Home | About | Donate

Blocking Democracy as Syria’s Solution


Blocking Democracy as Syria’s Solution

Robert Parry

The solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy – letting the people of Syria decide who they want as their leaders – but it is the Obama administration and its regional Sunni “allies,” including U.S.-armed militants and jihadists, that don’t want to risk a democratic solution because it might not achieve the long-held goal of “regime change.”


Since the US claim about that sarin gas attack have since been discredited as typical nonsense propaganda, we might ask: what is the real reason for the US demand for "regime change" in Syria?

Could it be that Assad has strong socialist tendencies?

Speaking of "regime change", that would a be a good move in the USA - out with the neoliberals, in with the socialists.


Here is another part of the reason.



Assad must go? It is so disgusting to hear the Amerikan, fascists like Obama ( who Mr. Parry claims has killed a half million Syrians) claiming the regime change in Syria is the solution to the crisis in Syria. The real solution is US regime change!

The MSM laments with its xenophobic, fear mongering diatribe about ISIS and the evil Muslims that need to be stopped before it is too late. But never a word about why they hate US foreign policy, except that most insane and asinine statement by Dim Son that "they hate us for our freedoms". The Amerikan Empire's foreign policy is based on industrial greed,hegemony and political power to protect the interests of the economic elite. And let me ask this: what would be your reaction if your wedding party was completely wiped out by a drone in the US? What would be your reaction if many of your innocent relatives were bombed, in the US and their murders were called euphemistically, " collateral damage "? What would be your reaction to over a half million of your fellow Americans, including women and children being killed by Syrian military forces because they said: " Obama must go"! Two wrongs do not make a right, but can you blame them for hating the US foreign policies? What surprises me is that more do not hate us!

Ask yourself: why is this puerile frenzy of bombing and bellicosity taking place in primarily Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria? Could it be because Muslims countries control over 60% of the known crude oil reserves in the world?


Great link! Thank you.


You're welcome. I like Abby Martin, she's smart and informed.


I'm beginning to think Parry has never met a dictator he didn't like. The Al-Assad family has been dictators of Syria for 45 years. Junior has already been affirmed as the leader in two votes (no opposition allowed of course) so why now? Why bother with a vote now?

Personally, I hold my nose and give a thumbs up for these dictators (Saddam, Quidaffi, Saudi King, Assad, ect ) because, even though they are thieves and killers, they keep a lid on the secular and religious pot that boils over whenever the lid is removed.

So, Robert, quit being a total hypocrite. How many democratic elections in Syria have you called for in the past 45 years? Just call a duck a duck, and a lid a lid. Be honest. You want the lid back on, as do many of us.




And very well stated by Col. Wilkerson.

Thanks for the link.

I agree that further enrichment of the armaments industry, and expansion of the empire, are part of the reason for the US regime's desire for "regime change" in Syria.

To hear a retired, conservative, army officer talk like that is truly amazing.

Imagine the reaction of the general population if that interview were to be broadcast on the MSM's nightly news.


Hey c'mon Jimmy, that's no way for a saint to be talking.
Even granted that you're right, I still think you should have your mouth washed out with soap, then say ten more Hail Marys.


I was just pulling your leg Jimmy.
Sorry if I offended you.


Those directing and executing US foreign policy can arm, fund, train, provide air support to terrorists but this fact only gets uttered on obscure left leaning websites…no offense CD.

That fact proves just how captured MSM is in this country, and not only in this country actually. The BBC is no different. From NPR to FOX, local newspapers, news and talk radio, there will be no captured talking head that will dare point out the fact that US foreign policy is demonstrably diametrically opposed to actually countering terrorism and in fact utilizes terrorism from recognized terrorist groups.

The captured so-called Fourth Estate amounts to State Media directed by western global capitalists of the no-borders Deep State. The same media that promotes the no-borders corporate governance trade agreements, and the same media that gives cover for every other tool of power of this Deep State e.g., NSA mass surveillance, burgeoning Security Industrial Complex, the Western powers' collective MIC, et al.

Given these facts “on the ground“ it seems utterly preposterous to even hint of ANY element of democracy supposed or otherwise being directed by the movers and shakers of this emergent fascism.


I don't discount your answer but please don't overlook, what, I think it was Pepe Escobar who said it, has been called 'Pipelinistan.' The desire to not allow a pipeline from Iran through Syria, by-passing Turkey is one possible reason the Turks, at least, have not been playing nice.
Even if we agree that the invasion and occupation of Palestine is the background and lens through which many of the subsequent acts in the region should be judged, there are numerous other national issues that continue to be pushed by the various parties who seem to use the Palestinian issue when and as it suits them.
And then there's those oil reserves.


First the US spent a lot of money in Syria seeking out individuals and groups wanting to get rid of Assad. Then we trained and armed them. Then we looked on as they infiltrated peaceful demonstrations and provoked a response from Assad. And THEN Obama declared, "Assad must go!": the culmination of the plan and who cares if thousands died and millions are displaced? And who cares if more chaos ensues as long as Obama doesn't have to retract his declaration.


I am sure other factors are in play but the driving force behind the regional destabilization has been the neocons, who are driven by what they see as best for Israel.

"In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called “a policy coup” engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the “coup” being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called “a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century”:

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”"

Salon: Wes Clark and the neocon dream


What is happening in Syria is very much like what happened in Vietnam. In Vietnam it became apparent that in free elections the Communists would win so the USA foemented a rebellion in the South and then claimed they needed to send troops and advisors there to "defend democracy".

In Syria more than a few polls and analysts conclude that even in closely monitored electons Assaad would win and remain on as President. He has support in the Christian and Allawite communities both of which fear a takeover by Fundamentalists.

Once more the USA speaks with a forked tongue.


Everyone knows Assad heads up a brutal hereditary dictatorship . The real question, though, is why that makes him such an enemy when we are best pals with an even worse regime in Saudi Arabia. Assad was very helpful after 9-11, imprisoning and torturing various suspects sent to him by the CIA - just as Qaddafi did. Mubarak did his part in the torture-for-hire also, but was abandoned once the mobs began to call for his head. Even Saddam was a buddy as long as he was gassing Iranian soldiers and Kurds back in the 80s.

What is it about the U.S. turning on dictators who do their best to suck up to Washington? Do the Saudis call all the shots down there on the Potomac?