I was amazed and shocked to read Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed’s article ‘America’s passive stance on Syria,’ published in the Arab News on August 31. After observing America’s conduct towards Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular, and except for one-off move to provide help to Bosnian Muslims, any one in his right mind could hardly trust Americans to look after and safeguard Muslims’ interests? Does he not realize that the United States in just the tail-end of a coin of which Israel is the head?
The writer seems to be full of admiration for George Bush, even though what he did was illegal and brutal and has multiplied the suffering of Iraqis at least a thousand-fold. No doubt, Saddam Hussain was a ruthless ruler who dealt with his opponents with an iron-fist but the real democracy has not been brought to Iraq and the dictator has been replaced by an ineffectual puppet, Nur al-Maliki. All along, Americans kept criticizing Nur al-Maliki but they have still retained him because he suits their purpose.
It is surprising that even after seeing what American invasion did to Iraq, someone should express disappointment over its non-interference in Syria on the same scale? However, the disruptive and destructive American government has not remained a complete bystander in the Syrian issue and is doing what it can through its A-team (not a typo) the Israelis as well as some Muslim states who are providing arms and ammunition as well as other assistance to saboteurs and terrorists who are poles apart from the original protesters who were peaceful.
The Syrian revolution started as peaceful protest, and there was a good chance that it would have succeeded but, unfortunately, it was hijacked by agents of Americans and Israelis and some anti-Shia Muslim states in the neighbourhood.
The writer tries to coax Americans to invade Syria, saying “This is the first time since the end of the Cold War that we see the US scared of Russian anger, despite the fact that the fall of the Syrian regime will be helpful for the US in the event of a possible war against Iran.” What is preventing America’s invasion of Syria is the opposition of Iraq and China, because of which they are unable to get a resolution of their choice at the UN Security Council. Also, writer’s assertion that the fall of the Syrian regime will be helpful for the US in the event of a possible war against Iran, lays bare his thinking, making clear that he is not really concerned about Syrians.
It is a bit of a shame that Syria’s neighbours jumped in to settle their personal score, and thus turned a peaceful movement into a civil war. Without military intervention from Syria-haters, there was a very good chance that the Chinese, and more specifically the Russians, through their leverage with Bashar al-Assad, would have persuaded him to settle the issue in a peaceful manner. Alas, that opportunity is lost now, much to the misfortune of people of Syria and the rest of the Middle East. The only state that is likely to emerge as a winner is Israel.
SRH HASHMI
Karachi
