Why are our politicians so silent on Palmyra’s liberation from clutches of Daesh?

Palmyra_-_Monumental_Arch

Palmyra’s historic monumental arch. Bernard Gagnon

Robert Frisk, The Independent’s multiple award-winning Middle East correspondent, is angry with Western Political leaders who are silent about the liberation of Palmyra (see Why is David Cameron so silent on the recapture of Palmyra from the clutches of Isis?).

So am I. We should all be angry.

Frisk says:

“The biggest military defeat that isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia. And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn’t they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn’t we?

Less than a week after the lost souls of the ‘Islamic Caliphate’ destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should – should we not? – have been clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the head-chopping king of Arabia (I’m talking about Dave, of course) said not a word.”

Yes, the silence of these political leaders has been deafening. But not all leaders.

According to the Syrian Arab News the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon welcomed the restoration of Security and stability to Palmyra and the expelling terrorists of the Islamic State (ISIS) from the historic city:

“We were happy with the announcement of the Syrian army the restoration of security and stability to Palmyra… the Syrian army will protect and preserve this human heritage.”

He added ISIS terrorists don’t only kill people in a brutal way, but they also destroy the heritage of the human civilizations that date back to thousands of years.

UN Gen Sec

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

Even the former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, expressed gratitude for the liberation of the ancient city of Palmyra. “Thank you,” he wrote in Russian in response to the message of the Russian Embassy in the US on the complete liberation of Palmyra.

McFaul

The Russian President congratulated the Syrian president on Palmyra’s liberation – although maybe that doesn’t count as his country contributed to this defeat of the Daesh jihadis in Palmyra.

Why this reticence?

Perhaps that is the problem – even if such a reason is childish. The policies and strategies of the US, NATO and the EU have been shown to be an absolute failure and then their political opponent – that upstart President Putin – comes along and shows them up. He gives substance to those criticisms of the failed policy of regime change in Syria.

As Frisk writes:

“When Palmyra fell last year, we predicted the fall of Bashar al-Assad. We ignored, were silent on, the Syrian army’s big question: why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn’t they bomb the suicide convoys that broke through the Syrian army’s front lines? Why didn’t they attack Isis?

“If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn’t they bomb them when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his soldiers’ defeat.  His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins. The Syrian official in charge of the Roman ruins (of which we cared so much, remember?) was himself beheaded. Isis even put his spectacles back on top of his decapitated head, for fun. And we were silent then.”

Back in September Putin asked during his speech to the UN General Assembly – “Do you realise what you have done?” He called for unity in the fight against terrorism – unity of the sort we experienced during the struggle against Nazism during World War II. But he didn’t sit back and wait for this unity – he provided help to the Syrian regime whose collapse, which was imminent,  would have thrown the country into anarchy of the sort that only breeds more terrorism. An anarchy which was the only clear future of the “regime change” policy. So, as Frisk points out:

“[Putin’s] aircraft attacked Isis – as US planes did not – in advance of the Syrian army’s conquest. I could not help but smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the regime. That really did tell you all you needed to know about the American “war on terror”. They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that much.

“So in the end, it was the Syrian army and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon and the Iranians and the Russians who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra, and who may – heavens preserve us from such a success – even storm the Isis Syrian ‘capital’ of Raqqa. I have written many times that the Syrian army will decide the future of Syria. If they grab back Raqqa – and Deir el-Zour, where the Nusrah front destroyed the church of the Armenian genocide and threw the bones of the long-dead 1915 Christian victims into the streets – I promise you we will be silent again.

“Aren’t we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That’s Putin’s job. And Assad’s. Pray for peace, folks. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? And Geneva. Where is that, exactly?”

“Regime change” is a threat to Europe

Europe is suffering the largest immigration crisis since the last World War – a crisis caused by the thoughtless application of “regime change” strategy in the Middle East.

I don’t go along with the claims that this immigration is being used by ISIS to infiltrate trained terrorist groups into Europe – after all, the groups we have seen in action have been essentially “home-grown.” But jihadists have captured territory in Iraq, Syria and now Libya –  have set up their own “caliphate” which enables the training of such “home-grown” jihadis. This also provides an ideological “homeland” for these terrorists. Daesh (ISIS) public sponsorship of terrorist actions in Europe – and elsewhere (which our media practically ignores) is clear evidence of a direct link.

Yes, the social and cultural problems of current European citizens of Middle East origin contributes to their radicalisation as well. But surely this massive immigration will only help set up a future situation of increased ghettoisation and radicalisation of the immigrants and their children.

Politicians have failed to develop policies in Europe capable of preventing the current ghettoisation and radicalisation – it’s an open question whether they will be able to develop policies suitable for the new wave of immigration.

Meanwhile, these same politicians in Europe, NATO and the US have created the current problems with their ‘failed “regime change” interventions in the Middle East. Realists have started to realise this and complain about that strategy. But, so far, they seem incapable of completely rejecting it, accepting the right of the peoples in those countries to decide their own regimes – and decide for themselves any changes they consider necessary.

As for the possibility of united action to combat terrorism, I think there have been hopeful signs with the US-Russian cooperation over the cessation of hostilities in Syria and support for the Geneva negotiations on Syria’s future. Perhaps that is a good start which can be built on. But so far such cooperation appears to be confined to the activity of the US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Given that president Obama couldn’t bring himself to welcome Palmyra’s liberation I wonder what John Kerry says in private?

Similar articles

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s