The mainstream narrative on Syria is no longer clear-cut. People have been led to believe the Syrian government was responsible for chemical attacks against its own people. New reporting, however, indicates that this narrative is likely false. It is now coming to light of what anti-interventionists had been saying from the beginning; the Syrian government likely did not use chemical weapons.
Journalist Seymour Hersh, reporting through an anonymous source, has revealed a crack in the mainstream Syria narrative. Many in the military and intelligence sectors had doubts about Donald Trump’s claim that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack in Kahn Sheikoun. According to Hersh’s source, described as a “senior adviser to the American intelligence community,” many officials in the military saw no evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack.
The narrative on the attack has been described as a “fairy tale” by Hersh’s source. He went on to say, “This was not a chemical weapons strike… If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon … would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear.”
Apparently, the Syrian Airforce coordinated an airstrike in Kahn Sheikoun against a meeting of jihadist rebel leaders. The strike was planned in coordination with Russia and the United States, whose intelligence agencies were informed beforehand. Many in the military were apparently caught off-guard by Trump declaring the strike a chemical attack.
Trump launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase over this alleged incident. The push for regime change in Syria is buffered by the alleged incident. However, it seems that there is no solid evidence that the government of Bashar Assad used chemical weapons. Donald Trump decided to ignore the intelligence presented to him and attack Syria anyway.
Hersh’s reporting is explosive. It also comes on the heels of Trump claiming the Syrian government is preparing for another chemical attack. This claim is dubious at this point. If Trump knew that there was no evidence to justify an attack on Syria before, why should anyone believe him this time?
The sad aspect of this story is how Hersh had to get it published. No mainstream US media would publish Hersh’s reporting. He had to publish it through a German publication, Die Welt. The reporting was apparently criticized for relying mainly on an anonymous source, even though mainstream US media use anonymous sources often for their reporting. Apparently anonymous sources are bad when used in a story that exposes lies of an administration beating the war drums.
Hersh is also not a hack. He is a well-renowned journalist. He broke the Mi Lai massacre in Vietnam by US troops. Hersh also broke the story of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. He has extensive contacts in the US Military and intelligence agencies. For his reporting to be so easily dismissed is disheartening, yet not surprising. The corporate media will do anything to cover for any administration on the path to war.
The narrative for intervention in Syria is exactly what critics expected. It’s largely based on no evidence, and that Trump is willing to ignore this fact to justify intervening against the Syrian government. This, of course, is not acceptable to mainstream corporate media in the US, many of whom gleefully cheer the march to war.
Going forward, we should all take the narrative pushing for war in Syria with a grain of salt. It’s clear that there is a concerted effort to push for intervention in Syria. This effort is based upon a lack of evidence. While Seymour Hersh should be praised for his reporting, the corporate media is largely dismissive. They dismiss and attack anyone questioning the narrative of endless war. The truth of the matter remains, however.