On June 3rd, the Syrian people went to the polls to choose a president. Voter turnout was very high (over 73% in spite of interference from the U.S. backed rebels). Bashar al-Assad won by a landslide, taking 88.7% of the vote, international observers reported no violations.
Washington and the corporate media have of course dismissed the outcome, demonstrating yet again that when they talk about spreading democracy, what they are really talking about is regime change. The only elections that count are the ones that put cooperative, western puppets in power. The Syrian people have made it clear that they aren't interested in becoming a vassal state like Afghanistan or Iraq.
In Ukraine, where the provisional government was actively bombing the east, and murdering protesters in Odessa, the U.S. gave their stamp of approval on the presidential elections. Ukraine's official voter turnout (63%), which was significantly lower than Syria's, and Poroshenko's share of that turnout was just 55%. By the numbers, the Syrian elections are far more credible, however the numbers don't matter for Washington (nor do human rights for that matter). Washington has doubled military aid to Kiev in spite of its ongoing shelling of residential centers in Lugansk and they have continued to arm and fund the Syrian rebels in spite of the fact that a U.N. investigation found that it was the rebels who were responsible for the sarin gas attacks in 2013.
In the months leading up to Syria's presidential elections the U.S. government and the corporate media were already attempting to discredit the results. Why? Because polls were showing that Assad was on track to win. Unable to influence the electoral outcome, and failing miserably in their attempt to topple the Syrian government through military means the West is left with little more than mudslinging.
Mudslinging, however, is only effective when you have sufficient moral capital and credibility to influence the masses. While we could talk about the decline in the U.S. government's ability to project military force, or their waning economic power, perhaps the most important, and least talked about geopolitical shift of the past decade has been the total collapse of Washington's ability to sway hearts and minds. This shift has been accompanied by (and arguably caused by) a radical decline in both the reach and the perceived credibility of the corporate media.
The internet is eroding the monopoly of belief. With that gone it's only a matter of time until the two other pillars of power, financial hegemony, and military dominance follow.
We know that Washington wants to topple the Syrian government. We also know that they are hesitant to act without public support. In that context it is critical that we short circuit any attempt to demonize or delegitimize the Syrian government early on, and expose Washington's motives for what they are at each step. This is not just war of ideas. The U.S. fully intends to continue arming insurgents in Syria in spite of the elections, and they still hope to bring this crisis to climax that can be used to justify a military intervention.
War begins with rhetoric and ends with shock and awe.Get moreGet more content from us through googleplus!