The economic sanctions that have been imposed on Syria, are apparently insufficient to turn the Syrians into revolutionaries. Businesses and people are accepting they have to work around them, obtaining goods from China and other parts of the world. The sanctions stand accused of causing a decline in the value of the Syrian pound, and individual businessmen are mounting legal challenges to sanctions placed on them. It is abundantly clear that those hit hardest by economic sanctions, as usual, are those who can least bear it while everyone else works round them. The only discernible result of economic sanctions so far consistently reported, has been to make the Syrian people feel deprived and isolated.
Meanwhile, confusion over who is bombing who, is throwing up alarming statements. ‘A greying of the security environment…a number of players, some of who we know, some we don’t’, said a man name Aram Nerguizan, from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, adding he didn’t believe all the bombers were the regime. If you can’t starve them into revolution, you can’t bomb them into it either.
Rachel walked in, while the BBC was reporting on Syria, and she asked me a question about what was happening. I told her I couldn’t know. I didn’t tell a five year old that the report was fairly typical of the type of report I have often seen. Building a steady pretext for a war that serves our economic and political interests.
When Danny Abdul-Dayemon appeared on Newsnight, closely followed by videos across Youtube accusing him of faking his testimony and supporting recordings I didn’t expect to see him re-invited. When he appeared AGAIN, weeks later, it seemed unlikely the researchers had missed it.
His erratic appearance again relying emotive heartfelt rhetoric to demand that we go and ‘save Syrian’s without discussing the reality of anything. Marie Colvin was killed. Within a few weeks of her death, I was more than familiar with her name, as she became a motif providing the emotive rhetoric that a case for war with no basis, requires.
We are at a period in history where it is demanded that we provide better excuses for our wars than the constant repetition of the name of a journalists name to tug the heart strings.
We may have forgotten Libya already, I doubt the Syrians have. And no one has forgotten Iraq, or is taking their eyes off the clusterfuck that was Afghanistan, or it’s still likely effects on Pakistan. We need more than emotive rhetoric to justify ourselves these days. A line in the sand was drawn with Libya. Noone is forced to indulge us now. That was the limit of neo liberal foreign policy in that part of the world. After decades of this, the world was very clear with us that it was not to be the precedent everyone knew it was.
Any pretext for ‘war’ is collapsing. Syria is being used as a tug toy between world powers so they can dickswing over other stuff, rendering what they all say hollow. But the inability of any party to manage the message their country needs, is upsetting things a bit. Elsewhere, similar narratives are dissolving into nothing.
The line of the US liberal political media has suddenly become more candid about Israel. Unity within Israel, on the issue of a strike against Iran has crumbled, as it becomes apparent what could really be at stake, and how horrified the world really is by such utter deluded batshittery. We may never again, see the pretext for wars rolled out in the same way.