What Do We Know About Syria? Next to Nothing
What Do We Know About Syria? Next to Nothing by Charles Hugh Smith – Of Two Minds
Anyone accepting “facts” or narratives from any interested party is being played.
About the only “fact” the public knows with any verifiable certainty about Syria is that much of that nation is in ruins. Virtually everything else presented as “fact” is propaganda intended to serve one of the competing narratives or discredit one or more competing narratives.
Consider a partial list of “interested parties” spinning their own narratives about events in Syria: (in no particular order)
1. The government of Syria
2. non-state groups in Syria
4. Saudi Arabia
7. The government of Iraq
8. non-state groups in Iraq
9. The Kurds
13. The Gulf States
15. United States
16. European Union
17. United Kingdom
This doesn’t exhaust the list of interested parties, of course, but it reflects the spectrum of competing parties pushing a narrative that supports their particular interests in Syria. These include neighboring countries, regional powers, global powers and consumers of Syrian energy exports.
Let’s start by stating the obvious: the only way to gain any reasonably accurate contexts / assessments in Syria is to have intelligence-gathering assets on the ground. The situation is fluid and complex, and there is no one “truth.”
The only way to get any sort of handle on the military, political and social dynamics in Syria is to have access to the intelligence assessments and analyses of all the major players’ intelligence agencies.
In other words, the only way to get any sort of comprehensive understanding would be to have a WikiLeaks-type release of intelligence reports from all the players with assets on the ground and have a deep enough understanding of the history and culture of the region to make sense of the overlaps, conflicts, nuances and shades of “truth” presented in each of the intel reports.
Only by collating “raw” (unfiltered) intel gathered on the ground and high-level analysis by those directing the various interests’ campaigns could a reasonably accurate assessment be assembled.
Short of that, we know next to nothing. What are presented as “facts” are narratives designed to persuade us of the fidelity of the “facts” being presented and the rightness of the narrative supported by the presented “facts.”
If the “facts” aren’t designed to support a specific narrative, then they’re designed to undermine or discredit a competing narrative.
There are several ways to push a narrative: one is to present “evidence” that supposedly verifies the “facts,” and the other is to limit the public’s access to competing narratives amd claims.