Hussain Abdul-Hussain

A majority of Americans are opposed to military action in Syria. But in a country where many people cannot point to France on a map, American opposition seems to have little to do with Syria, and more to do with general war fatigue. As a result, opponents of the strike put out arguments that are either false or blatant Assad propaganda.

 

From the Right are the Libertarians, who advocate small government and thus oppose all U.S. foreign activity, and those known as the "Christian Right," who believe that Assad's survival is instrumental for the safety of the Christians of Syria and the Levant. Never mind that between 1975 and 2005, the two Assads – father Hafez and son Bashar – systematically undermined the Christians of Lebanon by assaulting them militarily and assassinating their leaders or sending them into exile.

 

The Assads have been always known for their pragmatism, despite their ideological outlook. Between 2003 and 2011, Bashar al-Assad opened his Damascus airport to Islamist Jihadists who arrived from around Arab countries with one-way tickets. Assad's intelligence agencies penetrated Islamist networks, groomed them, sponsored their bomb-making machinery, and later facilitated their crossing into Iraq where they bombed innocent Iraqi civilians of all faiths, as well as US troops.

 

From the Left is a mix of war-weary liberals, counterculture activists, and some Assad friends. Moveon.org, America's biggest grassroots liberal organization, launched an effort against a possible strike on Assad. 

 

The group's goals, as relayed to its members in an e-mail, are to "galvanize world leaders to demand a multilateral cease-fire, arrange to evacuate people who choose to flee harm's way, care for the evacuees, [and] assist with re-settlement once the civil war has ended." But where was Moveon.org over the past two years when the world – including Washington – struggled to arrange a cease-fire in Syria. Whether through the Arab League's Initiative or the UN's Six-Point Plan, a Syria truce proved impossible.

 

Moveon.org's call for evacuation of Syrians in harm's way suggests that whoever authored its memo is unaware that at least two million Syrians have been displaced since the beginning of the anti-Assad uprising, or that America has been the largest donor of humanitarian aid to these refugees. Its goal of "assisting with resettlement" after the war shows that Moveon.org is even more amateurish in understanding what is at stake now, as opposed to what will be needed in the future.

 

Another leftist organization that also put out a memo arguing against a strike in Syria was the International Crisis Group (ICG). Headed by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who often appears alongside the most visible defenders of the Iranian regime in Washington, ICG's statement called for talks with Iran over Syria, a point endorsed by a few in Washington including Andrew Parasiliti, former Chuck Hagel top aide and now CEO of the media website Al-Monitor.

 

Heading the Middle East program at ICG is Robert Malley, one of the staunchest advocates of "engaging Assad" prior to 2011. In fact, Malley repeatedly visited Assad in Damascus, and was often invited to dinner at the residence of Syrian Ambassador in Washington Imad Mustafa. A picture that Mustafa posted on his blog, and later removed, shows Malley and Seymore Hersh, famous for his New Yorker article in which he accused the Hariri Movement of supporting radical Islamists who fought the Lebanese Army in the Nahr Al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in 2007.

 

Malley and the ICG may have laid low since March 2011, but seem to have come back now, believing that Assad has a chance. In its memo, the ICG links a possible strike on Assad to all the images that resonate negatively with Americans. "A military attack" has no "international consensus," ICG said, arguing that "solid evidence of regime use of chemical weapons is futile, [g]iven the false pretenses that informed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq."

 

Despite solid evidence to the contrary, ICG employed one of Assad regime's main talking points about the August 21 chemical attack in Damascus: "Elements within the opposition also might be tempted to use such weapons and then blame the regime, precisely in order to provoke further U.S. intervention."

 

And similar to stories that appeared in Al-Monitor and other media outlets with pieces favorable of Assad and Iran, ICG put out a threat to America's regional allies: "Major regional or international escalation (such as retaliatory actions by the regime, Iran or Hezbollah, notably against Israel) is possible but probably not likely given the risks involved, though this could depend on the scope of the strikes."

 

The Assad lobby may have been dispersed since March 2011, but Assad's friends in Washington still linger. With Americans looking for whatever arguments they can get against the war, and with misinformation abound, the Assad and Iran lobbies now find it ideal to pitch their theories on the inevitability of letting Assad get away with chemical attacks, as the only option available, and engaging Iran over Syria, or maybe just let Tehran build a nuclear bomb.