NBC
The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday.
The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already "crystal clear" that Assad's government was responsible.
[...]
White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated Tuesday that the White House isn't considering the deliberate overthrow of Assad.
"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said during a daily briefing with reporters. "They are about responding to the clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."
Senior officials told NBC News that Defense Department planning had advanced to the point that three days of strikes were anticipated, after which strategists could run an assessment and target what was missed in further rounds.
U.S. missile strikes would almost certainly be launched from Navy destroyers or submarines in the Mediterranean Sea. The U.S. in recent days has moved destroyers closer to Syria, which sits on the sea's eastern edge, but that was mostly a symbolic move. U.S. Tomahawk missiles are so precise that they can hit not just buildings but also specific windows, and they could hit Syrian targets from far farther west in the Mediterranean.
Navy officials said four destroyers are lined up ready to strike: the USS Barry, the USS Mahan, the USS Ramage and the USS Gravely.
Tuesday, a fifth guided-missile destroyer, the USS Stout, also entered the Mediterranean, through the Straights of Gibraltar, but officials said it wouldn't take part in any cruise missile attack.
"The four destroyers now in place have more than enough cruise missiles," one official said.
Underscoring the urgency facing world leaders, British Prime Minister David Cameron called Parliament back from vacation and said it would vote on action Thursday, and U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military was "ready to go."
Monday, using forceful language, Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian chemical attacks were a "moral obscenity" and accused the Assad regime not just of having used chemical agents but also of having covered up the evidence.
On Tuesday, the U.N. said its investigating team in Syria would delay its next outing by a day, to Wednesday. The team came under fire from unidentified snipers Monday on its way to check out the site of a suspected chemical attack near Damascus, the capital.
In Cairo, the Arab League said it held Assad responsible for the suspected attack. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries condemned the use of unconventional weapons.
[...]
Some U.S. allies, notably Britain, have signaled that a limited strike could take place without Security Council approval. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it would be a "very grave violation of international law," and China said through its government-run news service that the U.S. must refrain from "hasty armed intervention."
In Syria, the top general in the Free Syria Army, the umbrella group comprising rebel factions, told NBC News' Richard Engel that airstrikes were necessary to stop Assad from launching even broader chemical attacks.
"If there is no action, we are afraid that in the coming days, not coming weeks, Bashar will use chemical weapons and chemical materials against very wide areas and, I'm afraid, to kill maybe 20,000 or 30,000 more people," he said.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite
I think quoting an NBC
I think quoting an NBC article is a bit too long for a forum.
But yeah, a military intervention seems very much likely, considering the decision may be made based on the findings of the UN investigation. The UN investigation is only going to confirm whether or not chemical weapons have been used, but not by whom.
It's possible that the Assad
It's possible that the Assad regime, or some stupid element in it, ordered a chemical attack but it's difficult to see why given the military's consolodation and advance. Alex Thomson on Channel 4 reported over a month ago of 26 regime soldiers killed by chemical weapons fired by the "rebels" and two members of al-Nusra were held in Turkey in possession of cylinders of sarin.
But that's not the point - it's another set-up following Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Libya and like them, will all end in tears. The nations of the US, Britain and France, along with Turkey, Israel and some Gulf states, have been actively "intervening" in Syria since at least last December and, at the same time, the presence of al-Qaida and al-Qaida affiliated groups has spread and deepened to the point where in the north they are the management running oil plants. These developments of imperialism, like those before in the Middle East, can only spread more chaos and misery.
The "humanitarian" reasons for what looks like a more striking attack on Syria by the democracies are just as sickeningly hypocritical as in previous wars for "humanitarian" reasons. And the probable decision to strike has come in the week when twenty-five year-old CIA documents have been declassified showing that the Americans knew all about Saddam's chemical weapons use against the Iranians in the 1980's and, since they (and the rest of the democracies) backed his army against Iran, provided them with intelligence on Iranian troop movements which enabled them to be targeted. At the same time Italy, Germany and Britain were helping Saddam build chemical weapons factories ("ferterliser plants") some time before the chemical attack on the Kurds in Halabja which killed over 5,000 people.
This has been doing the
This has been doing the rounds on Facebook and I've been surprised at the people sharing it.
http://darthnader.net/2013/08/27/on-interventions-and-the-syrian-revolution/
Theft wrote: This has been
Theft
Certainly no lack of liberal, nationalist nonsense in there. If there's anything of interest in the piece, I suppose it's in the cynical attitude toward "humanitarian intervention" as a tool of achieving the liberal ideals espoused. What's surprised you about the people you've seen sharing it?
Has anyone read the piece by
Has anyone read the piece by socialistworker.org? Even though their against intervention by the US and its western allies, they do accept the claims that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. It seemed a bit odd.
Is the Left war-weary?
Is the Left war-weary?
Several hundred protesting at Downing St on Wednesday. 5000 expected for Saturdays march. Hardly impressive compared to the million in 2003.
Anyways, just to put a few lies to rest
"Too little to late" they accused Assad. The UN didn't formally request permission to inspect the latest site until Saturday 24th and permission was given on the Sunday. The UN's own security team had not given safety issues for the inspection the green light as late as the Friday 23rd.
Soon as permission had been granted to the UN inspectors Kerry pressed for the UN to abandon the inspection (repeat of Kosovo and Iraq) and withdraw on the spurious grounds that the sarin would no longer be detectable...purposefully ignoring that the by-products of its use would still be in evidence.
The only hard evidence alluded to so far is reports of an Israeli interception of Syrian army radio messages but recording and transcripts so far has not been forthcoming and even so they appear to show a field-officer making the decision and regretting it getting out of control...but questionable in the sense if political authorisation for CW use has been refused, how did the weapons get from the ammo dumps to the front line in the first place.
The pro-war say Assad played a game of double bluff...last thing they would expect is for us to use them while the UN inspectors are a few miles away.... More sophisticated conspiracy is that Iran orchestrated the use to test the resolve of America in carrying out threats of red lines in regard to its alleged nuke policys.
Point is whether he used them, which i still seriously doubt, is irrelevant. Being blasted or incinerated or beheaded instead of gassed to death isn't much of a choice for the Syrian people.
Agree with the above. The
Agree with the above.
The vote in the British parliament against involvement in the coming attack on the Assad regime changes little of the overall situation but a few words about it. After Iraq and the lies of the British and American ruling class over Saddam's WMD and the horrific consequences of that war - which visibly continue to this day - there is little appetite among the population of Britain, or America for that matter, for involvement in another war (the terrible consequences of the Libyan "triumph" have been largely ignored by the British media). The majority of the British media tended to reject the idea of bombing Syria over this issue with the exception of its Murdoch branch. What the vote in parliament does represent is the historical weakening of US/British ties (the so-call "special relationship") which expresses itself in some sort of antagonism every now and then. I think that this is one of those cases and is representative of a wider phenomenon of centrifugal forces in international relations and political tensions within previously relatively strong alliances.
Having said this it will not prevent British imperialism from taking part indirectly in any US or US/French attack on the Syrian regime. Recent Snowden leaks showed how British submarines in the Med were tapping straight into fibre-optic cables, collecting, filtering and classifying communication throughout the Middle East and sharing this information with the Americans. This will undoubtedly continue and be active before and during any new assault. As will the cooperation of British and American intelligence and special forces on the ground around Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere. And Britain has been involved in this war for many months giving financial, political and diplomatic and military support to the opposition - this will not stop.
As said above, our leaders care nothing for the suffering and death of innocents whether gassed, bombed or starving, so why the ratcheting up of possible direct action now? I think that the answer is one word: Iran. What's happened in Syria has never been a "revolution". When the original protests were crushed there wasn't a "civil war" or a Sunni/Shia war that filled the vacuum, but an imperialist war involving local and international states. There were some on here (and elsewhere) that predicted Assad's imminent collapse but that position underestimated the support given to the regime by Russia, China and, above all, Iran.
The big turning point in the war came recently with the direct involvement of battle-hardened and Iranian-trained Hezbollah troops and Iranian special forces. These forces have pushed back the "rebels" (these mostly al-Qaida affiliated fighters are no mugs and Hezbollah suffered severe losses) to the point that a route has opened up from Iran to the Israeli border. This change is a possible precursor to a wider war.
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201305/7641/chemical-weapons-syria-winding-war-rhetoric. A bit more here on the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie over Syrian chemical weapons.
Rabble.ie: Syria – An
Rabble.ie: Syria – An Inconvenient Truth May Emerge
edit:
baboon wrote: What's
baboon
That is, I think, an over-simplification. The protest movement took quite a while to crush and was marked by major general strikes shutting down many cities. In addition, there was a short-lived truce at one stage, during which demonstrators flocked to the streets calling for the downfall of the regime. These demonstrations showed Assad that he couldn't let up on the war.
My interpretation is that the events in Syria started out like those in Tunisia and Egypt, but in a society marked by much greater religious division. Assad calculated that he could survive if he turned it into a sectarian struggle and he is being proven correct. He has backing from Russia & Iran and Hezbollah allies in Lebanon. The Syrian opposition, in the face of the murderous attacks on it, needed guns. And that has led to it becoming gradually subordinated to outside interests. "Saudi" Arabia and Qatar are directly arming fellow thinkers, the great powers are arming whatever willing tools they can find, and jihadis are flowing across the borders.
Therefore, while it is correct to say that the situation in Syria at present is an imperialist war involving local and great power States, it should be recognised that this has occurred despite the struggles of the workers of Syria. Although the opposition on the ground has been sidelined, it still exists. The workers are still searching for a way to assert their own interests, independent of the bourgeois factions.
Finally, a word on the difficulties faced by the major imperialist powers. The US has decided that it doesn't like either side in the civil war. Basically, although it is arming willing tools, there aren't enough of them to make a serious difference (and there's even been trouble putting together a puppet government in exile). Therefore, Obama drew a red line at a point he thought Assad would stay behind - using chemical weapons. Now, however, it seems* that Assad has actually used them in a big way. Obama is now forced to act to defend his red line, because the last thing he can afford is for every medium sized country to decide that the US President is bluffing when he issues threats. So I expect some heavy missile strikes on a few military bases and maybe some research sites associated with Assad's chemical weapons program. The US, however, doesn't want to let the jihadis come to power, which at the moment would be the most likely outcome if Assad is defeated.
* The theory that Iran was behind it, going behind Assad's back and acting through its advisors on the ground, has an element of plausibility to it, but it's too early to reach a definitive conclusion. I doubt the opposition did it as a false flag attack, since if it had that much poison gas I would expect it to be used on a target like an air base, because taking one out would have a major military effect.
Ablokeimet wrote: That is, I
Ablokeimet
I don't remember this at all. I remember workers' strikes as being conspicuous by their absence.
Devrim.
Quote: Several hundred
Quite a strange comparison. There are vast differences between then and now. The Saturday actions are announced on short nodice, as an emergency response. The big 15 February 2003 demonstrations were announced and prepared much longer before; the initiative was taken somehere around the European Social Forum in Florence, november 2002. Maybe more important: the 2003 demonstrations werre organized against a large-scale Western attack, a big war that everybody saw coming. The current demonstration is a response to a pinprick, relatively speaking, within a war that is already proceeding. In 2003 , the missiles set off a conflagation. In 2013, the conflagation sets off the missiles.
re my last Update.
re my last
Tyrion wrote: Theft
Tyrion
I was surprised to see so many anarchists sharing it that would generally hold a more anti-national liberation stance.
Russia has deployed two
Russia has deployed two warships to the Eastern Med: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSBRE97S0AK20130829
While looking into the Syrian
While looking into the Syrian crisis I came across the supposed Britam leaks:
http://www.cyberwarnews.info/reports/a-look-into-the-britam-defence-data-leak-files/
It is purported that the files were hacked and posted online. Of especial interest is the following email:
Britam immediately decried the leak as fraudulent [nothing unexpected]. The major online new sources also removed mention of the leak within 24 hours of breaking the story. However, some of the sites that originally posted the leaks are now saying they are fakes based on some techy analysis of the files: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R7knc-G360
I've seen numerous people cite the Britam email as "evidence" that the rebels, and the Americans by extension, were responsible for the chemical attack. As I'm not very tech savvy I don't know what to make of the files authenticity. If authentic the email is quite damning, but if fake others should made aware of false info. What is everyone else's take on this?
Just purely on the basis of
Just purely on the basis of the language in the email, it sounds like a crock of shit.
Even the Nazis didn't ever
Even the Nazis didn't ever describe the Final Solution so clearly in memos as this presumed hack does,( which the Daily Mail had to pay damages for publishing.) It challenges common sense as much as that Assad authorised the chemical attack does.
But it amusing how now France is according to Kerry its oldest ally now that it supports intervention unlike the Iraq situation. Added to itd Libya/Mali war-mongering credentials, now makes it respecteble to be a francophile again in the US again!
In regards to the beginnings
In regards to the beginnings of the Syrian protests, the SPGB blog had in 2011, posted on the aspirations of those involved. Sadly, the dangers commentators wished to avoid took place.
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2011/08/revolution-without-leaders.html
"People are suspicious of those who want to take personal advantage from the revolution. Efforts by exiled opponents of Assad to form a united front have faltered because of an acute awareness that the Syrian street is driving the uprising. No one, least of all the Syrians wants to see a repeat of the Iraq experience, in which exiled leaders with no street credibility are foisted upon those living inside the country."
A year later the blog in 2012 relates the failure of democratic resistance.
http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/04/syrian-struggle-for-democracy-is-on-two.html
A singer who uses the pseudonym ‘Safinas’ because she still lives in Damascus explains. "Our revolution has been stolen from us...We are fighting two regimes and two armies now."
Devrim wrote: Ablokeimet
Devrim
For the first year of the struggle, I had access to dispatches from the Local Co-ordinating Committees, who were a major part of the movement against Assad & the Ba'ath. After the movement developed a mass scale, there were repeated general strikes in cities like Hama, Homs, Daraa and others. On a couple of occasions, I saw reports of a general strike in a part of Damascus. At one stage, I saw a strike across 23 cities reported. And on one occasion, I actually saw videos posted on You-Tube of the streets of cities being completely empty as two activists (one a driver and the other the camera operator) drove through normally bustling areas.
As the struggle became progressively more militarised, the working class was pushed off its terrain and eventually sidelined. The working class in Syria will need to learn lessons from this and work out ways to prevent religious sectarianism being used to divert future struggles.
Ablokeimet wrote: For the
Ablokeimet
I didn't see any indications of workers strikes (I was interested, I read Arabic, have friends in Syria, and was living in a neighbouring country during the period referred to). What I did see were shutdowns where armed groups stopped people going to work, and examples of the petit bourgeoisie (shopkeepers) closing their businesses. I saw nothing that looked to me like a workers strike. I think that you have been mislead by the terms used (strike being used for both of these events), and the videos. I think you are very wrong though.
Devrim
I'm not aware that any
I'm not aware that any significant workers' strikes took place in Syria around or just after the street protests.
Oliver Holmes and Alexada Dziadosz, two reporters for Reuters were on the ground in Aleppo earlier in the summer and in a report (June 18) related news of their research and interviews regarding the situation around the original protests. Around 2000 fighters of the "moderate" Islamist group (wanting a supreme religious leadership) called Ghurabaa al-Sham took control. In the words of its leader it was made up of "outlaws and reprobates". The group had no support from the protesters - on the contrary - they were thieves and looters shipping their booty back into Turkey. The formidable al-Nusra Front defeated them overnight, confiscating their weapons, ammunition and transport. This Islamist "order" was initially welcomed somewhat by the population as the criminals were routed.
On July 22nd, Channel 4 News reported street protests in Aleppo against the armed presence of al-Nusra which is running large areas of the town. Aleppo is an industrial area with a large number of workers and their families still present. The crowd braved Assad's snipers and the armed goons of al-Nusra shouting "You're all the same", "The same thieves", "Shame on you" and "Shabiha, Shabiha" (Assad's squad of thugs).
The situation of Syria generally was well summed-up by a senior British diplomat in The Observer, 16.6.13: "Every scenario is a nightmare now".
Theft
Theft
Darth Nader on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/DarthNader
Edit: some background on al-bab.com - which is speculative but I think might be realistic.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articl
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/02/syr2-s02.html
GRINGOS DON'T ATTACK
GRINGOS DON'T ATTACK SYRIA...BEFORE BUYING OUR OIL FOR THE BOMBER JETS
Despite his anti-war rhetoric, Venezuelan President Maduro continues to sanction the sale of oil to the US. He remains a staunch ally of Assad (as - it would seem - does the Cuban regime), but Venezuelans are starting to speculate whether the national resource stands to gain from continued instability in Syria. Certainly a US puppet government would push down the price per barrel.
Agent of the Fifth
Agent of the Fifth International
A response to these claims on the Brown Moses blog, which as far as I can make out is reliable:
Chemical weapons specialists on claims linking rebels to chemical attacks in Damascus
A detailed summary of the evidence on munitions linked to the August 21st attacks
Just quickly as I feel like
Just quickly as I feel like I'm missing something: what is France's interest in Syria? I don't get why they're so up for this war but guess it's just coz I'm missing some piece of info..
Ed wrote: Just quickly as I
Ed
According to some Facebook-er, "France is a puppet of the US".
Mark. wrote: Agent of the
Mark.
Then who the heck are using those cws?
"I’m sure the Saudis would not do this without any training or support, protective equipment etc – I can’t in my wildest dreams believe they would do it anyway – they are still very close to US, who [US] even in the ‘Blackest ‘of operations are very very unlikely to go this far." - Black Moses Blog
This seems very naive.
Ed wrote: Just quickly as I
Ed
Because if France doesn't support the US, stupid Americans would start renaming unrelated things with "French" in the title, just like the last time, and the whole of France would simultaneously knock itself out from all the facepalming, leaving them open to US invasion. It's obvious if you think about it.
"I think that Bashar
"I think that Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah – Iran’s ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West."
robert fisk
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html
Theft wrote: Tyrion
Theft
how is it pro natlib?
klas batalo wrote: how is it
klas batalo
I guess it would depend on whether you see it as a revolution or a civil war backed by inter-imperialist rivals (even though there are divisions within these camps).
Well apart from the clear nationalist rhetoric "I don’t care about sovereignty. Syria has become a land for everyone but Syrians nowadays". I take the talk of Syrian resistance as being the opposition forces, which is a motley crew of groups including the Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian National Council and the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians. Would Communists take sides in such a war like the article appears to do, with it's talk of self-determination for Syria.
In this previous article
http://darthnader.net/2012/12/25/navigating-the-syrian-opposition/
Darth Nader states
"The key in the last one is not cautious support of the FSA, but rather, to be a strong supporter while also remaining vigilant and not being scared to speak up against misconduct."
Siding with one section of the bourgeois against the present bourgeois rulers, isn't a class solution, its one of national liberation.
I think Darth Nader is close
I think Darth Nader is close to the politics of this blog (though I'm not entirely sure).
Apparently Syria is like the
Apparently Syria is like the Spanish civil war. :roll:
http://www.dieselpunks.org/m/blogpost?id=3366493%3ABlogPost%3A243083
Ed wrote: Just quickly as I
Ed
Colonial habits are hard to shake... France always considered Lebanon and Syria theirs.
That Diesel Punk epitomizes
That Diesel Punk epitomizes the combination of a shallow understanding of history with the arrogant certainty of clear-headedness. What a dolt.
@abloke Quote: division.
@abloke
that makes alot of sense as the original revolution did happen during the arab spring, but could you eleaborate on how he turned it into a sectarian struggle?
thanks for that theft... i
thanks for that theft... i can sorta see what you mean now...
i guess folks picked up on it cause it was the closest thing folks could find at the time to an internationalist position
:oops:
^Also because he's a Syrian
^Also because he's a Syrian anarchist, as far as I can make out not the only one calling for critical support for the FSA.
Theft
That article looks like it may have come in part out of an argument on Twitter with Edward Dark, a Syrian activist who came out against the FSA because of his experience of them in Aleppo - see his articles here, in particular 'how we lost the Syrian revolution'.
It's probably fair to say that the FSA isn't monolithic and the experience people have with them won't be the same in different places and circumstances. See this for example.
Very good text linked by Mark
Very good text linked by Mark above on "How we lost the Syrian revolution".which gives no reference to any sort of large scale class struggle coming out of or accompanying the initial anti-regime protests. It largely supports the recent reports from Aleppo from Reuter's Holmes and Dziadosz mentioned above. The FSA has been called (not surprisingly) a "corrupt failure" by the al-Nusra Froont, a "rhetorical construct" by Reuters (19.6.13) and that, according to Holmes and Dziadosz who spent time in Aleppo recently: "on the ground there is little evidence that the FSA actually exists as a body at all".
The US and its coalition (which still includes Britain in many important respects) is forced to look to the "moderate Islamists" to support like the gangster group wanting a "supreme religious leadership", of Ghurabaa al-sham and rebel groups of this ilk are no match for the ruthless killers of al-Nusra, the Chechen-led "international brigades", or the butchers backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Once again in the "War on Terror", we see the democracies and imperialism generally, relying on the terrorists, on the same side as the terrorists, indirectly (or directly?) arming the terrorists and acting as the best recruiting sergeants to swell the ranks of the jihadis and terrorism.
vicent
vicent
OK. As a rough division, about 75% of the Syrian population is Sunni Muslim. A bit over 10% is Alawite Muslim and a bit over 10% is Christian. If the State has most of the guns and is effectively organised, the 20-25% of the population which is non-Sunni can stand against the 75% that is. Therefore, turning the political struggle into a sectarian one is a winning strategy for Assad. He turned the struggle into a sectarian one by:
(a) Demonising the protest movement right from the beginning as being Salafist agents of Saudi Arabia. This was designed to get the Alawites and Christians onside.
(b) Repressing the non-violent popular movement with utmost ferocity and forcing it to take up arms. This made the movement vulnerable to the influence of those who could supply arms and produced the very forces against which Assad had been fulminating from Day 1.
(c) Conducting civilian massacres in Sunni Muslim areas. It was a special help when it was done through Alawite militias. This generated anti-Alawite feeling amongst Sunni Muslims and was designed to force Alawites out of the anti-government movement.
(d) Once the popular movement had been forced to take up arms in self defence, provoking elements of the Free Syrian Army into sectarian attacks of their own. When they did so, the attacks were widely publicised.
Assad's tactics were not new. They are well established in the handbook of Machiavellian politics and were used by all sides in the civil wars which destroyed Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
Ablokeimet wrote: Assad's
Ablokeimet
Do you have a copy of this hand book?
Further re Ablokeimet's post.
Further re Ablokeimet's post. Also not to forget that the leadership of Ahrar al-Sham, for e.g., were in rotting in Assad's prisons until they were released in an "amnesty" in May 2011. That the release of seasoned salafist jihadis at that stage was likely to aid the sectarianisation of the struggle seems unlikely to be purely an accident.
.
.
Ablokeimet wrote: OK. As a
Ablokeimet
This is the position of the FSA rebels verbatim.
I was wondering if there is
I was wondering if there is any info on the relative size of the different opposition forces in Syria?
I have seen a lot of flippant online comments that America is now an "ally" of al-Qaeda in Syria. As I understand it al-Nusra is associated with al-Qaeda, but to what extent does this define the Syrian opposition?
teh wrote: Ablokeimet
teh
Except that the FSA omit the effect of this strategy on them. The FSA has become, on the whole, a sectarian militia - though less extreme and more heterogeneous than Al Nusra.
No mention of the 10% Syrian
No mention of the 10% Syrian Kurd population, the largest ethnic minority in Syria. Last i heard there was a rebel campaign to ethnically cleanse them.
http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-kurdish-muslim-conflict-110/
So, how would you describe
So, how would you describe the balance of power in the Middle East right now between global and regional actors? Is the US losing its influence? Would the toppling of the Assad regime and its replacement with a secular, liberal democratic one (although highly unlikely now) would be enough to mean that it is at the top of its game?
I think that Iran is being
I think that Iran is being squeezed and not just through the war in Syria, but on all sides. There is an overall weakening of US power I think and that is accompanied and expressed by centrifugal tendencies among its allies. Whatever option the US takes now will only make the situation worse and potentially more dangerous. I agree that the coming to power of a secular, liberal and democratic regime is highly unlikely, not least because there's no military faction to back it, and the likely scenario is the descent of the region into further instability and chaos.
There's undoubtedly Russian intelligence and special forces on the ground in Syria and while the overall concern is to protect their "assets", a major concern for them will be the growth of the formidable Chenchen-led international jihadi brigades. There was some talk around the Boston bombing that there was support from some American agencies for the Chechen fundamentalists in their holy war against Russia.
Apart from the Chechens the al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra Front is also a very strong and experienced fighting force. One Hezbollah soldier who fought against them said on Channel 4, that he would rather fight the Israeli's because at least they took prisoners and looked after the wounded. Al-Nusra controls large areas and is even running some oil production facilities. In the devastation of the Damascan suburbs they are giving little ground to the regime forces with trench and tunnel warfare gaining or losing a few yards.
There's the Qatari Muslim Brotherhood involved, whose units were particularly vicious in Libya, and Saudi Arabia seems to be pulling many of the strings. Someone asks above if the west are on the side of al-Qaeda and de facto - at least - this is the case. On the other side of the war are Iraqi Shias, Hezbollah fighters and Iranian special forces. Given the role of China, the US, Russia, France, Turkey, Britain and so on, then "cauldron of imperialism" is an apt description for this totally irrational toxic brew.
I mean I hear that Iraq for
I mean I hear that Iraq for example is hostile to US interests, despite after a decade of waging war there. Who is running Iraq? And is every intervention by the US backfiring? Its just completely astonishing considering all of the military power being deployed in that region. I think there is a clear understanding in Washington that Islamists may very well take over state power in Syria, after removing Assad. So its not really a win-win situation. It doesn't make sense taking a risk that might not be of any benefit. Is the US capitalist-state nuts or what? Or is anybody but Assad worth it?
A couple of articles that
A couple of articles that have been reposted on Tahrir ICN. The first is an interview with Darth Nader. The second is by a member of the Revolutionary Left Current.
Syrian anarchist challenges the rebel/regime binary view of resistance
Self-organization of the popular struggles in Syria against the regime and islamist groups?
Any thoughts?
Here is an anarchist analysis
Here is an anarchist analysis of the Syrian crisis by the "First of May Anarchist Alliance" [looks like they're based out of Detroit]:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/26148
Quote: Is the US
well the invasion of iraq also seems to have backfired, most iraqis hate the US more than ever, they are creating strong ties with Iran and forming the dreaded shia cresent, in which the militant shias own most of the worlds oil; and finally iraqis are definitely going to start making WMDs to stop the US from ever invading again!
A couple of thoughts on your
A couple of thoughts on your links above Mark.
The first I thought was based on Syrian "self-determination" which it says also applied to the Kurds. I thought that it was overoptimistic about the situation and was limited by tendencies to Syrian nationalism.
The second was similar, advocating democracy. This one tends to underestimate the imperialist cauldron that Syria has been for some time now and poses against this the idea that "the revolution is still alive". I agree with it that there are many protests against jihadis in different areas and this represents a brave resistance locally. But this is nothing against the war machine already in action and it's barely mentioned in the media in the west. I thought that the politics here were towards the democratic state and in a final piece, on the proposed US bombing, the text demands arms from the west delivered to the FSA, one of the players in the war and an organisation being financed and politically and militarily supported by the same west.
The Turkish border is
The Turkish border is becoming more militarised as tensions over Syria mount. There have been clashes between protesters and the police over the last couple of days in the Turkish border town of Antakya where a young man was killed and many injured. Protest in Antakya against war and militarisation by a large number of population of different ethnicities prefigured the widespread and important Turkish Gezi Park protests by several months. These protests started last October.
Now it seems that the Turkish regime, in its ambient war fever, has decided to settle accounts with the population of Antakya and its effrontery in daring to join together over divisions to protest about imperialist war and militarisation. There are now plans for building walls in Antakya in order to divide ethnicities from each other and other such constructioin projects that have the fundamental aim of strengthening the state and its forces of repression.
link already posted above
link already posted above
From last year but still
From last year but still worth reading:
A close look at the Syrian revolution - an anarchist among jihadists
I'm not convinced that Assad
I'm not convinced that Assad and his high command was behind the chemical attacks on August 21. Some of the shells, at least, that delivered the chemical payloads were adapted, had a "home-made" look about them and, apparantly, were unlike any Syrian military ordnance. If it was a "rogue" attack from within the Syrian army then I would think that its commander, and a few others, would be dead by now.
But whether it was or whether it wasn't shouldn't really interest us overmuch because we are dealing with butchers on all sides. We have the overt butchery of the regime and its backers and against these we have the stinking hypocrisy and complicity in the war of the democratic states, the same states themselves that have had frequent recourse to the use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological (and nuclear in the case of the US).
The idea of "international agencies" collecting, verifying, classifying and destroying the regime's chemical weapons looks a touch ridiculous in this war zone. The regime and the bigger powers backing the "rebels" would have to call off their fighting dogs in and around vital areas for such work to even begin. It will be instructive to see whether or not they are capable of this. It looks
problematic to say the least.
The Russian proposal and the way it's been taken up by a weakened US administration smacks of desperation, particularly on the side of the latter. Obama is unlikely to get the support of Congress for a strike against Syria and, at the moment at least, will certainly not the support of the US population for whom involvement in this war is deeply unpopular.
The US and Britain got Saddam to give up his chemical weapons and then invaded his country with full force. Gaddafi gave up most of his chemical weapons resulting from British and US "negotiations" (but they left him enough to deal with his own population) and then the US, Britain and France invaded Libya. These facts will not be lost on the Assad regime and its backers.
Chomsky on Democracy Now
Chomsky on Democracy Now today discussing Syria:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/11/chomsky_instead_of_illegal_threat_to
The usual bit of "it's illegal according to international law" - and even some depressingly predictable support for the "peaceful parliamentary democracy" of Salvador Allende - but some good bits of history and how Israel fits into all of this.
Noam Chomsky wrote: He was
Noam Chomsky
Yeah, there's definitely some of Chomsky at his worst here. The description of any capitalist society as "peaceful" is pretty troublesome, and so is this portrayal of a squabble between bourgeois factions (i.e. between American capitalists seeking to access Chilean markets and the Allende government preferring state ownership) as a much more noble sounding conflict between peaceful democracy and foreign domination. There's also that annoying habit that Chomsky has of using the term "we" to refer to the US government's actions.
I'm actually a bit disappointed in this interview. Rather than focus much on the imperialist rivalries that are carving up Syria or express much interest at all in analyzing that situation, Chomsky just goes off into the usual recitation of atrocities committed at some point or another in the past by the American state.
From Tahrir ICN: The rise of
From Tahrir ICN:
The rise of Al Qaeda in Syria: separating fact from mythology
Workers
Workers Power:
Syria:therevolutionneeds arms! (July)
Victoryto theSyrianrevolution!No to anyimperialistintervention! (August)
Presumably it isn't intervention if you're arming local proxies rather than going in yourself...
jonthom wrote: Workers
jonthom
Hate to say this of a group I was a former member of in the early 90's, but at least they are taking a classic trot line on it. What I find more worrying is the amount of anarchists that seem to give at least some critical support to the rebels, while talking about self-determination and the Syrian people.
Steven asks on the "anarchist
Steven asks on the "anarchist position on Syria" thread why "politicos" need to formulate a policy on Syria at all - I assume by "politicos" he means anyone with a political perspective towards the working class, ie, everyone on here. But I don't know. Why anyone with a proletarian political perspective needs to formulate a policy on Syria is because from the fundamental standpoint of the internationalism of the working class they have a responsibility to do so. The main question facing the working class today - among lots of questions - is that of socialism or barbarism. If you want to know what capitalist barbarism is look at Syria. There is now a whole swathe of instability, chaos, killings and misery from north to central Africa, across the Middle East and well into Asia. Most of this descent into barbaric "darkness" emanates from and is fed by the major imperialist powers and this makes the responsibility of the working class in these central countries all the more important. That's why elements of the working class need to provide themselves with a position on the war in Syria and step up their struggles "at home".
The position of anarchists expressed on the two threads on Syria support the idea of a "revolution" in Syria in which there is no signficant organisation of the working class and no strikes. This is a strange sort of revolution and should be called what it is - not civil war, not religious war but imperialist war. And there are clear tendencies in these anarchist positions which are open to supporting factions involved in this imperialist war, particularly the US and the ideology of democracy.
The First of May Anarchist Alliance statement of 6.9.13, talks about a "tactical bloc" which is clearly on the side of the US and its need "to intervene in the struggle on the side of the anti-Assad forces" (while advocating an anarchist revolution). And the need to "obtain weapons by any means necessary". This is further clarified by one of the groups linked to by Mark who (from memory) demand the provisions of weaponry from the west with no preconditions. If these groups seriously think that US, British, Gulf states, French special forces are going to provide guns, ammunition, RPG's, etc. to these elements of the US-backed and controlled FSA with no strings attached and no overall control then they are at least naive to the point of being dangerous.
There's stuff about artists, workshops, intellectuals, etc., being part of this workerless revolution and there's no doubt that these elements can come over to a revolution - but for this to happen it needs the working class as an independent and fighting body. This is something that doesn't exist at all in Syria and it's fooling the working class to say that it does. And we've seen in Czechoslavakia and Poland, how artists and intellectuals can perfectly well fight for western democracy and, in Poland, against the working class directly.
There's no revolution in Syria, not a hint of it but the decay of a capitalist state under the weight and irrationality of imperialism.
I think Steven's point was
I think Steven's point was that there's little to be gained from non-Syrian anarchists adopting a "policy" toward Syria that is really an an abstract moral expression rather than anything that will actually materially impact the course of the civil war (e.g. "supporting" the rebels but not actually sending them weapons and aid, traveling to Syria to join them, or anything like that). I'm inclined to agree with this; such things remind me of when I was involved in Palestinian solidarity activism in the past and encountered groups that wasted time formulating "positions" that in no way manifested, or were ever likely to manifest, in useful action.
The criticism of this impotent "policy" is, I think, more a criticism of of the "we need to do something!" mentality in situations where little useful can be done than it is a criticism of clearly analyzing the Syrian civil war.
Tyrion, I don't think taking
Tyrion, I don't think taking clear internationalist positions is just abstract, even when you are not directly involved in a particular situation. It may seem to be the case at first sight, if you are regarding things from a very immediatist perspective, but over the longer term, and on a global scale, they can act as a point of reference around which other groups can clarify and organise. The formation of real internationalist groups in the Middle East (although very unlikely to take off in Syria right now) would in itself be a definite step forward.
baboon wrote: It's possible
baboon
1. May be the reason was thousands of new refugees from the sunni muslim community.
At least some of my friendas from the Middle Ist who has contacted with former syrians officers belive "Asad regime" (this is dubious definition and i will touch it later) does not pretend to controll all Syria after the war but they want to save Damask and some shia (alavite) areas and numerously diminish the number of synni at the aria of future shia Syria. There are 70 -75% of synni in Syria and the "Asad regime" is shia. Even if shia pretend to controll all Syria it is not bad for shia elite to diminish the number of synni and to terrorise them.
2. So called "Asad regime" does not exist. Syrian state is almoust demolished after they lost Aleppo (4-million financial and industrial heart of Syria) and alot of other territotis, sytis and strategic roads. Asad have no money and no other abilitys for the normal state acctivity. Syrian states army is dispersed after the massive defections and it has only few dosens of thousands (jeneraly shia muslims). So that is why the help from the shia militias from Syria (Shabiha), Lebanon (Hisballa), Iraq (Army of Mehdy) and Iran (some regular troppes, pasdars) is so important. There is no Asad regim. There is a coalition of militias financed by the Iran. So the qeustion why Asad uses chemical weapons can be wrong. It can be made by some of this forces, some independent shia troopes for ex.
I don't think that the issue
I don't think that the issue of who used chemical weapons is a big issue faced with the actions, cynicism and hypocrisy of the major powers involved here.
In the meantime IHS Jane's consultancy has published its estimates of the "rebel" forces and who makes them up. It shows that the FSA supporters linked to above greatly underestimate this force. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html
Life under Jabhat al-Nusra in
Life under Jabhat al-Nusra in Ash Shaddadi town and gas field
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/11/201816/nusra-front-militias-control-of.html#.UjKBb7-E7dn
edit: A good news source for English-language Syrian related stuff is Jadaliyya's Syria page. NB articles in the news roundup pages are from varying political viewpoints and don't reflect Jadaliyya editorial positions necessarily
http://syria.jadaliyya.com/
Tahrir ICN: The struggle
Tahrir ICN:
The struggle continues: Syria’s grass-roots civil opposition
Budour Hassan:
Death under torture in Syria: the horrors ignored by pacifists
This is exactly what I've
This is exactly what I've been looking for. Thanks baboon.
Regards, the 1 May Anarchist Alliance's statement on Syria, I think it is absurd and dangerous to suggest anarchists should fight alongside an opposition composed of jihadists at worse and nationalists at best. The idea that anarchists could spread their ideas in such an environment is totally naive. Doing so would get you killed in an instant. The document as a whole smacks of the privilege of pontificating from afar about events without having any real knowledge about the ground situation in Syria, or having to suffer the consequences of articulating policies that would only contribute to more death.
Omar Aziz (see here): A
Omar Aziz (see here):
A discussion paper on local councils in Syria
There are obvious differences
There are obvious differences in time and circumstances but there are some similarities emerging in the attitude of the "west" towards Syria today with the Gulf War of 1991.
After the defeat of Saddam Hussein's army (where his elite forces were virtually untouched and left intact), the US central command led by General Stormin' Norman Schwarzopf (later knighted by the Queen of England) warned Saddam not to use any fixed-winged aircraft or they would be shot down. The Americans and British had already encouraged the Kurds to rise up against the Baathist regime of Saddam. The warning not to use fixed-wing aircraft was actually a green light for Saddam to use his helicopter gunships which he did with murderous effects against the Kurds.
There's similarities with Syria today in that Assad has been warned not to use "chemical weapons" but this is actually a green light to continue the regime's bombardments with warplances, artillery and so on. I think that the growing strength of the jihadi forces against Assad is finally dawining on Washington and London.
All links in
All links in Spanish
Interview with Yassin Swehat, a Spanish/Syrian blogger living in Santiago de Compostela, from the Galician site Abordaxe:
Entrevista con la revista anarquista gallega Abordaxe sobre Siria
Yassin Swehat on the threat of American intervention:
Lecturas sobre el golpe estadounidense: mi postura
Airstrikes Threat On Syria!
Airstrikes Threat On Syria! Third World War? No War But The Class War!
http://libcom.org/news/airstrikes-threat-syria-third-world-war-no-war-class-war-24092013
Tyrion, a short, belated
Tyrion, a short, belated response to your post 68 above.
To keep it simple let's assume the argument is yours and in general I agree with it. Posturing and posing actions, ie, "doing something" (as with the Palestinian question) is worse than hopeless and often means aligning with one of the imperialist protagonists.
But from what I've seen of the Syrian "anarchists" on here, they all support one or the other factions in this war by seeing it as a continuing "revolution". There are many other anarchists on this and related threads that clearly do not agree with the idea of a "revolution" in Syria and see it for what it is - an imperialist war.
So it is important that, however weak, these internationalist voices are raised against the propaganda of Syrian nationalism. It's not abstract for elements of the working class to defend a position which could be an important point of reference.
BBC: Islamist rebels in Syria
BBC: Islamist rebels in Syria reject National Coalition
The so-called "moderate" Islamist coalition he's referring to is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front which formerly recognised the SNC politically (if not it's right to exercise operational command). Liwa al Tawhid, for e.g. would have been close to Qatar, and from a (Syrian) Muslim Brotherhood background, rather than Salafi. Apart from the Falcons (Suqur al Sham), the other important SILF force would have been Farouq brigades who are currently under attack by ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq & Syria/Shams). It looks like the rest of the SILF have effectively left the Farouq brigades to their fate at the hands of the Salafis. Which presumably means they think they're screwed. AFAICS this effectively liquidates the FSA as a fighting force and places the "rebel" occupied territories nearly all in jihadist hands, militarily-speaking.
The background seems to be the clash between the Farouq brigades and ISIS around Azaz last week. This appears to have resulted in the assasination of Abu-Abdallah al-Libi, a top commander in ISIS in Idlib this Sunday - see Al Arabiya (Saudis). Despite denials, the blame/vengence is likely to fall on the Farouq brigades.
Further details from Pravda
The apparent re-alignment in today's joint statement is a major blow to Western imperialist policy which was only last week speculating aloud (via the media) about a three-way "stalemate" partition of Syrian between Assad, the FSA and the jihadis. OTOH its good for Iran with its current charm offensive to make common cause against "extremism" (read takfiris) in the region.
If anyone in Turkey can keep us posted on the reactions in Istanbul and Ankara, that would be interesting.
there are constant
there are constant allegations by the Kurdish YPG/PYD, that Al-Nusra and ISIS are also operating from Turkish territory and that they receive logistical and medical support from there
Alf wrote: I don't think
Alf
Good point.
Entdinglichung wrote: there
Entdinglichung
Short piece from German state press about that
Al Qaeda's Turkish base?
Ok, jumping the thread a bit,
Ok, jumping the thread a bit, but are any communist groups in the UK publishing and distributing printed anti-war material on the streets and at workplaces at the moment?
Just be interested in the types of articles being published.
(just scan reading through http://libcom.org/library/2004-2005-mutinies-american-army-echanges-111 and http://libcom.org/library/mutinies-dave-lamb-solidarity#comment-523627 for a stripped down list of revolts within armies internationally)
(also off topic a bit, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIup1psL3cM doco by lefty Pilger but it has decent interviews with American soldiers and their refusal to fight on and around the frontline firebases in Vietnam. Also describes some of the the anti officer class actions by 'grunts'.)
I don't think that there's
I don't think that there's any such move at the moment rat and I don't think that it's warranted as such a focus doesn't exist in the working class at present. But I think that any general working class propaganda in the UK should include a denunciation of the British state's role in its imperialist involvement in the generalisation of militarism, chaos and misery in the Middle East.
In the meantime, a link here looking at the further entrenchment of jihadi forces in Syria and the weakeneing of the US/UK-backed political wing of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian National Coalition: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/26/powerful-rebel-groups-with-ties-to-al-qaeda-calling-for-islamic-law-in-syria-after-breaking-with-exiled-opposition/
http://www.jadaliyya.com/page
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/14350/syria-media-roundup-(september-28)
Jadaliyya: Syria media round-up 28 Sep
(nb bbcode tags don't recognise brackets - cut & paste whole url from above)
Aron Lund on the Tawhid, Nusra & co statement
Makes the interesting point that ISIS are not on the list. And groups like Northern Storm who just got creamed by ISIS are loudly announcing support for this new alignment, or whatever it is (Lund advocates some caution, probably rightly so).
Raqqa’s FSA Brigades Join Jabhat al-Nusra
FSA in Raqqa liquidates itself - though allegedly chosing to enter Nusra as "lesser evil" in the face of ISIS.
Despite the best efforts of
Despite the best efforts of the CIA, the US administration seems to be waking up to the growing dangers of the jihadi forces. Clearly underlining the imperialist nature of the war in and around Syria, a war that has no working class content of any substance, not only are factions of the Free Syrian Army going over to the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabatt al-Nusra, but other factions of the FSA are opening talks with the Assad regime:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-syrian-solution-to-civil-conflict-the-free-syrian-army-is-holding-talks-with-assads-senior-staff-8847615.html
Guardian: Syrian jihadists
Guardian: Syrian jihadists wreak havoc as violence spreads into Iraq
It's been a little while
It's been a little while since we had an update on Syria. As some will have noticed, there's a big push against ISIS going on at the moment. See for e.g. BBC: Syria rebels 'seize' ISIS headquarters in Aleppo.
The mainstream western media are being vague as to who exactly is putting it up to ISIS, with vague noises being made about the FSA, forces under command of the SMC etc - forces previously taken by most observers to be more or less liquidated. Although the current timing - two weeks before the scheduled Geneva-2 supposed peace talks - does mean this version can't be entirely ruled out (perhaps the US has managed to re-organise and re-equip some FSA remnants), sources such as the Lebanon Daily Star assert that this is the work of the Islamic Front, in response to ISIS's kidnapping and murder of Hussein al-Suleiman, a doctor and Ahrar al Sham commander on 1 Jan. Al Nusra are pleading for a ceasefire between the Islamic Front and ISIS, but so far, no dice.
LDS: ISIS Condemned for brutal murder of fellow jihadist
LDS: Radical Syria rebel pleads for infighting to stop
‘Revolution within the
‘Revolution within the revolution’ :The battle against ISIS
Syria: the Struggle
Syria: the Struggle Continues
“Day of Rage Against Al-Qaeda & Assad”
http://libcom.org/news/syria-struggle-continues-13012014
Trotskyists form their own
Trotskyists form their own militia:
http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/revolutionary-left-current-in-syria-establishment-of-the-peoples-liberation-faction-to-commemorate-the-third-anniversary-of-the-syrian-revolution/
Mark. wrote: Trotskyists form
Mark.
What a load of claptrap.
http://www.europe-solidaire.o
http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article31487
http://ww4report.com/node/131
http://ww4report.com/node/13112
Read "Who Wants to Kill the
Read "Who Wants to Kill the Revolution in Syria"
http://libcom.org/news/who-wants-kill-revolution-syria-08042014
English translation of an article published by "Hors Service"
Original in French here: http://journalhorsservice.blogspot.be/2014/01/qui-veut-tuer-la-revolution-en-syrie.html
Quote: Shiar Nayo is a Syrian
https://tahriricn.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/syria-on-the-syrian-revolution-and-the-kurdish-issue-an-interview-with-syrian-kurdish-activist-and-journalist-shiar-nayo/
A reading into the new wave
A reading into the new wave of European far-right and the reasons behind its support for the Syrian regime
Mark. wrote: A reading into
Mark.
Minor point: anti-Americanism isn't a new phenomenon in the European far right. The piece mentions Jean-Marie Le Pen's claim that he was carrying on the legacy of McArthur and Reagan, but he was more the exception than the rule; certainly, it was something that happened only among the more institutional groups, which were trying to expand their electoral base by adopting a more traditionally conservative public image (and in the FN's case, winning the support of disillusioned Gaullists).
Yeah, the anti-americanism
Yeah, the anti-americanism goes back to Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium (unite Eurasian land mass against the degenerate USA and enslave the rest of the world), and it's promotion by precursors of the third way, like Jean-Francois Thiriart's Jeune Europe, etc. Also, in France right-wing and pro-imperialist positions were always pretty much anti-American. Not to mention the USA as agent of ZOG, for the anti-semitic hardcore.
Iranian activists to Syrian
Iranian activists to Syrian opposition: Why don’t you talk to us?
there's been a number of
there's been a number of posts here - articles by Guerre de Classe and links from Mark. - which have presupposed the existence of a "Syrian revolution" which can then be meaningfully discussed in terms of its future prospects, relationship with Iranian activists, etc.
I have do ask - do you honestly see what is going on in Syria as a "revolution"?
as examples of how to pursue radical politics in chaotic and brutal conditions, there are many things to support in Syria at present. but to frame the conflict as a whole as a "revolution" - as oppose to an imperialist war dictated far more by global, regional and national interests than "the people of Syria" as a whole - just strikes me as baffling.
I agree with that. It's not
I agree with that. It's not only baffling but these posts and approaches based on a "Syrian Revolution" completely underestimates the imperialist nature of this war and empties the term revolution of any meaningful content.
jonthom wrote: there's been
jonthom
I'm not quite sure if the question is intended to be addressed to me - I'm just posting up links to articles that seem to be of interest from people in or with connections to the region. The views expressed are the views of the writers, not mine. I'd be as interested as anyone to see Syrian, and other Middle Eastern, anarchists and leftists on libcom defending their positions, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to happen.
As for whether I think there's a revolution in Syria I'd say yes, of a kind, a pretty disastrous one and an illustration that revolution in itself isn't automatically a good thing. It depends on your definition of revolution of course but to me it seems a bit unrealistic to use a definition that depends on things going well or the way you'd want them to. This isn't to be confused with, or intended to be a defence of, any views in the articles I've linked to.
Agree with Mark. Revolution
Agree with Mark. Revolution in itself is a pretty simple idea, the subject population of a particular regime attempt to overthrow the regime by force. End of. Hence, American Revolution, French Revolution, Mexican Revolution, Xinhai Revolution, etc. As opposed to a "War of Independence" where the regime is explicitly foreign and colonialist (e.g. the Irish or Greek War of Independence).
Certain leftists, and particularly ultraleftists seem to confuse revolution with social revolution, which is not the same thing. However, depending on your political viewpoint, in the capitalist era, revolution may or may not open the question/possibility of the social revolution. You can then go on to connect this dynamical tension to typologies of when a revolution degenerates into mere civil war, or even imperialist war (when civil war is overcoded by the inter-imperialist rivarlry of surrounding powers), but that's a whole other story.
I think ocelot has just
I think ocelot has just expressed my view a lot better and more clearly than I'd manage myself.
ocelot wrote: Certain
ocelot
But regardless of the semantics, there is still the question of whether what is happening in Syria is in any way positive. I don't think it is at all, and I think this has been the case from if not the beginning then very close to it.
Devrim
Devrim wrote: there is still
Devrim
I expect you're right. In a way it's frustrating that the people from Tahrir ICN and others don't come on here to argue their case, though maybe there's an element of not wanting to say the wrong thing while the conflict is going on.
And this still leaves the question of what Syrian anarchists (or communists or leftists or whatever) should be doing given the circumstances as they are.
I don't know know whether or
I don't know know whether or not Tahrir-ICN is an "anarchist" group but reading its stuff over time it seems to me to be a Syrian nationalist organisation, that is, it supports the Syrian nation and is willing to fight for its better, more democratic management. Tahrir-ICN or its supporters can explain themselves but to me, from its support for Syrian nationalism, the anarcho-nationalist Tahrir-ICN is led to support some of the imperialist forces involved in this ongoing war like the Washington backed FSA
Mark. wrote: I expect you're
Mark.
Why is it frustrating?
Mark.
I don't think that there is much that revolutionaries can do in situations like these. That is because there is no class struggle there at all. If somebody there asked me for advice on a personal level, I'd say do what much of the working class has done, and flee to Lebanon or Turkey.
Devrim
Devrim wrote: Mark. wrote: I
Devrim
I'd like to hear their response to the criticism. And a discussion about Syria seems limited without Syrians taking part.
Mark. wrote: I'd like to hear
Mark.
To be honest I couldn't care how they justify it. I don't think that this is a 'mistake' or a mere bad position. I think that those who support the so-called Syrian revolution have taken up a clear side against the working class. I think like some other left groups in the Middle East, for example the SWP groups, they have taken up a position behind sectarianism and reaction.
Just a very minor more positive point about LibCom the last time I advocated people running away from war zones, I got loads of indignant responses, going on about 'advocating cowardice' etc, so maybe Libcom has improved a little. Either that or nobody is reading the thread. :)
Devrim
i agree with Devrim. We are
i agree with Devrim. We are always being told to take a position pro or against. Sometimes our position should be simply keep your head down, and live to fight for another day when the circumstances are perhaps more in ones favour. Leave the futile battles to others and leave martyrdom to others.
Just one caveat...Rosa Luxemburg fully realised the likliehood of defeat of any armed resistance to the provocations of the Right-wing but chose to stay and fight and lose as the battle was going to take place with or without her. She chose it would happen with her. Syria and so many other places are not working class strggles despite the working class spilling their blood. (Spain perhaps is another example of the exceptions but who would have volunteered after May 1937 or in 1938 or 1939?)
Devrim wrote: Mark.
Devrim
In other words in your political practice, you are content with the method of pre-judgement. There is no interest for you in hearing what people in the actual situation have to say, because your political presuppositions are enough for you to reach a judgement regardless of the experiences, thoughts and practices of actual living labour. And this abstraction from "the real movement" of political struggle you believe to be progressive, "revolutionary" even.
Personally I can't see how such a position of sterility, sectarianism and bad faith could be ultimately be anything other than a barrier to working class self-activity.
Devrim, would you give that
Devrim, would you give that same advice to workers in Ukraine? To flee.
ocelot wrote: In other words
ocelot
I think everybody does this to a certain extent. I am not saying that I wouldn't discuss things with these people. I have discussed things with a lot of people with both good and bad politics. I just don't think that this group has anything to add to a discussion on the question of Syria.
To draw an analogy, if there was a discussion on absentionism, would you invite a group like to socialist party thinking they had anything useful to contribute from a revolutionary perspective.
ocelot
I am a little confused here. Who are these people on the ground? As far as I am aware this Tahrir-ICN is a US based group [edit: Somebody has just written to me to say it is based in Europe not the US, but it doesn't change the point]
That of course does not invalidate their opinions in itself. Just as if they were on the ground it wouldn't mean that their opinions were automatically correct.
ocelot
I have talked to people in the actual situation. I am quite familiar with Syria, and spent a long time living in two of its neighbouring countries. I used to travel there often, and have personal friends from there, so yes these things are of interest to me. I just am not particularly interested in the justifications of those who support imperialist wars.
ocelot
This would be opposed, I imagine, to how calling for workers to take sides in this sort of war can.
Devrim
ajjohnstone wrote: i agree
ajjohnstone
Except at least in Luxemburg's case it was a working class struggle whereas the Syria one is directly opposed to workers' interests.
Devrim
proletarian. wrote: Devrim,
proletarian.
I was not saying that it what I would recommend politically. I said it was the personal advice I would give to my friends. I don't know anywhere near as much detail about Ukraine as I do about Syria, but I am pretty sure that the situation there is nowhere near as bad as in Syria, so on balance, no I don't think so.
Devrim
Mark has made several links
Mark has made several links to Tahrir-ICN, some with no comment which implies some sort of agreement with their positions. Perhaps he could explain what appears to be a contradiction to me in that the group supports a "revolution" which is in fact an imperialist war? It's seems that with the group's support of the US-backed Free Syrian Army (or those elements within it that have their hearts in the right place) this group is expressing its concern for the Syrian national interest and a democratic Syria.
baboon wrote: Mark has made
baboon
I wasn't intending to imply agreement with their positions, more inviting responses and comments. I don't know, maybe I should have spelled this out, but as most of my posts are just links to articles that seem of some interest or relevance to me (and so maybe to other people) I wouldn't have thought it was too hard to work out. Anyway, any links I put up can be taken as not including any implied endorsement.
baboon wrote: Perhaps he
baboon
Surely it's for them to explain their positions, if they want to. In any case I'm not entirely sure what these positions mean in practice.
Actually I don't see the logic of wanting me to explain their views while not being interested in hearing what they have to say for themselves.
Quote: ...most of my posts
Perhaps it's worth considering why you're posting on libcom?
I have read their positions
I have read their positions Mark and at one stage they described me as "racist" because I was a westerner denouncing the involvement in the war of the local Arab bourgeoisies.
I think that if one is posting links on here one has a responsibility to explain some sort of position in relation to them. I know that in the past, when I posted a link without any other mention, the admin came down on me asking that I make some points regarding the link that I had made and not to post uncommented upon links. I thought that they had a valid point and I agreed with it..
baboon wrote: I think that if
baboon
I don't know, maybe you're right about this. I'll consider it. Any thoughts from anyone else?
"would you give that same
"would you give that same advice to workers in Ukraine? To flee."
In the case of the Ukraine, for at least the moment, staying in the house, would suffice.
Mark. wrote: baboon wrote: I
Mark.
I think it depends on the nature of the story. When it's an international story that posters here don't have any direct local connections to verify or refute aspects of other coverage, it's not obvious what to say as regards a particular piece other than a default "interesting, if true".
If the piece openly advocates a particular political line or course of action, then it is probably useful to mention whether you agree with it or not, or are undecided. Other than that I would ignore the knockers and carry on as you are.
I don't know about anyone
I don't know about anyone else but I'd like the news forum to be full of information and reports from workers in and around the countries where things are taking place. Not so much from capitalist or leftist organs. In fact only really as a last resort.
And I wish we were in a
And I wish we were in a period where there was enough reliable "information and reports from workers in and around the countries where things are taking place" to fill the news forums. I also wish the revolution had already happened and I didn't have to submit to wage slavery 5 days a week. Also, jet-packs.
If wishes were fishes... In the meantime those of us interested in international news will have to scan the available sources for news of potential interest from our perspective, as best we can.
Devrim wrote: proletarian.
Devrim
What would you recommend politically?
ajjohnstone wrote: "would you
ajjohnstone
Would it suffice if some Nazis came and smashed your front door down?
proletarian. wrote: What
proletarian.
I am not sure whether you are referring to Syria, or the Ukraine here. If it is Ukraine then I have to admit that I haven't really followed it that closely and I don't know enough about the situation to comment. If on the other hand it is Syria, I don't believe that there is anything that tiny numbers of communists can do at the moment in Syria. The issue is not just a Syrian question though, and the spread of sectarianism, and the war is more of a regional concern. If you look at the neighbouring countries with which I am most familiar, Turkey and Lebanon, there is in Turkey a significant number of people opposed to intervention, and in Lebanon, which only a few months ago seemed to be slipping towards civil war, there seems to be a resurgence of a movement around class demands breaking across sectarian barriers.
I would say that communists can do more important work in those countries today than they could do in Syria.
Also though even though it may be very obvious, I am not the leader of some large communist organisation that instructs people on exactly what they should do. Even if a large scale class organisation existed in the Middle East, I don't think that its role should be to dictate what every member should do in situations like this. People stay or flee for different personal reasons. From people I know in Syria, many have fled. One woman I know has stayed there because her grandmother is old and can't/won't leave. It is not the task of organisations to give orders to people in these situations.
I hope that answers your question.
Devrim
i did did the
i did did the caveat.
Or do you have any evidence that ethnic cleansing is taking place on a scale that justifies a refugee stream or where people are having personal homes smashed down? My information is those being injured and killed are participants on the streets in actual confrontations. Perhaps i am wrong but would appreciate being pointed to more accurate reports that say otherwise.
But i would be interested in another strategy for those who don't and won't take sides in this rivalry of vying capitalist classes.
Back in the 70s (or was it 80s) i recall an Edinburgh anarchist who visited the Belfast collective that published "Outta Control" telling me of how when the street was full of nationalist youngsters chucking nail bombs on behalf of the IRA, he was a bit taken aback by his host's nonchalence...who carried on watching Coronation St...
There are things you can do and things you cannot do. We don't determine the events...yet...our task is to try and build up that influence and class power. In the meantime, it is doing what is practical and possible where we can and in ways that we safely can.
And btw , can you not detect the cliched inference of your question...."what would you do if the horrible Hun raped your sister...or even earlier tales of nasty Frenchies stealing your home..."
i think i have told the story before but always worth repeating of a postal co-worker, a ex-RSM, who once said to me in a discussion a long time ago..."if the Russians invade all the difference it will make to you and me is that instead of the crown on our caps it will be a red star."
Devrim, I was referring to
Devrim,
I was referring to Ukraine, but I appreciate your answer nonetheless. I also wasn't just asking about communists.
Surely the war is the immediate concern of those having to live through it.
You don't say. I was asking in general terms what are the possibilities for workers, "politically" or otherwise. One option is to flee, another to bunker down. But as of yet there hasn't been any mention of any possible collective activity.
aj, As I'm sure you're aware
aj,
As I'm sure you're aware the Nazi's started out as street thugs or at least that was one of their incarnations. There's plenty of videos around showing groups of young neo-nazis beating people on the street in Ukraine (kidnappings are also being reported). You can't seriously think it's necessary to wait to do something until ethnic cleansing takes place? (not that this IS going to take place). I am simply asking is there something pro active workers should or could do in these kinds of situations. Maybe some form of collective defence against the (very real) threat of attacks? Of course there is also the added threat of the regular Ukrainian state forces who have also already killed.
Part of Nazi politics is to smash that, physically. This is the problem. I wouldn't of course advise lining up behind the Russian state before you ask.
Do neither of you have any
Do neither of you have any answers or anyone else for that matter or were my comments that bizarre they don't warrant any replies?