The case of Eric Harroun, a former member of the U.S. Army who
traveled to Syria to join
the 'moderate' Free Syrian Army, and was
accused of joining the pro-al-Qaeda
Syria opposition, is undermining
U.S. backing for the anti-Assad
uprising.
American Mujahedeen Now Threaten Syrian Revolution (All4Syria,
Syria)
"A year ago, the video of American Eric Harroun driving a
jeep wearing a bright red Chechen-style hat, accompanied by bearded
militants chanting threats against Bashar Al-Assad, was
received with something approaching amusement. A year later, the U.S.
intelligence community has issued a report voicing concerns about the danger of
Mujahedeen Americans. ... In other
words, under the banner of Islamist terrorism and the likelihood that Western
Mujahedeen are likely to turn their guns toward Europe and America, the video
and similar material is now being used to turn the Western public against the
Syrian revolution."
American Mujahadeen Eric Harroun, a former U.S. Army soldier who traveled to Syrian to fight Bashar al-Assad, is charged with joining a pro-al-Qaeda terrorist group to do so. Now U.S. officials say they fear that other Americans who have done the same will return home and create mischief here. Harroun reportedly died of a drug overdose at home after returning to the United States.
Exactly
a year after the emergence of a YouTube video [below] featuring an American "Mujaheed" in Syria fighting in the ranks of the armed
opposition, the U.S. political establishment has begun to raise its voice on
the danger of "American Mujahedeen" returning from Syria. Concerns
mounted a few days after a visit to Washington by Ahmed Al-Jarba, a representative of the Syrian opposition, and coincided
with his visit to France.
The
American tone has also come into vogue in France, Britain, and most European countries.
The danger of returning Westerners fighting in Syria has become a domestic threat
to the strategic security and social tranquility of the countries. Those who
have followed the case of Algerian Mohammed Muraah are well aware that he has substantially contributed
to the rising tone of fear (or perhaps intimidation). Not only in France, but
across the Occident, concerns have mounted over Western Mujahedeen returning
from Syria.
A
year ago, the aforementioned video was received with something approaching amusement.
It showed American Eric Harroun driving a jeep wearing a bright red Chechen-style
hat, accompanied by bearded militants chanting threats against Bashar Al-Assad. A year later, the U.S. intelligence community
has for the first time issued a report voicing concerns about the danger of
Mujahedeen Americans, transforming the video from one of amusement to one of
dread. In other words, under the banner of Islamist terrorism and the
likelihood that Western Mujahedeen are likely to turn their guns toward Europe
and America, the video and similar material is now being used to turn the
Western public against the Syrian revolution.
The
effort to depict the Syrian revolution within the generic framework of terrorism
is bad enough, but now it is betrussed by supporting evidence. For instance, The
Al-Nusra
Front has not only refused to sign a declaration renouncing its quest to
establish an Islamic state in Syria, it stresses that it entirely rejects any
creation of a civil state. Doesn’t that widen the divisions within the Syrian revolution,
particularly since the Syrian nation is extremely diverse, and notions of an
Islamic State or the rejection of a civil one threaten any hope of national unity?
The trap of
diplomatic representation
There
is something else being discussed in Paris and Washington igniting fear within
the Syrian revolution. Both capitols, which are presumably the greatest sources
of Western and global support for the revolution, have even granted recognition
to the Syrian
National Coalition. While it is good to have this symbolic support for the Syrian
revolution, and it is often stressed that the West supports the moderate
opposition, this policy has another face. French President Francois Hollande has
explained that this shouldn't place the Syrian Embassy under National Coalition
control. Instead, the Coalition will be offered a different location to pursue
its diplomatic role, meaning that double Syrian representation will be accepted
in France, and furthermore, it will be dispersed between two buildings, clearly
embodying the division.
The
French position on Syrian diplomatic representation was preceded by the earlier
and similar position of the American administration, when it granted diplomatic
recognition to the Syrian opposition. In both cases, France and the United
States persist in maintaining duel Syrian representation.
So
despite recognition, isn't it agonizing to help sustain and prolong the bloody tragedy
of Syria? The Syrian people are suffering bloodshed, distress, and destruction
on daily basis. Unfortunately, what is so important to the nation and its
people does not similarly enter into the calculations of Great Power interests,
disputes, strategies and the balance of power. Would a division of Syria be an
acceptable way of settling the nation's fate? It is just a question, but as far
as all factions of the opposition are concerned, the answer is definitively "no."
Posted By Worldmeets.US
There
is no doubt, and this should be stated openly, that when it comes to the
question of a division of Syria, there are fanatical Islamist organizations that
would approve. Long-term experience with such organizations shows that such
groups are the most likely to approve, despite their highfalutin rhetoric on "the
Caliphate" and the "rule of Islam" (in reference to an "Islamic
empire"). Such people find it easy to form Islamic Emirates - on one
square meter of land they rule by arms. Didn’t the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria [ISIS]
establish its "Emirate of Islam in Mosul"? Hasn't it been decades
since "Fatah
al-Islam" threatened to establish an Islamic emirate in Northern
Lebanon, or since Sheikh Shaban proclaimed an Islamic
emirate in Tripoli after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 1982 under the
armed "auspices" of Abu Ammar [Yasser
Arafat] Aren’t fanatics threatening to form emirates in Sinai, Libya, Tunisia,
and Algeria every day, and haven't they actually proclaimed one in Mali?
In
America, the thread that connects the Syrian revolution with Islamic terrorism,
and which justifies duel diplomacy, is obvious. President Obama hasn't hesitated
to lecture the Syrian opposition on the necessity of ridding itself of terrorism
as he has abstained from providing it with high-quality weapons to for use
against Assad lest they fall into the hands of extremist Jihadi groups.
This
position is the perfect trap. Based on rational justifications about fighting terrorism
and the need to remove terrorist influence over the Syrian revolution, it arrives
at a vague and mysterious conclusion: the revolution must rid itself of
terrorism. Isn't that a call for internal fighting among the components of the
armed Syrian opposition?
While there are understandable concerns about internal fighting, which can be expected
to occur from time to time and is always hazardous, this should be far less worrying than the horrific prospect of a division of Syria.
