Who to punish, who to defend in Syria

In the wake of new poisonous gas attacks around Damascus last week - another monstrous low in the depths of Syria's conflict - the ensuing palaver is nonsense worthy of Lewis Carroll.

Leaders of the'free world' bellow "Off with their heads!" caution each other against intervention, assure citizens this is "someone else's war", then gravely consult over when to start bombing.

Allies and foes taunt each other with "will you, won't you join the dance?", jurists argue punishment versus self-defence, the convicted mumbles innocence, the victims blame foreigners, the death toll is stretched and pummeled like dough, and forensic investigators are shut outside court.

Horrified observers question how military attacks will save Syrian lives, their voices drowned out by the mob.

President Barack Obama insists that the US and its allies have tried diplomacy to bring a halt to the conflict in Syria and now have no other option but to intervene.

Yet the key revolutionary force that they openly and generously support in Syria consistently has refused diplomacy. Offers by the Syrian Government since 2011 for full amnesty and open negotiation with all parties have been rejected again and again.

And after two and a half years of fighting with foreign-supplied weaponry, sophisticated surveillance equipment, training, and generous funding, along with refuge and medical attention in Turkey,the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has failed to dislodge President Bashar Al Assad from his post.

Worse than this, foreign funding of combatants has swollen FSA ranks to such a degree that an estimated 75% now are a law unto themselves - killing without apparent cause, extorting money through kidnap, stealing property, looting and burning factories and shops, hijacking diesel and heating fuel, and destroying infrastructure.

Defected FSA Colonel Riad Al Asa'ad describes the much promoted National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary & Opposition Forces (NCSROF) as 'the worst opposition in history' as he laments the chaotic rule ofweapons and money that gives'war princes'power at the expense of revolutionaries.

So he calls on 'men of religion' from around the world to join the Syrian fight. The formidable fighters of Al Nusra Front, who openly align with Al Qaida,are amongst the thousands of foreign nationals to answer the call.

Al Nusra make common cause with the FSA petitioning and terrorizing civilians in the name of Islam.

But with doctrine to guide them, their fighters care little for FSA's revolution.They fight to restore an Islamic Caliphate in Damascus.

All Muslims promote conscious emulation of the 'golden' epoch of Islam's noble ancestors 'Al Salaf Al Saleh'(hence 'Salafi'), but Al Nusra and other fighters want it returned as a political reality.

Saudi Arabia is their closest model, where the Al Saud clan's alliance with 18^thcentury reformer Mohammed Ibn Abd Al Wahhab's call to purge all 'foreign' elements from Arabia enlivened the 'Salafi' ideal.

Clearly not all Muslims find Syria's melting pot of religions and sects problematic. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) represents57 member States and declares that 'Syria is a place where all sects and races have coexisted for ages.' (OIC Newsletter 51, 26 December 2012)

But Al Nusra Front's fighters in Syria appear to place no value on Christian and Shia lives and investigation of a chemical attack in Syria in April 2013 found 'rebels' more likely responsible than the Syrian government.

Al Nusra Front is designated a terrorist organization by the USA and Australia.

An allied attack on Syria while it's regular armed forces fight, amongst others, a US designated terrorist organization, should trouble all countries in the region.

All our lives are diminished by the use of chemicals on anyone anywhere at any time. But an attack on Syria for a crime it's government may not have committed, on a date so near the anniversary of Al Qaida's game-changing attack on the USA, should trouble us all.

Calls for negotiation by the Syrian, Iranian and Russian governments have been treated with public contempt by the UN, Obama and his allies, and by fighters on the ground who refuse to sit down with 'the enemy'.

Yet when we consider the PLO, the IRA, and Mandela and the ANC, we recall that sitting down with 'the enemy' is the fastest route to halting violent 'terrorist' acts.

And when we consider the experience in Iraq, we are reminded that military attacks escalate guerilla fighting and that violence breeds more of the same.

As world leaders and luminaries like Pope Francis call for calm and diplomacy Australian leaders vow to follow the US decision.

But until we can be sure who will be punished and who defended, an attack on Syria does not deserve our support.

In an ideal world Australia's new Prime Minister will consider the welfare of all Syrian people before politics. Because like Alice, Australia needs to wake up to reality.