Editor’s note: This piece is in response to a previously published article by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad.
Since the early days of the Syrian uprising, the left and progressives around the world have sharply debated how to respond. A small number rushed to the defense of President Bashar al Assad, claiming he was an anti-imperialist and leader in the anti-Israel resistance. The vast majority of progressives supported the people of Syria in their popular uprising while also opposing U.S. and other foreign intervention.
Another small minority claimed to support the Syrian people while calling for U.S. military intervention to topple Assad. The U.S. and western powers have no intention of bringing democracy to Syria; their full-scale intervention would almost certainly lead to a pro-western dictatorship or a fragmented state. One need only look at the result of the NATO bombing of Libya, which led directly to the country’s descent into chaos. These “progressive” interventionists supported the NATO bombing, but to my knowledge, have never apologized or offered meaningful self criticism.
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, a lecturer in digital journalism at the University of Stirling in Scotland, falls into the pro-interventionist camp. In an article in The Progressive in 2017, he praised Trump’s bombing of a Syrian airfield after sarin was used in Khan Sheikhoun. He wrote, “[T]he United States has been bombing Syria since September 2014; this is the first time it hit the right target.” He called for expanded bombing, but luckily Trump wasn’t listening.
So it is not surprising that Ahmad attacked my column opposing the latest U.S. bombing of Syria. Behind his criticism of Assad’s chemical weapon attacks is the desire for greater western military intervention.
Let me respond to some of his phony arguments.
The Barzeh Scientific Studies Research Center was bombed by a U.S.-led western coalition April 13. Ahmad writes that it was acknowledged by Assad to be a chemical weapons facility. He fails to mention, however, that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspected Barzeh in November and found no violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Ahmad cites a U.N. Commission of Inquiry Report that claimed rebels haven’t used chemical weapons, as if that’s the final word. The OPCW has documented at least one instance where rebels––in this case ISIS––used chemical weapons. More significantly, a Kurdish group documented that Jaish al Islam, the rightwing political Islamist group that controlled Douma at the time of the missile attack, admitted to using chemical agents against the Kurds in 2016. Jabhat al-Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, used phosphorous against Kurds.
Ahmad claims I promote an “equivalency” between chemical use by Assad and the rebels. I do not. The Syrian regime is a vicious dictatorship that has used far more chemical weapons, barrel bombs, and other horrific weapons to attack civilians. I cited the rebel use to show that Jaish al Islam was capable of making chlorine gas. The OPCW has now made two inspections of Douma, their report will determine what chemicals were used, if any, and help others determine who used them.
Finally, Ahmad offers the same interpretation of international law as White House hawks. Under international law, countries can go to war only if attacked or under a mandate from the U.N. Security Council. Ahmad writes that Russia’s Security Council veto “means Putin’s will could determine what is or isn’t legal.” Yes, Russia has vetoed attempts by the United States to attack Syria. The United States would have certainly vetoed any attempt to condemn its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Mr. Ahmad, would a U.S. veto give Russia, China, and Iran the right to conduct a surgical strike against Washington, D.C.?
There are no end of people who are willing to applaud the use of military aggression to achieve political ends. Should political progressives be among them?
Reese Erlich is the author of Inside Syria: The Backstory of Their Civil War and What the World Can Expect. His column Foreign Correspondent runs regularly in The Progressive.