Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

In the Syrian conflict, stories of just how gentlemanly combatants behaved, even in grim battle, do not abound. There seems to be no such thing as agonal partnership. Quite to the contrary: like in other "small" wars, there is a distinctive lack of chivalry and empathy, of respect for humanitarian law, of a willingness (and ability) to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. All this creates a vicious circle of de-humanizing stereotypes and activities such as rape, torture, and arbitrary killings. The irregularity of the partisan militia also affects conventional forces who tend to assimilate their own behavior to match that of the others. With blurred boundaries, these wars are fought in deserts as well as on bridges and market places in Central Europe. With blurred boundaries between war and peace, battle zone and hinterland, with distance weapons like killer drones guided by far away armchair "pilots" and/or impersonal computer software ("disposition matrix"), countered by the use of makeshift weapons like trucks or cars against civilian targets the situation is chaotic, and in the midst of this chaos nothing is less likely to flourish than agonal partnership.

The very fact that sub-state actors use unconventional means makes them more vulnerable to a definition as terrorists. Once this label sticks, it paves the way for a strategy of extermination rather than negotiation. As White House Speaker Scott McClellan said when asked how the United States would react to Usama bin Laden's offer to negotiate a truce in 2006, "We don't negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business" (Buncombe 2006). Not to negotiate with terrorists is presented as a moral imperative, almost like an eleventh commandment ("thou shalt not negotiate"), but it is also considered as fruitless because of terrorists' lacking trustworthiness.