The Solution for Syria

[andyx1205]

Those who say the uprising in Syria was created by the West should be picked up and dropped in Homs. The uprising started off as a genuinely legitimate and peaceful means of opposition with escalation towards armed resistance and it is only until recently that external players are being involved to control the direction of the revolution for their own means (Saudis,Qatar,etc).

The more interesting question is what is better for the Syrian people out of the two following choices:

1) Arm the opposition with the goal of stronger military resistance: it can either convince more Syrians to side with the opposition if it has a chance of winning, or it can open up the possibility of greater escalation and civil war.

2) The fate of Syria should be left to Syrians: instead of greater military resistance, put hopes in greater percentage of Syrians supporting the opposition; can lead to greater army defections but can also mean freedom of the regime to massacre a weak resistance.

The best solution is whatever can result in greater percentage of Syrians supporting the opposition (what this is...is debatable). Amongst the three groups (supporters of the regime, supporters of the opposition, those neutral who are most likely sympathetic but hesitant to join the opposition), the last one is the largest group.

My question: what is the preferred main strategy for the Syrian opposition to defeat the Assad regime?

Though I am currently undecided, I lean towards option 2. External involvement can result in nationalist top army officials siding with the regime as opposed to possibly siding with the opposition. It is possible however that only arming/funding the opposition as opposed to direct intervention (like Libya) will not have this effect on nationalist Syrian army officials, yet, it is clear that arming/funding the opposition means influencing the direction of the revolution since those giving the funding/arms would decide which parts of the opposition (based on the self-interests of the external players) get the funding/arms.

It certainly is possible that funding/arming the opposition can increase the chances of defeating the regime, though as mentioned, it can also result in escalation into civil war. It is also clear that when it comes to the interests of Syrians on the whole, this is counter-productive for the Syrians since those sectors of the opposition receiving the funding/arms would serve the interests of those giving the funding/arms.

*please do not post in this thread if you support Assad and think the uprising was started by a conspiracy by the West, I do not want this thread to be derailed into such a discussion


I asked my political science professor on the question of intervention to which he responded with the following:


the uprising is certainly popular. then again, the regime has some real support. My guess would be 40% are pro-opposition, 30% are pro-regime, and 30% are fence-sitting (most of them sympathetic to the opposition but fearing the chaos of a successful revolution).

I don't think that external military intervention is likely, certainly not for a long time--it would be far more difficult than Libya, far more expensive than Libya, and would require Turkish support (and its not something they want to do, at least not at the moment). Any intervention would essentially going to war with Syria--there's not really any sort of limited intervention that makes practical sense. Even a NFZ means bombing Syria's very extensive air defence system--its a major bombing campaign, and given that air power has played no role in the regime's repression, it would have little effect. Yes, it might tip fence-sitters towards the opposition. however, it might also tip nationalist army officers closer to the regime, which would be counter-productive.

One is thus left with sanctions, isolations, funding and/or arming the opposition, and accepting it may well be be a long, drawn-out bloody battle.

The reason I am leaning towards opposition to external involvement is because I strongly fear another case of "revolution betrayed," that is, the post-revolutionary regime will betray the Syrian people, similar to how the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has betrayed the revolution. In most cases throughout history, the masses, the youth, the revolutionaries give their blood for the revolution, only for the revolution to be hijacked and power to be consolidated by anti-revolutionaries. The perfect example of the revolution in that area being betrayed is Iran (the more I read about the Iranian Revolution, where the brutal Shah was overthrown, the more my blood boils).

[Devrim]

*please do not post in this thread if you support Assad and think the uprising was started by a conspiracy by the West, I do not want this thread to be derailed into such a discussion.

I don't support al-Assad nor do I believe that "the uprising was started by a conspiracy by the West". That, however, does not mean that I think that there is anything positive about this uprising that communists should 'support' nor does it mean that I don't think that there are not factions in governments of the Western and regional powers who will not attempt to use this uprising to strengthen their own position.


The uprising started off as a genuinely legitimate and peaceful means of opposition with escalation towards armed resistance and it is only until recently that external players are being involved to control the direction of the revolution for their own means (Saudis,Qatar,etc).

While it is most likely that the opposition movement was inspired by the events across the rest of the Arab world, and was not the result of some conspiracy being created by foreign powers, it is clear that from its begging the uprising was supported by foreign powers. As early as last May Syrian oppositionsts were meeting openly in Istanbul, and the Free Syria Army has received logistical support from Turkey. I personally spoke to a reasonably senior government figure in Turkey last March, who openly talked about aiding the rebels.

Certainly various political/sectarian conflicts across the region are being acted out by proxy in Syria today, and the various players,great and small, are taking up their positions on the board. Military support for the rebels is coming from not only the Gulf states, but also from Turkey, and Iranian Pasdaran have been in Syria almost from the start acting as 'military advisors' to the state, as have Lebanese Hezbollah militants. In addition to this the Syrian state also seems to have started to give support to the local franchise of the PKK,partly as a tit for tat response to Turkey's support for the Syrian opposition, and partly to help them control Kurds in Syria, where the PKK seems to have carried out assassinations of Kurdish opposition leaders.


The Solution for Syria

I don't think that there is any 'solution' for Syria that communists should be supporting. As I see it none of the options have anything to offer the working class in Syria or across the region. The alternatives are the state massacring more civilians, all out civil war, or a victory for the rebels most probably leading to sectarian/ethnic massacres. Of course the worst alternative, which although unlikely is possible, is escalation to a major regional war.

The working class is not anywhere near powerful enough to influence the 'solution' in Syria. Within the context of this impotence, any 'solutions' suggested by the left will a best remain irrelevant, and at worst end up offering a small amount of ideological support to one of the competing powers.

Devrim

[andyx1205]

I appreciate the reply Devrim, it is well received. I am quite aware of the external players on both sides of the conflict. The uprising started off as a genuinely "peaceful" uprising and by that I mean there were masses of brave Syrians protesting in the street. Some minor examples in the early part of the demonstrations that certainly helped the opposition grow included a bunch of kids drawing anti-regime graffiti only to be thrown in jail. Another example is a young, I think 13 year old kid, who was mutilated by the state and the body delivered to the parents. In fact, in the early part, one protester lit himself on fire, imitating the self-immolation in Tunisia.

I believe the best next step for Syria, which is ruled by a brutal authoritarian dictatorship, or rather, a mafia-style family business, is the establishment of a national pluralistic democratic state (I believe this to be a good step towards an eventual Socialist revolution in the future, a much better position for Syria than the current family-business dictatorship). Of course, when it comes to the establishment of a democratic state, I believe the means are the ends, hence I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of getting rid of Saddam (and well, look at Iraq today, bye Saddam hello Maliki is the phrase I like to use). Off-topic but this is a great read for those interested in post-Saddam Iraq. http://www.truth-out.org/never-ending-and-never-prosecuted-humanitarian-disaster-iraq/1330109137

I would like to make it clear that I am of the strain that opposes the authoritarian left, that is, those who support brutal dictators or supporters of brutal dictators in the name of anti-imperialism. I oppose both domestic tyrannies and external tyrannies, with my ideology being driven not by opposition to imperialism but rather to capitalism (since imperialism is simply the highest form of capitalism, rather than a distinct form...hence opposing imperialism while supporting capitalism is imo a betrayal, in this case, I do not adhere to Trotsky's views on this issue).

I am ideologically driven but I am also pragmatic because the world is not black and white, hence, I am willing to support the lesser of two evils even if support of such lesser evil is nothing to be proud of (which is often if not always the case).

There is an umbrella that fits over our two political ideologies since you are a Left Communist. I'd recommend this great article for you and others to read, it's by Hamid Dabashi.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122276412929860.html

Both the Left and the Right in Syria are "statists" - power hungry, reaching to gain control of the state apparatus. Here's a small snippet but I recommend reading the whole thing.


The problem with both these positions - Left and Right - is that they speak from a position of power or counter-power - from a statist position, a 100-metre spree to grab hold of the state apparatus and replace it as it falls. The Right speaks from behind the US-Israeli guns and from behind the Saudi bank accounts, and the Left speaks from a position of resisting that power and wishing to support an existing, evolving or emerging state apparatus that can ensure that resistance. The Assad regime is falling, and now we have a rush to get hold of the state apparatus, the military in particular. What the Left and the Right share is their identical statism, because, for them, these entire Arab revolutions are about taking control of the state apparatus, of state power, of steering (or more accurately trying to steer) the falling regimes of power to their own direction.

Categorically absent from the calculations of both the Left and the Right are the people, the real people, ordinary people, those who occupy the public space, people it, own it. For the Left and the Right, these people are mere puppets that are either used, abused for facilitating the US-Saudi machinations, or else duped into revolutionary uprising that has been hijacked from them. Neither the Left nor the Right has the slightest trust, confidence, or even a politically potent conception of the public space that ordinary people physically and normatively occupy.

Suppose Bashar al-Assad falls tomorrow, the Saudi and the Americans succeed in establishing a puppet regime and resume business as usual - is that the end of Syrians' uprising? Is that what the Arab Spring and Tahrir Square are all about? Now, suppose Russia, China and the Islamic Republic manage to keep Assad in power, is that the end of the Syrian uprising?

No: the revolutions have just started.

...

The Saudis and the Islamic Republic, as with the US and the Russians/Chinese, can perform all their machinations - but resistant and defiant will remain the Syrian people - and their open-ended revolution, which is integral to the Arab Spring.

They say you can conquer a land on horse, but you must descend in order to rule it - the same is true about Syria: From the US and Israel to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and then from Russia and China to the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah, there certainly are many machinations at work to conquer Syria. But when all the dust is settled and these mighty machinations end, the new conquerors must come down to rule it - and when they do, they will find themselves facing the indomitable spirit of the people that have left their inner dungeons of fear - and who will never ever again be subject of either domestic tyranny or external treachery. Syrians have already won their revolution - for the next tyrants now wishing to conquer Syria will come down from their horses, facing a nation refusing to be frightened or fooled into obedience.

Read the whole thing!

[andyx1205]

Here are two great reads, important.. rather.

http://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/the-ambiguous-morality-of-foreign-intervention-in-syria/

Snippet:


Your neighbor and his wife are murderously abusing their children, but your intervention might lead to some or all of their deaths, and it will probably start a wider, violent feud among families in the neighborhood. This situation is far more complicated, and it is no longer clear at all that intervention is the best course of action. If you don’t act, several children will die. But if you do act, those children still might die, and so might many other people involved in the ensuing feud. As awful as it sounds, it is be morally right not to intervene in this situation, or at least not to intervene in ways that would set off the wider feud.

...

Taking all of these aspects into consideration, I conclude that the moral course of action in Syria today is not to intervene militarily–by attacking government forces, attempting to establish “safe zones,” or supplying arms to rebel groups. I’ll admit that I’m not 100% certain in this judgment. I hate what it implies for civilians under fire or imprisoned in Syria right now, and I am sure that some reasonable people who accept the same principles will reach a different conclusion. All I’m hoping to do here is to show that the morality of this situation is far more ambiguous than a simple “The killing must be stopped” statement allows.

And, if it were my family that was being killed, I would be screaming at the world to stop it now.

http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/syrian-uprising-2011-why-asad-regime-likely-survive-2013

Assad's regime will survive into 2013.

[Tukhachevsky]

I think my reply will be unpopular or dissonant with others people mind but well...

There is no solution to Syria, specially not a leftist or socialist solution.
What we are seeing is the end of a political gridlock in middle east: after invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran saw itself without their main enemy and container, and they are growing and growing. Israel war against Hizbola in 2006 is a proof of that, a militia receiving so much support from a carefree Iran to the point they dare bring Israel to south Lebanon. The situation pretty much stalled.
After Iran began receiving China and Russia support the situation entered a new phase: Usa decided to change support for Mubarak in Egypt for a sunni government and Nato-Israel-Turkey are now trying to create a sunni government in Syria, which wouldn't bend/serve as proxy to Iran as Assad an the alawites did.

I... I abandoned all possible socialist utopias. Usa is the most powerful country in earth, their GDP is 15 trillions, they control the pacific and atlantic seas, they have satellites in earth orbit, all relevant companies are american, their foreign aid is bigger than Uruguay GDP, dollar is the world trade currency; they have bases in all continents, most surprising being the central asian one (Afghanistan), something unthinkable during cold war; the internet and computer revolution is a product of the american age...
Opposing Usa geopolitics is totally crazy and wasteful to my eyes, as is hoping for their downfall- when they are actually the sole superpower in the globe and stronger than ever, having conquered Afghanistan when even Soviet Union in their best time couldn't- and one can only hope for a revolution from within, which is plausibly considering the capitalist contraction cycles Usa already experience.

All my prolix rant only to say this: Syria will became sunni, there is nothing anyone can do about it, Turkey will grow and Iran- isolated, sanctioned, poor by selling the oil cheap to China and without nuclear weapon as deterrence because Russia won't repeat the same mistake they made with China- will enter in a crisis.

[Binh]

Providing arms doesn't mean a revolution will be hijacked. Look at Ho Chi Minh's relationship to Russia and China.

Some of the best reporting on the revolutionary left:
http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/