Peace for Our Time? Whose Peace?

Syria is transforming from the latest theater of a proxy war into the chosen ground on which World War Three begins. This proxy war started because the U.S. empire believed it could and should facilitate another regime change. Rather than the U.S. acknowledging the futile and tragic consequences of regime change, they continue a duplicitous policy of waging largely a theatrical war against ISIS while concurrently reiterating the imminence of a post-Assad future in Syria.     

The U.S. resorts to using a priori claims to blame Assad for all tragic consequences in Syria. For instance, Samantha Power, current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., resorts to subterfuge in order to make an unsubstantiated causal link between Assad's abuses and the surge of terrorists into Syria:

Facts available at the time of this statement refuted her causal claim. These facts are accessible now to anyone possessing the most acute curiosity, thus I will exclude them from this discussion. Instead It remains crucial to question the U.S. cherished moral narrative that, despite ISIS daily brutality, the peace for the Syrian people is contingent upon Assad surrendering power. The U.S. tone has changed from the more forceful dictum "Assad Must Go" to the more strategic and patient agreement to a political settlement whereby Assad just bows out.

This moral imperative asserts that Assad's resigning from power is an essential step to restoring peace to Syria. ISIS barbarism resulted from Assad's alleged violent repression of Syrians demanding more freedom. This view which is also expressed by Samantha Powers in the video clip above if true implies that ISIS entered Syria to protect those demanding more freedom. This moral imperative stands on a flimsy basis regardless how often U.S. "diplomats" repeat it.

This claim ignores the barbaric effect of Turkey's assistance to ISIS. U.S. President Obama showed discipline staying on the anti-Assad script, and, publicly undermining the legitimacy of Russia's military actions in Syria regardless of such revelations. For example, during a press conference with France President Hollande during which the press asked for his comments on Turkey shooting down a Russian military plane, Obama commented the following

Our view from the start has been that Russia is welcome to be part of this broad-based coalition that we’ve set up. ... The challenge has been Russia’s focus on propping up Assad rather than focusing on Islamic State [1]

And,

If Russia is directing its energies towards Daesh and ISIL, some of those conflicts or potentials for mistakes or escalation are less likely to occur [2] 

Obama's arrogance deserves scrutiny. He states as quoted above that "Russia is welcome to be part of this broad-based coalition that we've set up." Obama believes his "coalition" here is more legitimate than Russia's military efforts in Syria.

The major difference is that Syria's sovereign government asked Russia for military assistance which is consistent with international law. Obama, the U.S. and its allies discount that fact. Now western media will claim Assad has no legitimacy with many Syrian people. Therefore, Assad has no pretext under international law to request military assistance from Russia. Persons making such claims presuppose they are spokesman for the Syrian people. Assad won the most recent election occurred in June 2014. The election occurred only in the Syrian government-controlled regions, prompting critics to state the results stamp no legitimacy on Assad's victory. This conclusion would be more convincing except a closer look at the population concentration in Syria weakens claims that the war in Syria has irreparably damaged Assad's legitimacy.

Once again this point warrants belaboring given its dual reality of being absurd while serving as the major catalyst inflaming full blown civil war. So if Assad's excessive crackdown on his own people stirred the boundless jihadists' energy, then their motivation for entering Syria was to protect those repressed people. Look at the map of Syria today showing the distribution of power throughout that nation:

The refugee crisis in Syria is well known now. Its become a staple at least for now in the daily news cycles. Its an issue creating litmus tests for GOP Presidential to demonstrate their bilious disregard of the "other." Their worldview that they must promote precludes their acknowledging that regime change efforts create refugees. But, our narrowing our focus on Syria's internal refugees encourages critical questions about the U.S. nuanced narrative about Syria.

For instance, Marc Champion discusses the numbers of Syrians who currently living in Assad-controlled areas compared to those who live within ISIS-controlled areas:

In rebel-held areas, Alawites and minority populations such as Druze and Christians have mostly fled, leaving an almost entirely Sunni population. Kurdish areas have also been largely emptied of Sunni Arabs.

Regime areas, by contrast, remain diverse; Alawites and Shiites make up just 13 percent of Syria's population and Assad's support relies on other minorities who fear Islamic State more than him. In addition, most internal displacement has been into regime-held territory. The government controls about 30 percent of Syria's territory but more than half the population, up to 12 million of the 18 million still in the country. Islamic State controls about 45 percent of territory, but only 2 million to 2.5 million people, according to Balanche's calculations. (refers to Fabrice Balanche a researcher at the Group for Research and Studies on the Mediterranean and Middle East in Lyons, France) [3]

The fact that this many more Syrians live within Assad-controlled areas weakens the dominant U.S. narrative that Assad clings to an illegitimate regime. Thus, why would so many Syrians seek refuge and remain within areas controlled by the same dictator whose repressive crackdown triggered the entire tragedy? Assad's critics could claim that tragedies on this scale induce expedient decision-making; consequently, we cannot infer Assad's legitimacy from the number of Syrians living in the areas remaining under his control. Rather than everyone waging such straw-man arguments, the U.N. Security Council and Syria's neighboring nations should oversee an election empowering the Syrian people to decide their sovereign leaders.    

An empire that arrogates the exclusive right to attempt regime change risks creating tragedies that render impossible "peace for our time." Even Neville Chamberlain couldn't glean any rosy scenarios from our current geopolitical conditions and utter that phrase for which he is infamously remembered and mocked. Today though the empire mocks us.

[1]. Parsons, Christi. "Obama on downing of Russian jet: Turkey has a right to defend its airspace." Los Angeles Times. Nov 24, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-hollande-isis-20151124-story.html

[2].  Ibid.

[3]. Champion, Marc. "To Imagine Syria at Peace, Think of Bosnia." BloombergView. Sept 14, 2015. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-14/syria-at-peace-to-imagine-it-think-of-bosnia-