MANDOS Post
The Assad regime in Syria is ghastly, and I have no truck with the sort of leftism or anti-imperialism that lionizes it as some kind of grand resistance against imperialism — it is of the same sort of moral absurdity that attempts to paint Russia as anything other than a weaker rival imperialist competing with the US, as though it were a kind of moral paragon. You can make a case for or against a multipolar world in utilitarian terms (more stable or prosperous in some sense?), you can have ideological content preferences among the different imperialism flavours, but ghastly regimes are still ghastly and military imperialism always involves mass suffering. Whose catspaw the Assad regime is does not make it more or less criminal. Someone who wants its overthrow is not automatically an ideological fellow-traveller of ISIS.
On the other hand, I also have no patience for the neoconservative/liberal hawk tomfoolery that uses the Assad regime’s ghastliness (and the horror show that encompasses its victory for anyone who is seen as an enemy of the regime) as a reason to wash away the utter failure and downright evil of the intervention in Iraq. (Is this “virtue-signalling”? I’m under the impression that in some quarters, if you’re anti-Assad, you must be an interventionist.) I am not a pacifist, so in principle I accept that there is a case to be made, under very abstracted conditions, for a stronger military power to intervene to prevent suffering in another country. In practice, the conditions under which this leads to a better outcome are very rare–if they ever occur at all. The risks of creating a worse situation in Syria, given the experience in Iraq, are extremely high. The vested interests are strong, the risk of making a bad situation worse from a direct overthrow of the Assad government are overwhelming for that and other reasons.
Which leads me to the question of the White Helmets. I gather that a lot of people on the “anti-imperialist” side view them as propaganda catspaws of imperialists. The reason for this seems largely to be that they operate in areas held by forces opposed to the regime (this to me is perfectly legitimate — how could a rebel trust the government to conduct rescues?), organizational and media help is offered by foreign entities with vested interests in the overthrow of the Assad government (again, to me legitimate — I would accept such help if I were opposed to the regime and in dire straits), and they receive foreign funding (ditto). None of these indict the organization to me — victims of Assad’s attempt to retake forces held by opposition groups are going to need rescue from someone and frankly, publicity.
Now it appears that a large number of them have been given asylum by Israel en route to being distributed to other countries, as Assad looks to retake most of all of Syria. If they stayed, surely they would face criminal proceedings (or, probably, much worse) from the Syrian government. But a lot of anti-imperialist (pro-Assad?) commentators, including/especially on the left, seem to view this as a further indictment of the White Helmets. Naturally, there is considerable moral inconsistency in Israel’s action, to say the least, but that is not an ethical quandary for those who are fleeing Assad.
What are they supposed to do? Stay and face Assad’s torturers (which he definitely uses)?
It should generally be possible to accept the legitimacy of opposition to Assad, including (especially!), rescue of his enemies, while criticizing the vested interests that might seek to take advantage of his overthrow.
semiconscious
‘It should generally be possible to accept the legitimacy of opposition to Assad, including (especially!), rescue of his enemies, while criticizing the vested interests that might seek to take advantage of his overthrow…’
correct…
just as it should generally be possible to doubt the legitimacy of an organization who’s own self-generated public relations is all we have to judge it by…
Mandos
So is the charge that they never rescued anyone in an area held by the opposition to the Assad regime?
peon
I have to admit I was puzzled at first when I read Ian’s latest post and then I noticed “Mandos” as the author. Of course, our resident liberal Democrat.
So being funded by USAID does not raise eyebrows for Mandos as to the White Helmets impartiality in the Syrian conflict.
Chemonics:
“They are a Washington, D.C. based contractor that was awarded $128.5 million in January 2013 to support “a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria” as part of USAID’s Syria regional program. At least $32 million has been given directly to the White Helmets as of February 2018.
The firm has been funded by USAID for years, and carries a record of failures in supporting so-called humanitarian interventions, including in Libya.”
Mandos
I am not a Democrat, I am not even an American and don’t live there.
If I were an Assad opponent in Syria, I would take money from anywhere including USAID. One cannot be choosy in a civil war.
semiconscious
‘So is the charge that they never rescued anyone in an area held by the opposition to the Assad regime?’
the ‘charge’ is that there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe they are legitimate any more than that they are illegitimate (see peon’s above post for details)…
Mao Cheng Ji
What does it even mean – “anti-Assad”? You have a problem with this particular person?
Mandos
“anti-Assad” = “opposed to the continued rule of the Assad dynasty and fellow-travelers in Syria”
Mandos
semiconscious: so is accepting money from USAID grounds (knowing full well that US institutions serve very vested interests) inherently grounds for suspicion of illegitimacy, such that the organization’s members should not be rescued from the Syrian government?
Paul Anderson
Considering you an intellectually honest broker, I respectfully disagree with much of what you say here. First, it would have been helpful if you had substantiated your characterization of the Assad government as “ghastly.” The one hideous element I can recall was his collaboration with the West’s rendition and torture programs. One could argue (I wouldn’t) that being the general contractor of torture rather than its direct administrator is somehow less vile, but with Gina Haspel at the torturous wheel of the West’s leading espionage service, the moral difference, if any, would seem slender. So, “ghastly” in relation to what other actually existing government–KSA, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, US? These are the sponsors of the attempted destruction of Syria as a secular, multi-ethnic state.
My second reservation is with what I take to be an implicit conflation of “Assad” with Syria. Millions displaced, hundreds of thousands killed, beautiful cities and societies destroyed. The case for destroying Syria to depose Assad must surely be no stronger than to have destroyed the two best-developed societies in the MENA area–Libya and Iraq, and surely worse in light of the actual fate of these now failed or failing states.
The impact on the Eurozone, international law, and the general view of displaced persons can hardly be considered less noxious. As a Canadian who has loved his work with refugees and immigrants, I find the sheltering of members of what there is reason to believe is a jihadist-enabling, Western propaganda construct nauseating, and ultimately corrosive of support for one of the few (relatively) successful examples of immigration / refugee resettlement in the the world.
And “rebels”? Really? In virtually any impoverished country one could find some portion of the population prepared to take up arms against its government if given sufficient financial, military and propaganda support, but it seems pretty clear to me that the vast majority of the forces in the field against the Syrian Arab Army are jihadist proxies in a regime-change war largely driven by Israel, the Western military-industrial-media-intelligence-complex, and various fossil-fuel pipeline connivers.
It isn’t just anti-imperialism that fuels opposition to this insane neocon agenda to remake MENA on the way to re-subjugating Moscow and Beijing.
semiconscious
‘semiconscious: so is accepting money from USAID grounds (knowing full well that US institutions serve very vested interests) inherently grounds for suspicion of illegitimacy, such that the organization’s members should not be rescued from the Syrian government?’
well, one rescues ones assets, doesn’t one? not seeing how rescuing them in any way determines their legitimacy…
‘One cannot be choosy in a civil war…’
obviously not, to the extent that the u.s., by directly supporting ‘moderate rebels’, was, at the same time, indirectly supporting al quaeda, the same group supposedly responsible for 9/11…
Peter
On this one topic I agree with Mandos. The White Helments were caught in the propaganda war and were easy targets for Assad, the Iranians and Russia. I don’t think Israel granted them anything but safe passage to Jordan on their way to new homes in the West.
The USG seems to have learned some lessons from the Iraq fiasco. It limited its goals in Syria to a transitional government and the removal of Assad, leaving the Ba’athist government structure intact at least for the short term.
There are too many extremist factions in the Syrian conflict for any moderate group to end up in control so the Russians may be the only hope for restraining Assad and the Iranians from exacting bloody revenge on the defeated rebels.
StewartM
Mandos, to understand things better, I offer us this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/assad-victory-syria/566522/
Your argument that those opposing the West policies are motivated by the idea that Assad being some ‘nice guy’ is nothing but a straw man. You need to acknowledge that the opposition to Assad was gamed by the whole world, including people espousing causes and agendas that aren’t in the West’s interests, or of Syria’s. Like Vietnam 40 years ago, it is actually a real civil war, and Assad looks like he’s played the game well enough to win (which includes him convincing many Syrians that he’s the least evil of of many foreign-backed alternative evils).
As for your other points, if the US hadn’t had a long history of using NGO’s and humanitarian agencies as cover for intelligence and policy, then maybe there’d be less suspicion over the White Helmets? And if you’re rightly concerned about the fate of the White Helmets in Assad’s hands, fleeing to Israel is ironic, as Israeli likewise prohibits humanitarian aid to Gaza (and has to-date killed 74 US citizens there, something we’d never tolerate if RUSSIA! (TM) was the bad actor. Ah, but when Israel prohibits humanitarian aid it must be ok because they’re our “friend”, right?
Karl Kolchak
The white helmets were taking money from the USG all along, and they bear a huge part of the responsibility for turning large portions of Syria into a hellscape. I’m no fan fan of Assad any more than I am any so-called world “leader,” who all do horrible acts to a greater or lesser degree. But I’ll take Assad any day over whatever Western backed neoliberal slimeball dictator Obama or Trump had in mind to replace him, and I hope that someday EVERYONE responsible for the atrocities in Syria–including the leadership of the white helmets and their US enablers as well as Assad as his henchmen, are tried for crimes against humanity. A vain hope, no doubt.
Willy
Since everybody in that part of the world is evil (including the rescuers of civilians), lets just nuke the place and after a century or two, let the spring of freedom begin.
bruce wilder
“ghastly”
Well that settles it then! /sarcasm
It is good to have a moral compass i guess, and moral judgment, but I do not think it is enough to anchor a useful political theory. Politics is inherently about governance of cooperation and conflict: if all your political analysis begins and ends with personalities, moral dramas or abstract moral ideals, you have missed something essential, some fundamentals.
The political discourse is awash in propaganda and the White Helmets were invented and funded for the purposes of propaganda. It would be hard not to like the story of idealistic heroism for which they were cast. The deeper question is whether that propaganda ought to be dispositive for any question not revolving around our own vulnerability to manipulation.
Mandos’ post seems to be an attempt to sort who and what to believe from an assortment of unbelievable stories offered by various interested parties. The argument is apparently that a story Mandos likes is still believable enough while others should be rejected along with the adherents of those alternatives.
Missing is an appreciation for the cost of violent dispute and the tragedy of acquiescence. Mandos writes of “The risks of creating a worse situation in Syria . . .” as if the actual situation in Syria was not very close to as bad as civil war can get short of genocide.
Just being willing to bring a horrific war to an end — a goal U.S. Foreign policy remains allergic to — is something. That requires a realistic appreciation for the terms of settlement that would allow any regime, let alone some morally ideal regime, to order and govern. That requires a theory of politics that goes beyond a theatre critic’s confidence that he can distinguish sincerity in competing propaganda narratives.
Willy
To what degree was Le Mesurier allied with al-queda, and can any of it be proven?
At what point does politics become less “inherently about governance of cooperation and conflict” and more a game of power/manipulation for its own sake?
At what point should the slaves revolt?
Too many questions.
Mandos
Yes sure. I am not arguing that the White Helmets are necessarily “good guys” in some broad fundamental sense. Merely that the reaction to their rescue via an admittedly deeply hypocritical regional actor by some people is not entirely easy to understand.
I don’t know at all what you’re arguing here or what it has to do with my post. Yes, there are a bunch of different interested parties, none of which have unequivocally “good” intentions (!). We agree there. The argument that I am making is that even if the White Helmets have backers that have suspect intentions, that is not alone enough to condemn them to whatever “a realistic appreciation for the terms of settlement that would allow any regime, let alone some morally ideal regime, to order and govern” is intended to imply.
What this has to do with “a theatre critic’s confidence that he can distinguish sincerity in competing propaganda narratives” is entirely mysterious to me — after all, we’re talking about “ordering and governing” under “terms of settlement” here. With regime opponents being “terms of settlement”ed as the price of bringing the war to an end…
marku52
Reminds me of a Drum post including “The butcher Assad”. Well, if this is supposed to be somehow useful information, I assert that, having killed (no one really knows) between 100- 500 thousand people in an illegal war, Bush/Cheney, and even Judith Miller are more appropriate uses for the term than Assad.
Who as a poster pointed out, did a lot of his torture under contract to the US anyway.
semiconscious
‘I am not arguing that the White Helmets are necessarily “good guys” in some broad fundamental sense. Merely that the reaction to their rescue via an admittedly deeply hypocritical regional actor by some people is not entirely easy to understand…’
again: the ‘rescue’ neither confirms or disproves the legitimacy of the white helmets. it is what it is. they’re either being rescued because they’re ‘good guys’ or because they’re assets. if there’s actually someone, somewhere, arguing that they should’ve been left there to face the music, i haven’t seen it. i mean, doing so, obviously, would just plain make no sense in either case, right?…
also: you might have noticed that the rescued white helmets will be re-settled in the u.k., germany, & canada. surprisingly (or not), none will be re-settled in the u.s., the country who’s world-famous film academy gave them a best picture award (documentary). make of this what you will 🙂 …
StewartM
Mandos:
The argument that I am making is that even if the White Helmets have backers that have suspect intentions, that is not alone enough to condemn them
Well let’s all agree that selfless humanitarian aid is a good thing, that giving food, shelter, medical care, and more to those in-need in the face of a natural or man-made disaster is something we all should support and encourage.
Then who are the real villains? Why, those who would corrupt and subvert such noble efforts for purposes of partisan policy and intelligence. This only corrupts the purpose of the relief agencies, it erects suspicion against the aid and also puts those volunteering for such service at risk, in addition to those they help.
US using Christian missionaries as spies in North Korea (which results in suspicion and persecution against North Korean Christians):
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/pentagon-missionary-spies-christian-ngo-front-for-north-korea-espionage/
More on the US using humanitarian aid as a spy cover:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/21/u-s-spies-to-partner-with-humanitarian-groups-to-keep-an-eye-on-north-korea/
And we don’t even try to hide this! It’s on the CIA’s own webpage!
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no4/USG_NGOs_5.htm
“Over the past decade and a half, three phenomena have expanded dramatically: the availability of information through the diffusion of information technology; the role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as important players in international affairs; and the demand for international engagement in failed or weak states, some having suffered from devastating conflicts. These three facts interact and raise a number of issues for US policymakers and for the Intelligence Community. This article examines how information-sharing between the government and the NGO sector has evolved and considers whether changes in that relationship are warranted, even needed, for accomplishing the shared objective of improved international response to conflicts and other crises in weak states.”
But you see, Mandos, the needs of the Empire come first before any needs of those piddling victims.
Mandos
What does this have to do with anything? Nowhere in the post did I imply that Assad was worse than any of those people. Those people, including Judith Miller, are quite possibly worse than Assad in terms of suffering inflicted on the world. Assad is still ghastly, that there are worse people than Assad surely implies nothing morally relevant for anyone who is suffering under Assad and wants to change that.
semiconscious
‘What does this have to do with anything? Nowhere in the post did I imply that Assad was worse than any of those people. Those people, including Judith Miller, are quite possibly worse than Assad in terms of suffering inflicted on the world. Assad is still ghastly, that there are worse people than Assad surely implies nothing morally relevant for anyone who is suffering under Assad and wants to change that.’
thanks for clarifying: was uncertain if you considered them also to be ‘ghastly’ (syria), as opposed to simply suffering from ‘considerable moral inconsistency’ (israel)…
Mandos
*rolleyes* It is possible for someone to be “ghastly” as well as suffer from “considerable moral inconsistency”. Did it occur to anyone that it were otherwise or that one was the diminutive of the other?
semiconscious
‘*rolleyes* It is possible for someone to be “ghastly” as well as suffer from “considerable moral inconsistency”. Did it occur to anyone that it were otherwise or that one was the diminutive of the other?’
of course, it’s possible. as mentioned, i simply appreciated the clarification. as i’m sure you can appreciate, language can be tricky, &, in the absence of ‘the equally ghastly israel’, i wasn’t certain if a differentiation was somehow being made, is all…
Mandos
Such people/organizations are indeed villainous. However, if you are in Syria and among those suffering from the Syrian government and wish to overthrow it, you are going to have to take any help you can get in order to avoid being “realistically appreciated” in “terms of settlement” that favour a regime that is not “morally ideal” so that it can “order and govern” and pursue the laudable goal of ending the war.
So, if you accept such help, would you also be a “villain” who “subverts noble efforts”? Should the people who joined/organized the White Helmets on the Syrian side (as opposed to USAID and other foreign handlers) have actually rejected this help, and suffered as they must under Assad, in order to ensure that the world recognizes Judith Miller’s sins as the the greater (which, as we discussed, they probably are)?
nihil obstet
Mandos, is your point simply that you think leftists or anti-imperialists regard Assad as a good man, while anti-Assadists are unfairly misrepresented?
Mandos
Uh, no? If for no other reason than that I never imagined that very many people thought Assad was a “good man”, even if they happened to think it better that he would win the war, i.e., that he is a “lesser evil”. I’m honestly taken aback by how much attention is given to what I thought was the most banal part of my post.
Mandos
The point of this post was not whether who is morally superior in some abstract way to anyone else in the Syria conflict. Syria is a mess of internal and external conflicting and colluding interests, and especially the external ones are quite…fraught.
There are nevertheless groups of people that have been wronged by the Syrian government (do we at least agree on this? It doesn’t mean that other people haven’t done evil…). They may have made bad partnerships, and there are other groups against the Syrian government that do not have “good” intentions in mind. However, they are losing now, and this loss has consequences for them. And the question is what moral weight those consequences really have. Are they receiving their “just desserts” for having been part of a system of “humanitarian” subversion — for example?
nihil obstet
The post is heavy on comparisons of the Assad regime and those who want to overthrow it. Those who don’t want to overthrow it (and in the context of the post and the real situation on the ground, the desire to overthrow it are playing out as a horrible war) are described as lionizing it and committing a moral absurdity. The sins of those supporting violent rebels are mitigated by the discussion of the case to be made for violent interventions. The post seems to be teeing up a defense of supporting regime-change wars, which I think affected my reading.
What does acceptance of the legitimacy of opposition to a regime consist of? When it’s been encouraged and funded by foreign vested interests, and a horrific sequel of death and destruction follows, is it legitimate? I oppose Assad, but I’m not sure it would be better to have another violently overthrown state and in the meantime there’s an exponential increase in suffering. The “vested interests” aren’t simply seeking to take advantage of his overthrow; they have attempted to engineer his overthrow. Destabilize a regime, support death squads, or rebels, and when violence ensues, regard those who think more peaceful means ought to have been tried as believing that the regime represented a “moral paragon”. We should break that process.
marku52
Look. Unfortunately, the choice for people in Syria, as well as most of the ME, is to either assent to a totalitarian of one flavor or another, or anarchy (like slave markets in Libya), or jihadists. If my choice is either a safe ordered society where I do not dare to criticize the regime, or one where I am likely to be blown up walking to the market, or have my daughter taken into sex slavery, it seems a straight forward choice.
The best data we have indicates that Syrians are happy to submit to Assad, having lived under the jihadists. And the White Helmets look to be nothing but a propaganda organ for the jihadists. They should have faced justice somewhere for that
rkka
Syria started out as a democracy, but then the Anglosphere fomented coups/conflicts that continue to this very day.
And now sensitive souls look upon a government that adapted to that environment as ‘ghastly’.
Russia too went through a similar process.
It seems the only way to avoid condemnation by sensitive souls is to submit. Or to not lift a finger in self-defense against Saudi Barbaria’s Wahabi headchopper proxies.
semiconscious
‘There are nevertheless groups of people that have been wronged by the Syrian government (do we at least agree on this? It doesn’t mean that other people haven’t done evil…). They may have made bad partnerships, and there are other groups against the Syrian government that do not have “good” intentions in mind. However, they are losing now, and this loss has consequences for them. And the question is what moral weight those consequences really have. Are they receiving their “just desserts” for having been part of a system of “humanitarian” subversion — for example?…’
here’s what you said, initially:
‘Now it appears that a large number of them have been given asylum by Israel en route to being distributed to other countries, as Assad looks to retake most of all of Syria. If they stayed, surely they would face criminal proceedings (or, probably, much worse) from the Syrian government. But a lot of anti-imperialist (pro-Assad?) commentators, including/especially on the left, seem to view this as a further indictment of the White Helmets. Naturally, there is considerable moral inconsistency in Israel’s action, to say the least, but that is not an ethical quandary for those who are fleeing Assad…’
it obviously bothers you that, unlike yourself, there’re some people who see this ‘rescue’ as being more a retrieval of assets, & therefore one more indication that the white helmets, indeed, are assets (whom, btw, if allowed to be captured & ‘questioned’, might just confirm this) than as a simple act of decency…
this may well be because, over the course of this war, simple acts of decency’ve been few & far between (with those of note, of course, having been done by – white helmets!). there’s also the fact that little of what we’ve seen & heard over the years has ever received much objective substantiation, but has rather boiled down to ‘anonymous sources’, hearsay, & social media, almost all of which can be fabricated…
are the white helmets receiving their ‘just desserts’? well, first, let’s define ‘humanitarian subversion’. the white helmets, via their surprisingly prolific/sophisticated use of social media, have, to a large extent, been allowed to single-handedly defined the syrian war for the western audience. &, if assad continues to be seen as an exceptionally ‘ghastly’ figure here, it’s in large part thanks to their dedicated effort. the questionable rescues, & gas attacks? well, there’s been no shortage of daily horrors occurring in syria throughout the course of this war, so one could well argue, i suppose, that, in the name of ‘humanitarian subversion’, any fabrications, if they exist, are quite acceptable. even if they all, without exception, happen to be perpetrated by the opposition, & never, ever the ‘moderate rebels’ (or even, for the most part, al quaeda or isis, for that matter!)…
but, as peter parker learned, ‘with great power there must also come great responsibility’. in my mind, & in the minds of others, being compensated (‘humanitarian mercenaries’?) to fabricate a narrative for the western world, whether or not this might occasionally actually involve the doing of good deeds, is, indeed, the very definition of ‘great power’. &, to the extent that the white helmets made their choice to do this, the responsibility is also theirs…
once again: you primarily seem to be upset about the fact that some of us are not particularly delighted to hear that 80+ white helmets were recently ‘rescued’. well, speaking for myself, as one who believes that the white helmets chose to do what was being requested of them by those employing them, i would say that, were there to ever be a reckoning of some sort, it should certainly come as no surprise. payback can be a bitch…
if the war in syria, in the minds of most in the west, boils down to nothing more complicated than benevolent, white-hatted rebel forces taking on the ‘ghastly’ assad & his merciless minions, it’s in large part due to the indefatigable efforts of the white helmets. & this wholly delusional version of reality does none of of any good, whatsoever, as such crude, simplistic takeaways only smooth the path toward ever greater atrocities further down the road…
StewartM
Mandos
So, if you accept such help, would you also be a “villain” who “subverts noble efforts”?
Of course not. However, since the US government insists that the needs of the Empire are more important than the needs of the desperate, and insist on using NGOs as the CIA admits (!!) for espionage purposes, this will invariably cast suspicion on anyone who comes into contact with them in the eyes of the victors. Civil wars are rather nasty things in general, and this one in particular especially brutal. I’m not saying that they should, mind you; but that they will.
(This is why I think Edmund Burke’s criticism of the French Revolution was so much bunk; at best a self-fulfilling prophecy. The original French revolutionaries were moderate in their aims and means; it was the immediate and implacable hostility of the nobility in the rest of Europe which invaded France and forced it into war, forcing the revolution and the revolutionaries in a battle for their very lives. In such circumstances, the people who have the least qualms about cracking heads (cur in this case, cutting them off) and use extreme measures based on the mere suspicion become preeminent,
So again–since we all agree that such noble causes such as humanitarian aid should not be subverted to policy or espionage ends–why does our government insist on continuing this practice?
UserFriendly
You clearly have a VERY poor understanding of who and what the white helmets are. I recommend that you read this and follow the links to the sources, most of them first hand video interviews of Syrians.
https://zeroanthropology.net/2018/08/11/canada-imports-the-white-helmets-from-syria-a-dangerous-criminal-decision/
Willy
Yet there are many credible researchers who consider the Russian and Syrian governments to be the sources of disinformation against the SCD.
bruce wilder
Whatever else the White Helmets were, they were a compelling narrative, aka a con. What good is moral judgment as a supposed tool of political discernment, if it just makes you the mark for cynical manipulators?
Mandos
Because you can level the “con” accusation in all these circumstances where one faction internal to the country in conflict accepts help from external powers in order to reduce the advantage that the other side has (who have also accepted help from external powers). There’s quite a lot, after all, about the Syrian government’s perspective that is also a “con” by that token.
I’m sorry to say it, I know it isn’t very satisfying, but moral judgement based on surface features of the conflict is all anyone has to hold onto ultimately in this kinds of things. How, after all, would you say that an “non-con” effective opposition to Assad’s rule in Syria should look? What should an opposition that was not a con have done, in order to avoid the negative judgement of “non-mainstream” (or whatever) Western leftists, etc? So far, all the options I see are the ones that would earn your judgement of “cynical manipulation”.
Mandos
No, I am aware of this kind of reporting, just as I am aware of critiques of that kind of reporting, and so on and so forth. To engage in this further would probably justify another charge of “theatre criticism”. Every source on this matter has an ideological axe to grind (I mostly dislike and disagree with Zero Anthropology‘s ideological distinguishing features, insofar as I have been exposed to them), and there’s a ton of staging going on.
Tom
Assad and Assad alone is responsible for the destruction of Syria.
He allowed the rape and torture of schoolboys over a joke. Fired on a peaceful protest, double tapped the funerals, and released Jihadists out of prison.
Every evil in Syria was perpetrated by Assad who even gassed his own people and built death camps complete with Crematoriums to kill protesters he arrested.
The White Helmets were founded to pull people out of rubble and provide emergency care to wounded civilians. They never carried arms.
Hugh
Syria has for decades been a dictatorship run by an Alawite minority lording it over a Sunni majority. The Alawi are a branch of Shia Islam which explains Iran’s support of the regime. Shia-Sunni conflict in Syria is not new. Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, crushed a rebellion led by the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, resulting in the 1982 Hama massacre. Necessary background to the current conflict is a dynastic succession to a weaker, less competent, although ultimately as ruthless, son = Bashar, the US invasion of Iraq and the resultant hundred of thousands of Sunni refugees streaming into Syria, climate change induced draughts in Syria, the US destruction of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi army, its subsequent purge of Baathists (many Sunni) from both state and the military, Maliki’s continuing purges of Sunnis and his corruption of the US-trained successor army, all leading to the rise of ISIS.
Civil wars are usually multi-sided affairs, often with foreign interventions. So you have Russia, Iran, and Lebanese Hezbollah backing all intervening on behalf of the Alawis. You have Armenians and Christians backing Bashar out of fear of the Sunni majority, and in particular ISIS. You have the US backing the Iraqi regime in Iraq against ISIS, along with Iran, while opposing the Assad dictatorship in Syria against Iran. And while supporting Syrian Kurds against ISIS, even as Turkey is making war on them. Then you have Turkey which de facto supported ISIS by being the principal conduit for foreign jihadis into ISIS-controlled Syria and ISIS produced oil out of Syria. Then, under pressure, allows US use of Incirlik to launch airstrikes against ISIS. And finally carving out, and effectively annexing, Turkoman areas near Turkey –much as Russia did with much of northern Georgia or even as it had previously done on Cyprus. And you have Israel, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia pulling strings in the background, giving aid to anti-Assad, anti-Alawite forces, even while taking a kind of devil take all your houses approach.
The Sunni opposition never gelled. It was fragmented ideologically between ISIS and various other groups, and regionally, Aleppo in the north, some neighborhoods of Damascus, areas near Jordan in the south, and ISIS in the east.
Assad survived largely due to Russian assistance in the form of indiscriminate bombing and Russian mercenaries and to the destruction of ISIS by the US, Iraq, the Kurds, and Iranian trained militias. Except in defending their own turf, the various components of the Syrian (Bashar’s) army have been notoriously ineffective and a great frustration to Russian commanders. Hence the adoption of the strategy of simply bombing rebel held areas into submission one by one. The downside of this strategy is that it cannot be used where Turkish and American forces are operating and control the airspace and it simply turns more of an already failed state into rubble. And as happens so frequently in the Mideast, it leaves the underlining problem: minority control of a country at the expense of its majority (here Alawites versus Sunnis) unresolved, and festering.
In all this, I admit I have paid little attention to the White Helmets. To me, they are one small group among many, many others.
Willy
In a post-truth world anybody can be a target, anybodies legacy can be stained. The white helmets voluntarily preformed civilian search and rescue which was witnessed by many civilians. It would have to be proven that their true intentions were more in line with something like the old Viet Cong. Even if 10% of their membership were proven terrorists, I’d still call them a voluntary civil defense organization but with poor membership vetting. One is what they do, not what others say they do. We need to be better at separating out the BS produced by disinformation farms.
generic
I agree that getting support from malicious actors does not automatically discredit an organization. But if that is the point then looking at the YPG might have been a better illustration. In case of the White Helmets there are further complications: The information flo that came from rebel held areas was completely controlled by the rebel side, because reporters that entered those areas ended up dead, or at the very least held for ransom. That wasn’t true for government areas or those held by the Kurds. I have no idea if the White Helmets were a legit rescue organization or was just producing propaganda, but they were definitely part of the propaganda system that murdered reporters. And that makes them more than suspect.
Also the very fact that they were rescued, when current EU policy for refugees is to store them at the ground of the Mediterranean is a reason for distrust.
Ché Pasa
Their primary mission all along has appeared to be anti-Assad (ie: anti-Syrian government) propaganda, a mission they have fulfilled very well. They are known in the west not for their rescues but for their videography and marketing of their apparent rescues often involving infants brought out of bombed or otherwise exploded buildings in dust filled destroyed city streets.
Endless variations of this same scene was their product, and they delivered.
I have no idea how Syrians in rebel areas where they were operating regarded them, but assuming that a side benefit of their propaganda activities was humanitarian rescues, first aid, and so forth, they were probably regarded favorably and probably would have been even if they didn’t wear GoPros on their white helmets.
But apparently that phase of the destruction of Syria is now over and we’ve moved on.
Cirze
Thanks, peon.
And everyone else here helping us to muck through this latest intel-inspired White Helmets propaganda.
We needed that.
Mallam
To know how intellectually honest one is on this issue, just look to the plenty of USAID that is given to people in Gaza (Jared Kushner is coming for it). Should Palestinians deny this aid to themselves because of some ill-conceived notions of anti-imperialism for the sake of stupid and ill-informed ideologues in the West? So we are to cheer when Israel shoots journalists who receive this aid? Are we to cheer when they indiscriminately bomb neighborhoods because people are throwing rocks, lighting kites on fire, and firing off poorly constructed rockets at civilian population in Israel? Well maybe you guys cheer it when Israel responds with bombing, but I for one do not, nor is it at all proportional to the threat. Above all, it doesn’t get at the fundamental question: why are they responding with rock throwing and fire kites and poorly constructed rockets? Because Israel denies them political rights, blockades them, controls them, etc.
The same applies to Assad. People protested. Assad fired on them. They fire back. Then Assad launches total war and bombs refugee camps with planes because “terrorists” are there. Zionism, Assadism, whatever your poison is, get it out of “the left”. Hamas are “terrorists” who are armed by outside forces, but whatever they are the principle aggressor and the cause of the problem is the Israeli State and its occupation/blockade.
I do question comparisons to Iraq since the situation is completely different. But even on body count, more people have already died in Syria than in Junior’s illegal invasion an occupation, and tens of thousands await similar fate in Assad’s prisons. The country is rubble. It already is “worse than Iraq”. Libya on the other hand, while lack of governance, hundreds of thousands aren’t dying to a fascist state government, and the infrastructure isn’t completely destroyed. The principle problem was the dictator shooting and arresting protestors by the thousands. That’s where the blame lies. There is no “both sides” when the state has killed hundreds of thousands, dwarfing the body count of any rebel or terrorist forces, ISIS included.
Great post, Hugh. You’ve always been intellectually consistent, no matter what state is doing the bad stuff. I’d say the same to Tom but he shills for the Turkish government, even though conclusions re: Assad are correct.
Heliopause
An obvious question that should be asked is why Israel and the western powers would go to a fair amount of trouble to rescue these people rather than simply allow them to flee at their own peril like all the other Syrians. Some answers suggest themselves here, but to even intimate them makes one an apologist for Assad, so maybe I’ll just keep them to myself.
DMC
We seem to be experiencing a problem with the relativity of evil. Assad is evil but has the backing of about half the country(all the minorities and an increasing number of Sunnis). The opposition to Assad may have contained “moderate” components at the outset but these have been rendered insignificant by, what we may collectively term, “the jihadis”. The jihadis are largely foreign staffed and financed and have a genocidal agenda toward the minorities. In the worst case scenarios, Assad might kill .5% of Syrians to accomplish his ends, while the jihadis would certainly kill(or otherwise ethnically cleanse) 50% of Syrians, to accomplish theirs. Keeping this in mind should do wonders for clarifying the distinctions in what can be a somewhat muddy situation. To cast it into D&D terms “If the only choice you’ve got is between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil, choose Lawful every time.” Consult Sic Semper Tyrannis and Moon of Alabama for details(two guys from opposite ends of the political spectrum who agree about not liking Neo-Cons).
TimmyB
As if Israel has a long and distinguished history of giving a flying fuck about Arabs lives and rescuing the White Helmets is just one of thousands of examples. What bullshit. The White Helmets are a creature of Western intelligence services, which is why a country that is currently shooting actual medics and rescue workers in Gaza saved that bunch of fanatics.
Hugh
Stalin managed to kill tens of millions via “Lawful Evil”. It is also important to understand that “Chaotic Evil” is often an inevitable response to “Lawful Evil” and that calculus of death and suffering should be added to the account of Lawful Evil. The Assads ran a minority led police state in Syria for 40 years before the civil war. What about the millions terrorized during those years? Somehow I think there is a lot of false accounting involved in trying to justify one kind of evil over another. The truth is that the Assad dictatorship is no more legitimate or lawful than ISIS.
Merasmus
Mandos, you’re either ignorant or being disingenuous.
The White Helmets aren’t even a Syrian organization; they were founded by James Le Mesurier (who I see has only been mentioned in one comment here), a British mercenary. They are (or were, they seem to be disintegrating) kept afloat by copious amounts of USAID and British government money. They also got the benefit of a massive, very obviously coordinated PR push. Add in the facts that they only operate in ‘rebel’ (though as far as I can tell not ISIS) controlled areas, that no one in East Aleppo had even heard of them, and the extensive visual record of ‘rebel’ fighters and White Helmet volunteers being the same people. It all adds up to Syria Civil Defence looking like nothing more than a foreign propaganda ploy.
There are certainly a whole lot of reasons to be deeply suspicious of them.