Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Alternative view of conflict in Syria

An SDS radical, Dr. Lawrence Davidson took voluntary exile in Canada during the early seventies. Returning home after six years, he became an educator and now writes commentary, often about American responses to international problems. Rafe Mair recommended a recent essay so I spent reading time at Davidson's website, TO THE POINT ANALYSES. There are many opinions to contemplate.

Following are excerpts from Who is Right in Syria? – An Analysis by Lawrence Davidson, November 29, 2015. It's not a point of view welcomed in North America's corporate media:
Here is the situation in Syria as I see it: Russia is taking a long-range view and wants stability in post-ISIS Syria. France and the United States are taking the short-range view and really have no achievable plans for Syria’s future stability. Turkey appears to have given little thought to Syria’s future. Ankara may be willing to see indefinite chaos in Syria if it hurts the Assad regime on the one hand and the Kurds on the other.

The Russians may be the only party interested in the long-term political stability of Syria. There is certainly no doubt that President Putin is more determined than Western leaders to act on the fact that the various so-called moderate parties standing against the Assad regime cannot work together, and that this fault cannot be corrected by enticements...

This understanding, and not Soviet-era nostalgia, has led Russia to support the Assad regime, which possesses a working government, a standing army, and the loyalty of every religious minority group in the country...

Thus, it would appear that neither the U.S. nor France really cares about Syria as a stable nation. Once the present military capacity of ISIS is eliminated, Washington and Paris may well clandestinely continue to support a low-level civil war against the Assad regime. In this effort they will have the help of Turkey, the Kurds and Israel. The result will be ongoing decimation of the Syrian population and fragmentation of its territory...

In all of the bloodshed, population displacement and terror that has accompanied the Syrian civil war, the least-considered party has been the Syrian people and their future. ISIS, or at least its present infrastructure, will ultimately be destroyed. However, while that destruction is necessary, it is an insufficient outcome because it fails to provide long-term stability...

Recommend this post

5 comments:

  1. The most important commentators on this are Mike Whitney, Pepe Escobar and Tony Cartalucci. Oh yeh . . . and fuck twitter . . . . just fuck it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good article. There is little non propaganda coverage of events in the west. I concur Pepe Escobar is a good source. Another is Paul Craig Roberts. A former insider who tells it like it is.
    Here's another good article:
    http://www.peakprosperity.com/insider/95544/murder-and-mayhem-middle-east

    Robert in Richmond

    ReplyDelete
  3. A probably realistic view of the situation.

    A stable Syria would be to Russia benefit as they also have a large Muslim population and the last thing they need is a mass of Wahhabi nutters creating chaos within their boarders.

    It is obvious that Turkey is enabling Isis and with that dreadful shoot down of a Russian jet and the callous murder of one of the pilots is feeding the flames of a religious war in the region. It is their mistaken belief that NATO would support them with a Russian retaliasion bu from mt red of the situation, NATO has given them the cold shoulder. I would want to travel to turkey, nor take a Turkish airliner.

    Never poke the bear!

    You can bomb Syria all you want, bombs do little damage to sand and will probably only kill innocent people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Norm,

    Thanks for presenting another point of view on that near impossible situation in Syria.

    Being a longtime reader, I am surprised you allowed the last sentence in Ray Blessin's comment. I will occasionally use gutter language to emphasize a point, but that sentence doesn't really have a point.

    Am I missing some context here?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Persey, its o.k. we've heard and read the word before.

    Read the article and it is good. In my opinion the west wants instability in the middle east. it gives them a place to play war, test out new equipment and make sure their friends in the arms business, get lots of contracts. The biggest business in the world is arms but without wars they would be out of business.

    turkey doesn't want stability because they don't want the Kurds around. if there is some sort of war which keeps the Kurds busy, they're happy. If they have to shoot down a Russian jet, so be it. Never believed the tape, it could have been manufactured. If a jet of another country strays and its the first or second time, you don't shoot it down. In this case there is no evidence this was an on going problem and Russia had been sent diplomatic letters to advise, do it again and we shoot.

    Hollande has a war and a rallying point to stay in office. he must be loving his 90 days of "martial law". It also allows his government to do a whole lot of things they normally could not. I'm sure it sent a chill through part of the country's population. David Cameron is just a baffon who looks better than Harper. he too needs to keep his electorate distracted.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTING

This is an archive only of items published before April 22, 2016. These and newer articles are available at:

https://in-sights.ca/

If you read an article at this blogger site, you can comment on it at the new site.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.