January 24, 2013
‘Assad is facing assassination no matter what happens’ – Noam Chomsky
Last month Juvana Vukotic interviewed Noam Chomsky in The Voice of Russia:
NATO approved the deployment of Patriot missile interceptors to defend the Turkish border with Syria. What do you think, what is going to happen next?
I don’t think anybody knows. Syria is moving towards kind of suicide and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way out. This morning got even worse, as you may have seen there was a battle yesterday between the Kurdish and rebel forces. That adds a new complexity to the situation which of course very much affects Turkey. Turkey is quite worried naturally about the rise of the Kurdish autonomy region in Syria and how it might affect the huge Kurdish problem within Turkey. But inside Syria it just looks like a growing horror story with no real feasible solution insight. There are various proposals, there is another one coming along today in discussions, I believe in Dublin, with Al-Akhdar Ibrahimi and representatives of Russia and the US. But it is going to be extremely difficult to find a way out of this without just destruction of the country.
Assad himself is facing assassination no matter what happens, I mean if he agrees to leave the country – he would probably be killed by his Alawite associates because he is abandoning them to whatever fate would happen. If he doesn’t leave the country sooner or later it would be wiped out. There have been proposals, just a couple of days ago there was a proposal by one serious specialist Nicholas Noe that there will be temporary some kind of partition in which a region around Damascus is left under Assad’s control and the rest of the country is left under rebel control and see if they can work out some modus vivendi in which there could be a reduction of violence and maybe a negotiated settlement. But that’s a long shot and I haven’t really heard any other good proposal.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:02 AM | Permalink






















Comments
The article is predominantly about the US/Russia relationship. I am not sure why Chomsky's limited views on Syria are offered up as analysis on the contemporary Syrian conflict. At best he provides no new particulars and even fails to mention his preferable western bogeymen. What's the point? The conflict is almost entering its second year and over 60 000 civilians have died, what about some probing questions asked of the power brokers in the conflict other than the EU and the US and Turkey? Saudi Arabia and Iran? There are dozens of reporters and blogs that have concentrated on the conflict for a large period of its existence. The sectarian nature of the conflict has taken a new turn and consequently asks questions of the Sunni-Shiite power struggle in the region and also the viability of a Kurdish homeland. Whether you approach the sectarian nature of the conflict from a primordialist, instrumentalist or constructivist point of view, all can easily argue the previously suppressed and deep nature of the conflict between religious and ethnic groups. Syria is a humdinger, if you do nothing it will explode, if you intervene it will explode. Any suggestions?
Posted by: Troy | Jan 25, 2013 7:58:55 AM
Sorry *third* year.
Posted by: Troy | Jan 25, 2013 8:19:26 AM
Who takes Chomsky seriously anymore (save, apparently, this blog and impressionable college sophomores)? He's the hammer of political commentators for whom the US is always the right nail. A notorious apologist for Pol Pot, Milosevic and Garaudy, he lost whatever credibility he may have had years ago. Now he's suddenly an expert on Syria (as a fan of Nasrallah he is hardly likely to be disinterested) and he tells a Serbian-Russian interviewer what she wants to hear. That's news?
Posted by: Kyle | Jan 25, 2013 10:19:05 AM
I think the point of the post is to say good-bye to Chomsky as he goes gentle into that good night.
Sad.
Posted by: omar | Jan 25, 2013 1:19:23 PM
I never realized Fox News fans read this blog.
Posted by: Charlie Potts | Jan 26, 2013 12:21:45 PM
Did I upset your adoration, Charlie? So sorry. In fact your evocation of Fox News is (inadvertently) quite astute. Chomsky is a Fox News commentator of the left... a kind of "Fox News left", if you will. I think Omar's observation gets it right.
Posted by: Kyle | Jan 26, 2013 2:40:33 PM
I am very far from agreeing with every political observation Chomsky makes -- but that couldn't matter less. It's actually repellant to see him dismissed here. Repellant. Go pick on somebody your own size.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 27, 2013 10:01:39 PM
Elatia,
What's truly repellent is the reputation Chomsky has managed to retain among seemingly intelligent people despite his inveterate apologizing for some of the most horrific monsters of the last half century. There's something very disturbing when a man who defends racists and genocidal tyrants is given a pass in the name of "progressive" politics. If I may recycle Bebel's famous remark, Chomsky's is "the anti-imperialism of fools".
Posted by: Kyle | Jan 28, 2013 6:47:04 AM
A last word (one hopes) on Chomsky.
U.S. Linguist Noam Chomsky Compares Colin Powell to Von Ribbentrop and the U.S. to Nazi Germany
Press TV (Iran) - January 29, 2013 - 02:08
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2013/02/just-like-the-nazis.html
Posted by: Kyle | Feb 6, 2013 8:33:23 AM
Post a comment