order To Close CIA Secret Prisons)

In 2009 Barack Obama became the first president in American history to openly curtail the liberties the CIA had taken with human rights around the world. In a historic signing, Obama sat alone as his pen put into law the limits to which the CIA could go in detaining of foreign nationals. This move was supposed to end the existence of secret prisons that the CIA was running in countries around the world. 

For European governments this was a call for celebration as they were now being promised that the CIA would stop using their countries to transport terrorist into custody. For Eastern European nations this meant that their airports would finally cease to be the last destination for countless terrorist coming from the Middle East. But all this was a hoax. All those "atta-boys" and pats on the back were for nothing.


 

When Libya fell to the rebels it became clear that CIA prisons were still in operation. And when those same rebels attacked the United States Embassy earlier this year... it was obvious that at least one was still in operation within Libya itself. The order Barack Obama had given was nothing but a rouse. This demand to end the rendition of terrorists in ghost prisons was a hollow command... the law had no teeth at all. 

So once again the world is watching as the "humanitarian" Barack Obama takes to the air in a campaign for "basic human rights". We are meant to ignore that this is the man who flew off to Egypt months after the rebellion so as to claim victory for a fight he had nothing to do with. This the man who claimed that his mere election to office had ushered in a new wave of "hope" around the world. This is the man who now rushes off to Burma so that he can talk about human rights while the Rohingya die at the hands of his hosts.

All this and we are to forget that this is also the man who has sat on the fence when dealing with Syria. We are meant to ignore Obama's waffling during the "Arab Spring" when the Green Revolution started in Iran. We are supposed to forget that Obama signed an order to end illegal prisons around the world only to be caught running one in Libya. 

When it comes to human rights issues... we are meant to forget everything we have learned about Barack Obama.