What stood out to me about that interview with Lord Admiral West was not his skepticism about the veracity of the claim that the Syrian government was associated with the currently alleged gas attack, but his confidence that the Syrian government was involved in previous gas attacks. Lord West repeatedly slandered Russia, and said the government ministers of that country never tell the truth; additionally, the Lord Admiral defamed the President of Syria to the point of vilianization. Of course, it is welcome to have the Lord Admiral raise his voice in opposition to the current chemical kerfuffle, throw some shade on the White Helmets, and otherwise advance the cause of peace in our time.

President al-Assad, when you listen to him speak on the videos posted on Youtube, sounds like a thoughtful and responsible leader. His biography makes him sound not like a dishonourable man, but an honorable one; spiritual, conscientious, and fair-minded. Those who disparage him, including a broad swath of the Left, seem to have only name calling in their arsenal; no convincing evidence or even colorfully persuasive anecdotes. Now, I hasten to add, I don’t know the man personally; and have no vested interest (other than common decency) to see him assessed favorably.

In case you’re curious, here is a biography of the current President of Syria so effusive it borders on the hagiographic; and Wikipedia, too, has nothing definitely bad to say about him. His government has been firm in defending itself against attack, and he’s the leader of that government; but, since the U.S., Israel, and various NATO and neighboring countries have been involved with ostensibly clandestine efforts to subvert his governance, such repressive measures would most certainly have been either necessary or sufficiently proportionate to the threat posed by foreign funded and supplied insurgents (Assaulted in a manner similar to the way Afghanistan and Libya were besieged, one would criticize the scope of his nation’s self-defense efforts only if one wished for Syria the same fate that befell Iraq, Libya, and now Yemen — and has been going on for more than a generation in Afghanistan, if you start counting with our support of the Mujaheddin during the Carter administration). There has been broad support in the U.S. Congress for deposing President Assad, a threat which would necessitate and justify extreme counter-measures.

As with Russia, the reason for the demonization appears to be based on the inconvenience of having a strong, enlightened secular ruler standing against progress for Israel’s right to exist. This two-part interview on Petro-Imperalism with historian Timothy Mitchell on the Jacobin podcast provides more than ample evidence for deceit on a scale this massive, and a pattern of similar deceptions going back over a century. It is worth a listen for those who want to know more about the role oil has played in the drama (spoiler alert: crucial, but not as reductively causal as some project).

When Lord West puts forward hypotheticals with pre-loaded conditionals it should also raise a red flag (The, “If he’d used chemical weapons, we’re justified in bombing him (Assad)” argument.). West says during the interview, “. . . if they’ve got really good intelligence . . . then O.K., fine, and I have no difficulty with what was done, none at all. I think if he has used chemical weapons, then it’s absolutely right to do a rap across his knuckles to show him that the international community are not going to put up with this.” Syria had a chemical weapons arsenal to protect itself against nuclear armed Israel — not for domestic use. Syria took a gamble that Israel would not attack when it turned its chemical weapons storehouses over to Russia. Israel has attacked directly, and through proxies, but the kind of attacks have not been strong enough to destroy the government, thanks in part to assistance from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

With regard to the threat of a nuclear exchange sparked by the Syrian conflict, although the threat of a nuclear exchange with Russia, Israel, the U.S., France or the U.K. should have raised a red flag to journalists and others, who push false narratives for reasons of sensationalism, ideology, or political expediency; even without the threat of a nuclear exchange, these attempts at deception are contemptible. On a conventional level, we should exhibit great care to show respect and judicious sagacity with regard to Russia and Syria, their cultures and forms of governance — all the more so because they have been the injured parties in these disputes (the “information war” McVeigh name-checks).

When hearing assertions of al-Assad’s perfidy, clear-eyed rebels may wish to express skepticism and refrain from echoing slanderous statements about him. As a form of protest against those seeking to destabilize and then destroy Syria, woke progressives may wish to follow him on Social Media and otherwise virtually engage Syrian political society. Let’s not let this temporary lapse in physical hostilities deter us from pursuing information peace in lieu of making information war.