Three Perspectives:

How Will History Judge Liberation of Aleppo?

Rasa - There are three different perspectives from which to evaluate liberation of Aleppo by the Syrian Army and its Iranian, Russian and Hezbollah allies.

News ID: 425839

Date: 16 December 2016 - 23:59

RNA - There’s the perspective of Damascus prior to the military operation to retake the besieged city, when it was widely anticipated that the international civil society, the United Nations in particular, would support and laud the Syrian-led humanitarian, anti-terrorism campaign.

Then there’s the perspective of post-liberation Aleppo, when the most shocking accusations by the United States, NATO, and their head-chopping client states in the Persian Gulf were levelled at Syria, Iran and Russia as regards the way they handled the evacuation of civilians and “rebels” from eastern neighbourhoods.

Lastly, there’s the perspective historians will take decades from now, as they assess the entire conflict in comparison with what came after the recapture of Aleppo. Obviously, it’s the last of these perspectives that will prove most useful. But it’s still 2016, and we don’t have the luxury of travelling in a time machine. So it seems a better choice to have a go on the first two:

1-How to appraise liberation of Aleppo?

As we speak, not even one single video clip or picture has ever emerged to substantiate Western allegations that the allied forces have carried out lynching, summary execution of rebel sympathizers, looting, ransacking stores and burning homes for the run of it. The allied forces were on their own and this was in no way a horrible campaign of sectarian bloodletting. The humane operation had the minimum number of civilian casualties and no heinous crimes were ever committed against the fleeing civilians, much less the rebels who handed in their weapons or were transferred elsewhere.

Quite the contrary, numerous documents published by the UN aid agencies as well as damning reports by Western press outlets have highlighted widespread violations by the so-called “moderates” in Aleppo and elsewhere that include killings, beheadings, torture, abductions, rape, sexual slavery, forced religious conversions and the conscription of children. The only difference now is that in the eyes of Western governments and press outlets these violations of international law happened all because of the Syrian bombardments! Watch this kind of narrative, because they will use it more often in future.

2-How to appraise Western allegations?

The United States and its client states, who are publicly in league with the Al-Qaeda-allied “moderates,” continue to claim that the allied forces have killed innocent civilians in the reclaimed areas, including summary executions of 82 women and children. Strange enough, they go on to claim that it was the slow grind of Syrian “barrel bombings” and alleged civilian massacres that turned “ordinary rebels” toward a more ruthless ideology!

Other baseless allegations that are designed to undermine the liberation of Aleppo include young women committing suicide to avoid being raped by allied forces, some locals burning their belongings in their homes so they would not be looted by pro-regime forces, medical workers being killed or injured by snipers while clearing an evacuation route and ambulances in the enclave coming under small-arms fire, and some of the evacuees being taken away by government forces. For this, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson even summoned the Iranian and Russian ambassadors to convoy his “profound concern” over the humanitarian crisis, telling them that they had failed to uphold their obligations under international law, specifically by failing to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians during the siege.

And where is proof to all this? Nowhere, not even a single shred of evidence. Those notorious for human catastrophes at Abu Ghreib and Guantanamo Bay who cut people of other nations into pieces only on suspicions of their complicity in terrorist acts are accusing a sovereign state of crimes against real terrorists who have done numerous terrorist acts against its citizens.

This is, perhaps, a perfect summation of the above: In her book “Hard Choices”, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledges that the CIA created ISIL to curb Arab uprisings  in the region. Clinton admits she lobbied with over 100 governments to convince them to support and recognize ISIL as a counterbalance. Her acknowledgement serves as further proof that the United States and its client states are also in league with ISIL in Syria. Hence, they are in no way fit to judge the sensible conducts of the Syrian Army and its allies in Eastern Aleppo.

One way of thinking about this is that the whole world has now realised the American project of “moderate rebels” is a sham. More so, the world community’s trust in America and its coalition of regime changers is at an all-time low. They know what’s inside their heads. The erosion of American power and declining world trust – as well as liberation of Aleppo - should be seen as a good thing if it can act as a spur for needed end to the imposed war and begin the work of rebuilding Syria.

847/940