Whether or not the assassinations in Syria yesterday are the "beginning of the end" really all depends on which version of the story you believe.
As everyone who has followed the increasing violence in Syria must by now realize, both sides are happy to clutch at metaphorical straws and neither side shies away from making unsubstantiated claims. It's a question of trying to read between the lines to try and get at what may actually be the truth most of the time. And this becomes harder with each passing, chaotic event. There was an excellent Al Jazeera article entitled "Spin and Counter Spin in Syria" which is very well worth reading and another by Glenn Greenwald entitled "The Damascus Suicide Bombing" which raises some very interesting points and is also something I'd recommend.
What complicates the Syrian scenario further is that I think many of us are beginning to wonder just how many "sides" there actually are in this conflict.
Syria is not Egypt. It's certainly not Tunisia and, although it may have some similarities to Libya, the similarities do not stand up to too much scrutiny. In Syria, there is no clear, single oppositional voice with a cohesive power structure, there is a fragmented movement intent on removing Bashar Al-Assad and his cronies from power in order to bring their version of democracy to Syria. Much as I think we would all support these basic aims, I do wonder if any of us are clear any longer, on who exactly we are supporting?
We see Western Governments hinting that they may be willing to arm the opposition movement, perhaps they might be in discussions with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) or the Syrian National Council (SNC), or the Syrian Patriotic Group, or the National Coordination Committee or any number of other people who are now involving themselves in the conflict. That's all very well and I sincerely hope that we are doing something more constructive than arguing with the inimitable Russia and the predictably obstinate China, about why they are making us all look bad. But, on the other hand, I'm not at all sure I want our Government arming "just anybody" who appears, at the moment, to be against the Regime and pro-democracy.
Surely we should have learned our lesson by now? If nothing else, history shows us in all its horrible glory, what happens when we arm people randomly or take sides in conflicts we haven't bothered to properly investigate. I don't want to re-hash the old Taliban argument, but we really can't carry on arming the current favorites in the hope that they won't turn out to be wolves in sheeps clothing further down the line. If we do, then we have only ourselves to blame when it all goes pear shaped.
Yesterday's events really seem to exemplify what is fast becoming a very worrying predicament for the West as it attempts to navigate its relationship with the Middle East.
Read More
