Is There Anything Left To Do To Discredit the Syrian Uprising?

Following President Obama’s hint of a military strike against the Assad regime in the wake of its chemical massacre in Ghouta, the media launched a fierce smear campaign to discredit the Syrian uprising. This raises the question: What remains to be done in Washington to harm the credibility of the uprising?

Since President Obama announced that he was going to seek congressional approval for military action, the Syrian rebellion became like a political ball between the Republicans and the Democrats. Not surprisingly, a huge pro-Assad PR machine grabbed this ball, and its message is that “the uprising consists only of terrorists who are no better than Assad.” A section of the U.S. media fell into this trap, including The New York Times, which published a video clip on its website — along with a picture on the front page — showing what was said to be the brutality of the rebels President Obama was defending. It was later revealed that the tape was from the previous year when conditions were different, forcing the newspaper to issue a correction.

What is amazing is that we are now faced with a new story that is just as harmful to the uprising. Published in The Washington Post, it is about rumors that the “jihadis” in Syria are receiving financial aid in the form of individual donations from some Gulf countries. This is amazing because the source of the story is an officer in the U.S. administration. This suggests one of two things: There may be a struggle between those calling for intervention and those against it inside the U.S. administration itself and the media is being used — and this is not strange in Washington. Or we have before us the series of American hesitations regarding Syria, especially because this administration is dealing with Syria like a huge elephant in a small room! The best description I heard of the U.S. position on Syria came from a high-ranking Arab officer well aware of the details. To my question on Washington’s current stance on Syria he replied, “What is the date today? And what is the time now? So that I can answer you.”

The truth is that the U.S. indecision not only led to the escalation of the Syrian crisis, but also put the whole region at risk. There was no talk about extremists and jihadis a year and a half ago. But America’s hesitation, along with Assad’s crimes, Iran’s intervention and Russia’s pigheaded position brought about the current situation. If it is true that there is individual financing from the Gulf to some in Syria, what should we expect when the death toll has reached 150,000, with Hezbollah publicly announcing its involvement? After all this, do we expect that there will not be extremism in Syria? Nonsense!

Therefore, the current talk on the presence of extremists in Syria must not be an excuse to avoid military intervention. On the contrary, it should lead to intervention, or else what is to come will be worse, especially because Assad’s crimes, along with Iran’s intervention and the silence of the international community, have fueled sectarianism not only in Syria but also in the whole region, and this indicates that worse is yet to come. The U.S. administration had better explain this well to the public now instead of continuing to waver and to give unfounded excuses.