Libya and Syria: When Anti-Imperialism Goes Wrong

[Binh]

Reflexive opposition to Uncle Sam’s machinations abroad is generally a good thing. It is a progressive instinct that progressively declined (http://www.isreview.org/issues/21/anti_imperialism.shtml) in the 1990s, as presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton deftly deployed the U.S. military to execute “humanitarian” missions in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans and progressively increased in the 2000s, as Bush Jr. lurched from quagmire to disaster in transparent empire-building exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, what is generally good is not good in every case. The progressive instinct to oppose anything the U.S. government does abroad became anything but progressive once the Arab Spring sprang up in Libya and Syria, countries ruled by dictatorships on Uncle Sam’s hit list. When American imperialism’s hostility to the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to the Ghadafi and Assad regimes (their collaboration (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10arar.html?ref=extraordinaryrendition) with Bush Jr.’s international torture ring notwithstanding), the Western left’s support for the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to American imperialism.

for the rest, visit: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=1097

[REDSOX]

Everything the western imperialist powers do is out of economic and geopolitical self interest not altruistic motives. We must never support the imperialists or their useful idiots

[Dullum]

I agree with REDSOX here (at least for the most).

Gaddafi and Assad are both being demonized because they stand up against the world dominance of USA. Yes, they are dictators, but one does simply NOT welcome a war on a foreign sovereign nation just because of that. YES they killed their "own population", but we know that the opposition was armed by CIA, and various gulf monarchies (who surely aren't democracies either). Look at Libya now: A bomb crater with different islamists and reavers running around terrorizing everyone who stood by Gaddafis side (often just because they are black).

Let's put it this way: What if I, and some of my friends here in Norway agreeds to take down our government. We get weapon supplies from Russia and Finland (lolwut..), and begins to start a war. Can Russia then decide to invade Norway because "their prime minister slaughters down his own population"? I personally does not think so.

It is EVERY Anti-imperialist's duty to stand up against EVERY imperialistic war. That is the best strategy against the world's monopolies today.

[Comrades Unite!]

As an Anti-Imperialist I think your full of shit.
The USA don't care about any humanitarian cause in Iraq,Libya or Syria, they use those countries for private gain, to monopolize the countries in they're personal interests.
Yes Assad is a dictator, but I support him over the United States imperialist actions.

The Americans have committed heinous acts of foreign intervention in the past just like now,They're attacks on Castro,Vietnam,Cambodia,Chile etc... this is no different a situation.Your supporting the Imperialist cause.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I have strongly opposed the view of the PSL and others who "critically support" people like Qaddaffi, Assad, Mugabe, etc.Having said this, any support for imperialist intervention is wrong as well.


When American imperialism’s hostility to the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to the Ghadafi and Assad regimes (their collaboration with Bush Jr.’s international torture ring notwithstanding), the Western left’s support for the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to American imperialism./

America's hostility to the Arab Spring and the intervention in Libya and Syria are the same thing. Imperialism intervened to avoid losing control in the region.

I despise Qaddaffi, Assad, et al. Having said this their regimes were/are late surviving products of a wave of anti-imperialist revolution. There was a degree of social welfare. The ultimate reason why the regimes began to unwind is because they introduced neo-liberalism. After the push of the US/NATO neo-liberalism will be enforced even more harshly.


Events shortly after Ghadafi was toppled provide even more evidence that the revolution was not hijacked by NATO
The NTC is comprised of what was the neo-liberal faction of the Qaddaffi regime

Comments section
There are several false premises in this article, which lead to the absolute wrong conclusions.
The major false premise is equating the militias and the Western-created governments in exile with the “revolution.” The latter, in the case of Syria, is not even composed of Syrians, but expatriates, according to Elaine Hagopian, the most knowledgeable and unbiased expert on the crisis that I know of.
And according to Hagopian, the initial revolution in Syria was and continues to be nonviolent. It was based in the Local Coordinating Committees, which have not changed tactics to embrace violence or foreign military intervention, but have been rendered marginal since the West began sending in money, equipment, fighters and weapons to a variety of violent, extremist militias, who are not united and do not represent the Syrian people. (Listen to Flashpoints on June 12, June 26, and check out http://www.syrianews.cc/ and http://documents.sy/image.php?id=947&lang=en)
On a more fundamental level, the article lacks a class analysis. If the author wishes to lecture to Marxists it would be a good idea to base his arguments in Marxism, which must always start from the structure, the fundamental social classes in conflict, state power, and imperialism. Then we would have a common point of departure on which to discuss the issue. But the way that the arguments are framed are so biased in favor of the transnational capitalist class and the aspiring Syrian transnational capitalist fraction in their bid to take over the state as to leave us with no points of agreement. Ideologically we might as well be on different sides of the class divide.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The premise of the OP isn't based on whether or not the USA did anything for altruistic purposes, the question posed is rather can something the USA did (for purely political reasons) be exploited strategically by the left. Not that I necessarily agree with the OP's post, but the argument that people like Assad or Ghaddafi are better off overthrown, regardless of who does the overthrowing, does not rest on the USA doing things because they're "good guys".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I understand that but US/NATO intervention is an important factor in itself. Its not that Qaddaffi and prob soon Assad have been/will be overthrown, its how this happens and at what cost.Both the Syrian and Libyan revolutions have been hijacked. Whether there is a net gain by the overthrow of the two leaders (at huge human cost) remains to be seen.

It does seem there could have been other , more healthy directions which could have been pursued, which have been cut short.

Binh's article also provides tacit or not so tacit support fior imperialist intervention in Syria. It comes dangerously close to what is called in Britain the "decent left", that is the pro-imperialist left.

[Os Cangaceiros]

(I was actually responding to a couple posts before yours, you just ninja'd my post)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

(I was actually responding to a couple posts before yours, you just ninja'd my post)
Umm, sorry.

[Comrade Samuel]

I think supporting any of these regimes is betraying the workers who live under them. The United states and it's allies couldn't care less about if the people in Libya, Syria or really anywhere else if they had food, clean water or were not being killed. Their sole purpose when they start these imperialists wars is to "liberate the people of (insert nation here) and establish American style democracy" or more realistically "enslave the people of (insert nation here) and establish a puppet government that does whatever we say". On the other hand giving any kind of support to these so called "anti-imperialist nations" solely because they would rather starve and murder their own people than live under the boot of American imperialism is equally If not more harmful the the working class in these nations thus giveing no support to either side would likely be the best thing to do.

If the Syrian revolution somehow survives with or without US/NATO intervention (which week after week of grim news and the fact that the west is tangled up with Russia and china on the matter would point to not being likely) what do you suppose will happen then? A puppet government? a religious fundamentalist one? Yet another oppressive dictator like Assad who refuses to give into the west's demands? Regardless I think we should all know it would not be for or made of the syrian people.

[cynicles]

I hope both sides lose, they both suck.

[Binh]

Lenina: there's no evidence for the hijacking argument. Feel free to find some.

Without imperialist support, Lenin would've never made it back to Russia.

I guess we should've opposed Ho Chi Minh getting American arms too?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lenina: there's no evidence for the hijacking argument. Feel free to find some.

Without imperialist support, Lenin would've never made it back to Russia.

I guess we should've opposed Ho Chi Minh getting American arms too?


Tariq Ali says we are witnessing in Syria "a new form of re-colonisation, which we saw in Iraq and in Libya. Many of the people who first rose against the Assad regime, says Ali, have been sidelined, leaving the Syrian people with limited choices, neither of which they want: either a Western imposed regime, "composed of sundry Syrians who work for the western intelligence agencies", or the Assad regime.

The only way forward, in the interests of all Syrians, he says, is negotiation and discussion. But it is now obvious that the West is not going to let that happen because they are backing the opposition groups who are against any negotiation.



Interview on Russia Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI1SLqXJI7M

Binh, I agree with your previous stuff on this but I feel you're going to far. Your friend Louis Proyect (whom I generally agree with) has stopped short of favoring Western intervention in Syria.

The Lenin analogy doesn't work. The Germans gave him the famous "sealed train" to Russia, but they did not have massive intervention, including aerial bombardment, to support the Russian Revolution. Indeed they did everything the could to destroy the Revolution, i e Brest-Litovsk.

Western intervention is never good. Its not that imperialism has bad intentions, obviously it does, its that it always stays for its pound of flesh.

The tragedy is that there is no good working class movement to move things forward. Minus this we will see increasingly viscous sectarian warfare.

I support the rebellion, or the working class core of the rebellions in Syria and Libya. I do not support the Islamist, neo-liberal, or sectarian groups which seem to be behind the SNC. A socialist slogan should be "No to to imperialist intervention, no to the Assad dictatorsahip".

It does no good, ever, to support an imperialist hegomon, no matter what the "objective" outcome might seem to be.

I enjoy your writing and I think you have much to offer. I do hope you won't end up going the Fred Halliday route.

[X5N]

I find support for dictators absolutely abhorrent. It doesn't matter if they're "fighting imperialism" or whatever -- they're still fucking dictators.

[Lynx]

When dictators have outlived their usefulness, they must go. Assad is about as useful to anti-imperialism as Gaddafi was... and will likely share the same fate.

[ckaihatsu]

When justifying imperialist intervention "goes wrong" Cruise-missile socialists

By Mazda Majidi

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/assets/images/content/stop-bombing-libya-protest.JPG

Stop Bombing Libya protest, Washington, D.C., March 26, 2011


On July 1, an article titled "Libya and Syria: When Anti-Imperialism Goes Wrong" was published on the North Star website, signed by "Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street, Class War Camp." The article argues that imperialist interventions in Libya and Syria are justified because they are demanded by forces the author calls revolutionary. While claiming to cut against the grain, he formulates what is a common position among liberals, progressives and even some self-proclaimed socialists and anti-imperialists. As such it is important to respond.

When imperialist countries intervene in the affairs of oppressed countries, the justifications do not only emanate from the U.S. government and the corporate media. In each instance, various forces and individuals with liberal and progressive credentials succumb to the imperialist propaganda campaign and put forth pro-intervention arguments, albeit using progressive-sounding analyses and using liberal/left language.

Even if “progressive” arguments for intervention originate far away from the halls of power, and receive no wide audience among the ruling class, they nonetheless play an important role for the imperialist war drives. This is because such arguments address a specific audience: people with anti-war and progressive inclinations who are typically far less susceptible to run-of-the-mill Washington/Wall Street pro-war propaganda. By spreading confusion about the nature of the intervention, and the tasks of the progressive movement, those who would normally be the first responders in the anti-war movement are rendered inactive and passive. This is the value of this kind of propaganda for the ruling class.

In the lead-up and immediate aftermath of each intervention, such forces emerge to explain that while anti-imperialism is good in general and in past scenarios, this time is different. Each time they present their arguments as new and unorthodox. While it is important to refute the specific arguments of the pro-intervention “left,” we must begin with the broad observation that they continue a long and definite political trend in the imperialist countries. In the Iraq invasion, this trend received the name “cruise missile liberalism,” but 100 years ago Lenin referred to it as “social-imperialism.”

READ MORE (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.pslweb.org%2Fsite%2FR%3Fi% 3Dm68JPby-zreJ8Ei_5xXgkA&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFILPurHoTvf5IPw2QttusKwisfYA)


Please support Liberation's efforts to bring you this kind of news and analysis by making a donation today. (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.pslweb.org%2Fsite%2FR%3Fi% 3DAoTAEpl7Fwwb6FyN9TFFHg&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFRA556IW_0S39B74FW2QPvSrisaA)




Follow Liberation News




Liberation is the newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)
Find out more about joining the PSL and apply today

Questions? Comments? Contact us.

[islandmilitia]

When American imperialism’s hostility to the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to the Ghadafi and Assad regimes (their collaboration with Bush Jr.’s international torture ring notwithstanding), the Western left’s support for the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to American imperialism.

The most important point, and the one that you ignore, is that to the extent that the revolution in Syria falls under the control of foreign actors like the US and is the recipient of aid from those same foreign actors, the emancipatory potential of the revolution will be lost, which amounts to a departure from the logic of the Arab Spring as it manifested itself in Egypt and elsewhere. In other words, you assume a conflictual relationship between opposing intervention on the one hand and supporting the Arab Spring on the other, whereas the actual state of affairs is that these two positions are logically interrelated, and should be presented as such, because it is only by remaining independent from foreign actors that anti-regime forces in countries like Syria will be able to introduce meaningful change, as opposed to there simply being the creation of a new state apparatus comprised of former regime elements.

The course of events in Libya is highly instructive in this context, because, contrary to what you assert, the role of the West in Libya has had definite consequences. It was after the initiation of concrete Western intervention (in the form of air strikes) that Mustafa Abdel-Jalil was able to secure leadership of the NTC, even though he had initially been rejected by the same body when he tried to declare a provisional government in Benghazi. Under this new leadership, and despite its previous opposition to collaboration with the West at the beginning of the revolution, the NTC entered into important deals and agreements with the West, which set limits on the social dimensions of the revolution and established continuity with the previous regime, most notably the agreement that it would retain the existing oil contracts, and cooperate in restricting migration from North Africa to southern Europe. These are definite, concrete ways that Western intervention undermined the logic of the revolutionary process. Moreover, it is absolutely naive to say that the military defeat of Gaddafi has resulted in "freedom of speech" and other liberal rights even if those rights were sufficient to warrant celebrating the outcome of the military victory of the NTC. The Berber militias and other forces in the western regions, which you cite as evidence of the revolutionary focus being independent from the West and the NTC offensive being only one part of the revolutionary process, have been shown to have committed brutal attacks against Black Africans as part of their takeover of Misrata, and those same attacks have continued into the present under the new regime. These attacks, combined with the neo-liberal agenda of the present government, do not suggest the victory of a popular emancipatory process. In Egypt, on the other hand, where the West was not responsible for the overthrow of the regime, the revolution continues as a popular process, as shown by the outbreak of a new strike wave at Mahalla just in the past few days.

Altogether, your article relies less on evidence and analysis and more on emotional blackmail of the crudest kind, along the lines of "the revolutionaries are begging for foreign arms". These crude appeals fundamentally rest on a failure to distinguish between different forces within these countries and a willingness to take particular actors as voices for the whole of the oppositional bloc, such that you eradicate any and all points of difference and conflict, in a way that is unfortunately symptomatic of an Orientalist discourse. The reality is that there are anti-interventionist forces, and that, in Syria for example, the SNC, the NSA and the LCCs are not the same, the LCCs in particular embodying important anti-interventionist voices. The role of revolutionaries in the West is to oppose intervention in cooperation with local actors who take the same view, and to do so not as an alternative to supporting the revolutions, or in order to sustain a "white anti-unperualust burden", but precisely because a rejection of foreign intervention is the only way to preserve the emancipatory impulse of the Arab Spring.

[Binh]

The most important point, and the one that you ignore, is that to the extent that the revolution in Syria falls under the control of foreign actors like the US and is the recipient of aid from those same foreign actors, the emancipatory potential of the revolution will be lost, which amounts to a departure from the logic of the Arab Spring as it manifested itself in Egypt and elsewhere.

Departure from the logic of the Arab Spring as it manifested itself in Egypt? Last time I checked U.S. imperialism's yes-men were still in charge after the revolution. There's almost no democracy there at all. To be a union activist in Libya is far, far easier than in Egypt.

The revolution in Syria is not foreign controlled. The U.S. just denied them heavy weapons and logistical support, which is unlikely to earn them any friends among revolutionary Syrians or the Free Syrian Army.

You dismiss my evidence without bringing any of your own. Not a single article or link to prove a point. Sad really.

[islandmilitia]

Departure from the logic of the Arab Spring as it manifested itself in Egypt? Last time I checked U.S. imperialism's yes-men were still in charge after the revolution. There's almost no democracy there at all. To be a union activist in Libya is far, far easier than in Egypt.

The Egyptian government is now a complex formation where you have the military holding substantial positions of influence alongside Morsi, who, whilst by no means a radical or revolutionary in terms of his individual role, is the leader of a broader political and social formation - the Muslim Brotherhood - whose grassroots activists did have an important role in the overthrow of Mubarak and who are embedded in the communities of the Egyptian masses. It remains to be seen whether Morsi will be able to reconstitute the Egyptian parliament and whether his relationship with the military will be a consensual or conflictual one. The most important issue, however, is that in Egypt there remains a dynamic of popular mobilization and confidence - this is seen from the renewed strike wave in Mahalla, which is just one of many strike waves that have taken place over the past half-decade, if not longer, it being those strike waves which provided the context for the overthrow of Mubarak. In this regard, there is a strong contrast with Libya. The outbreak of rebellion in Libya did not take place in the context of previous strike waves, strikes were not central to the defeat of Gaddafi, and there are no signs in Libya today of a combative and confident working class. For those reasons, the logic of the situation is fundamentally different in the two countries. I'm also skeptical, given the treatment of Black Africans, who were largely migrant workers, about your assertion that Libya is a liberal environment for trade unionists today, although, in any case, the legal conditions for trade unionists are actually less importance than the level of confidence for the class as a whole.


The revolution in Syria is not foreign controlled. The U.S. just denied them heavy weapons and logistical support, which is unlikely to earn them any friends among revolutionary Syrians or the Free Syrian Army.

The revolution in Syria is not foreign-controlled, even though the SNC looks to foreign intervention as a solution, and even though the FSA has a developing relationship with Saudi Arabia, amongst others. In order for it to remain free from foreign control, and for it to preserve its emancipatory potential, it is important that revolutionaries resist foreign intervention in any form. The forthcoming Security Council resolution, in which Chapter 7 of the Charter is going to be invoked, will be a crucial moment in determining whether the US will be able to legally sanction a co-optation of the revolutionary process. You, based on your writings, would welcome this prospect.


You dismiss my evidence without bringing any of your own. Not a single article or link to prove a point. Sad really.

I refer you to my middle paragraph. If you need articles to show that the NTC made a formal agreement with the West to obey the latter's oil deals with the Gaddafi government, then I refer you to this (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/uk-libya-oil-contracts-idUKTRE77N24820110824) article, though I think all of the facts I cited should be known by anyone who followed events closely.

[Devrim]

I support the rebellion, or the working class core of the rebellions in Syria and Libya. I do not support the Islamist, neo-liberal, or sectarian groups which seem to be behind the SNC. A socialist slogan should be "No to to imperialist intervention, no to the Assad dictatorsahip".

I certainly don't think that the rebellion in Libya had a 'working class core', and I think the one in Syria is pretty much a cross class movement. I think that you may be seeing what you want to see here.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

There are some simple rules to adhere to in these situations:

1. We support and promote the working class everywhere as an independent force and we oppose and criticise all sides who rule over it or attempt to hold it back. In other words we are internationalists.

2. But, as Lenin said, the enemy is at home. If we can gain some advantage for our cause by opposing our own bourgeois state's bloody foreign adventures (no matter how diabolical or reactionary their enemy might be), then that is our first duty.

Beyond that, it's important to recognise that no dictators ever oppose imperialism, they merely choose a side between competing blocs. If we support the likes of Gadaffi, Sadat or any of the other stooges, then we are also not opposing imperialism but merely choosing a side between competing barbarisms.

[Homo Songun]

Binh's position is logically consistent. The main problem is it flows from completely false premisses.

In that sense, his argument is a cut above the usual petit-bourgeois equivocating we find on Revleft, which relies upon completely imaginary 'working class' armies in Libya and Syria. A position which doesn't even have the dignity of being wrong.

[A Marxist Historian]

Reflexive opposition to Uncle Sam’s machinations abroad is generally a good thing. It is a progressive instinct that progressively declined (http://www.isreview.org/issues/21/anti_imperialism.shtml) in the 1990s, as presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton deftly deployed the U.S. military to execute “humanitarian” missions in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans and progressively increased in the 2000s, as Bush Jr. lurched from quagmire to disaster in transparent empire-building exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, what is generally good is not good in every case. The progressive instinct to oppose anything the U.S. government does abroad became anything but progressive once the Arab Spring sprang up in Libya and Syria, countries ruled by dictatorships on Uncle Sam’s hit list. When American imperialism’s hostility to the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to the Ghadafi and Assad regimes (their collaboration (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10arar.html?ref=extraordinaryrendition) with Bush Jr.’s international torture ring notwithstanding), the Western left’s support for the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to American imperialism.

for the rest, visit: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=1097

Quite correctly so. The Arab Spring is dead as a doornail, turned into a football to play with for the imperialists and the Islamic reactionaries.

Even in Tunisia, you now have a reactionary Islamic government that the workers are fighting against, something made much harder by the fact that they had campaigned for the "Constituent Assembly" that put the reactionaries in power. And the Tantawi military dictatorship in Egypt, that now has a thin Islamic cover, is more reactionary and more brutal than Mubaraq was.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Lenina: there's no evidence for the hijacking argument. Feel free to find some.

Without imperialist support, Lenin would've never made it back to Russia.

I guess we should've opposed Ho Chi Minh getting American arms too?

Omigawd, not the old lie about "German gold" behind Lenin. Please!

The Germans let Lenin, and various other revolutionaries, buy train tickets to pass through. And Martov too. Were they "supporting" the Mensheviks then? And it was a sealed train, "like a bacillus in a bottle," they couldn't talk to any Germans on the way through.

Refusing to let Lenin or Martov buy a ticket would have been an unjustifiable act against civil liberties, after the model of Bush/Obama and their flight restrictions. That the Germans found it convenient to do the right thing any government ought to have done under the circumstances is not exactly "support."

As for Ho Chi Minh, him getting American arms is because he supported the Allied side in WWII, and in 1945, acted together with the French imperialists to suppress revolution and kill the Vietnamese Trotskyists, who in Saigon at least probably had more mass support in '45 than Ho did.

As you of all people ought to be familiar with.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The premise of the OP isn't based on whether or not the USA did anything for altruistic purposes, the question posed is rather can something the USA did (for purely political reasons) be exploited strategically by the left. Not that I necessarily agree with the OP's post, but the argument that people like Assad or Ghaddafi are better off overthrown, regardless of who does the overthrowing, does not rest on the USA doing things because they're "good guys".

Regardless of who does the overthrowing? That's absurd. Suppose it turned out that the rebels were all in the pay of Israel, and planned to turn the country over to the Israelis upon victory. That's not the case, but it shows up the absurdity of what you are arguing.

Who are the ones doing the overthrowing is the key to the whole situation. The idea that Syria could have no regime possibly worse than Assad's shows a remarkable lack of imagination.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Departure from the logic of the Arab Spring as it manifested itself in Egypt? Last time I checked U.S. imperialism's yes-men were still in charge after the revolution. There's almost no democracy there at all. To be a union activist in Libya is far, far easier than in Egypt.

The revolution in Syria is not foreign controlled. The U.S. just denied them heavy weapons and logistical support, which is unlikely to earn them any friends among revolutionary Syrians or the Free Syrian Army.

You dismiss my evidence without bringing any of your own. Not a single article or link to prove a point. Sad really.

Union activists? In Libya? Got any evidence of such existing? There certainly was never any union activity during the so called "Libyan Revolution." I suppose maybe there's a little now, but I doubt there's any worth noticing.

It would be hard for there to be any, given that the great bulk of the Libyan working class were foreigners, either Arab or African.

Qaddafi ran the Arab foreigners out, and the rebels ran out, murdered and pogromized the Africans. On both sides, but especially the rebel side, the Libyan civil war was a war against the working class. When it turned into an imperialist war against Libya, with NATO bombing Tripoli, that didn't exactly help any.

And, given the tremendous blow the war inflicted on the Libyan working class, the economy is floundering and the country is in chaos.

-M.H.-

[Os Cangaceiros]

Regardless of who does the overthrowing? That's absurd. Suppose it turned out that the rebels were all in the pay of Israel, and planned to turn the country over to the Israelis upon victory. That's not the case, but it shows up the absurdity of what you are arguing.

Who are the ones doing the overthrowing is the key to the whole situation. The idea that Syria could have no regime possibly worse than Assad's shows a remarkable lack of imagination.

-M.H.-

Of what I'm arguing? I was trying to explain what I thought the OP was getting at, I'm not arguing anything.

[Clifford C Clavin]

You don't need to support the Syrian regime to oppose the imperialist adventurism of the country you live in.

[Lynx]

If support for Assad will do for him what it did for Gaddafi, then by all means, support him.

[khad]

Oh look, Binh, another political chameleon. Didn't this guy use to be an Ortho-trot? Watch him go full neoliberal by this time next year.

[Clifford C Clavin]

He's been an anarchist, ISO, Camejo social democrat, he's opposed the NATO intervention against Libya, now he's supporting NATO in Syria. He's like a RevLeft poster who changed his "tendency" every week. Except he has a wider audience.

No problem though. In real life, he get's about the same amount of attention as a pile of dog shit on the sidewalk (with politics to match)!

[Binh]

He's been an anarchist, ISO, Camejo social democrat, he's opposed the NATO intervention against Libya, now he's supporting NATO in Syria. He's like a RevLeft poster who changed his "tendency" every week.

How many stupid lies can you pack into one sentence? Support NATO? Where? Quote, please.

[A Marxist Historian]

How many stupid lies can you pack into one sentence? Support NATO? Where? Quote, please.

Eh? Actually there was a mistake in the posting, he said you opposed imperialist intervention into Libya, if so you sure didn't show much sign of it in your previous postings on Revleft about Libya.

As for your supporting imperialist intervention into Syria, which I suppose you're calling a "stupid lie," that's hilarious.

The title of this thread is "Libya and Syria: when anti-imperialism goes wrong." So, according to whoever posted it in the first place, unless he was drunk at the time, Libya and Syria are where pro-imperialism goes right.

And who was said poster?

You were.

-M.H.-

[Binh]

Libya and Syria are where pro-imperialism goes right.


You words, not mine. Try again.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Eh? Actually there was a mistake in the posting, he said you opposed imperialist intervention into Libya, if so you sure didn't show much sign of it in your previous postings on Revleft about Libya.

As for your supporting imperialist intervention into Syria, which I suppose you're calling a "stupid lie," that's hilarious.

The title of this thread is "Libya and Syria: when anti-imperialism goes wrong." So, according to whoever posted it in the first place, unless he was drunk at the time, Libya and Syria are where pro-imperialism goes right.

And who was said poster?

You were.

-M.H.-

One could oppose fascism without endorsing American or British Imperialism.

[A Marxist Historian]

One could oppose fascism without endorsing American or British Imperialism.

So WWII was where "anti-fascism went wrong?" Ick.

The Brits and Americans weren't really anti-fascist, they were anti-German and anti-Japanese, and tried very hard to bring Mussolini, the original fascist, into the "Allies." Not just Churchill but Roosevelt too sent diplomats to Mussolini in 1940 to try and get him on their side. Didn't work.

The Soviet Union, OTOH, waged an anti-fascist war, despite Stalin's treacherous pact with Hitler. So that was a time when anti-fascism, as always, went right.

-M.H.-

[Joe Hill]

Communists and other democratic forces must work to extinguish the counter-revolutionary revolt in Syria and hold its leaders and participants accountable, as the Syrian Communist Party has been doing. At the same time, working with Syria's National Progressive Front, they must work to advance the demands of the Syrian toilers.

Those behind the bloodshed in Syria i.e. the U.S.-led NATO countries and the despotic Persian Gulf regions represent monopoly capital and religious reaction, which seek to impose on Syria the catastrophic situation that Libya has been enduring for the past year. But the counter-revolutionaries do not have any meaningful popular support, which is why they depend on the imperialists to fund and arm them in their bloodthirsty activities. The Syrian Arab Republic today is in a situation comparable to that of the Spanish Republic of the 1930s or Nicaragua during the 1980s.

[Invader Zim]

So WWII was where "anti-fascism went wrong?" Ick.

The Brits and Americans weren't really anti-fascist, they were anti-German and anti-Japanese, and tried very hard to bring Mussolini, the original fascist, into the "Allies." Not just Churchill but Roosevelt too sent diplomats to Mussolini in 1940 to try and get him on their side. Didn't work.

The Soviet Union, OTOH, waged an anti-fascist war, despite Stalin's treacherous pact with Hitler. So that was a time when anti-fascism, as always, went right.

-M.H.-

Correction, WW2 was not anti-German or anti-Japanese, it was to protect the interests of Britain, France and America against a dangerous aggressor and could it have been avoided it, as they attempted for a good three/four years) would have been. And the Soviet Union did not fight Nazi Germany to destroy fascism, it also fought the war to protect its own interests (primarily survival), it too would not have fought had it not been invaded. As you, yourself, note, the Soviet Union was happy to go to bed with Nazi Germany provided there was something to gain from it.

And we are, of course, not talking about the high political basis for war, but rather the position of people on the ground - and they fought WW2 for a wide variety of reasons too numerous to elaborate on here.

[Ismail]

Soviet interests happened to coincide quite well with opposing fascism, and in fact the issue of destroying the remnants of fascism in Germany and whatnot became rather notable in the first years after the war ended in regards to tensions between the Allies.

The Soviets were certainly far more interested in ending fascism than the US or British. Nor did the USSR "go to bed with Nazi Germany" as a result of the non-aggression treaty but in fact limited the Nazis in their efforts to conquer all Poland, to turn the Baltics into Nazi protectorates, etc. Not to mention the Spanish Civil War beforehand.

[A Marxist Historian]

Correction, WW2 was not anti-German or anti-Japanese, it was to protect the interests of Britain, France and America against a dangerous aggressor and could it have been avoided it, as they attempted for a good three/four years) would have been. And the Soviet Union did not fight Nazi Germany to destroy fascism, it also fought the war to protect its own interests (primarily survival), it too would not have fought had it not been invaded. As you, yourself, note, the Soviet Union was happy to go to bed with Nazi Germany provided there was something to gain from it.

And we are, of course, not talking about the high political basis for war, but rather the position of people on the ground - and they fought WW2 for a wide variety of reasons too numerous to elaborate on here.

The whole biz of who is the "aggressor" is IMHO irrelevant in just about any war. Wars are fought for material reasons over material conflicts. English and US imperialism on the one hand and German and Japanese imperialism on the other had clashing imperial interests, end of story. England and the USA have been plenty damn aggressive down through history when convenient. Especially the USA nowadays.

Did Stalin want to destroy fascism? Well, yes, actually he did, but he primarily wanted to defend the Soviet Union against fascism. Either way, the Soviet war was an anti-fascist war, certainly from the standpoint of the Soviet people and even for Stalin for that matter.

Thje Stalin-Hitler pact was a disgraceful and self-defeating attempt to--avoid fascism overrunning the USSR, resulting inevitably in both the destruction of his regime and the extermination of millions of people. The effect of course was exactly the reverse.

-M.H.-

[Invader Zim]

The whole biz of who is the "aggressor" is IMHO irrelevant in just about any war. Wars are fought for material reasons over material conflicts.

Absolutely, and Britain, France, the US and the USSR went to war against Germany to defend their own interests - and in the case of the USSR, Britain and France, the direct threat posed by a resurgent, expansionist and aggressive fascist Germany to their own security.


England and the USA have been plenty damn aggressive down through history when convenient. Especially the USA nowadays.

And the precise same can be said of the Soviet Union, and it is only tangentially relevant to the origins of WW2.


Did Stalin want to destroy fascism? Well, yes, actually he did,

Sure, in that he and his colleagues correctly perceived fascist aggression as a threat to the security and interests of the USSR - which is the precise same reason the others went to war with Germany. It wasn't an anti-German ideological motivation, but one of self-preservation and self interest. It was pro-USSR, pro-France, pro-Britain and pro-US policy - not what you suggested.


Either way, the Soviet war was an anti-fascist war, certainly from the standpoint of the Soviet people and even for Stalin for that matter.

It was anti-fascist in that the invading power was fascist. But it remains the case that the USSR went to war ultimately because it was invaded by a hostile power bent on destroying it. As stated it was about self preservation and the protection of the USSR's interests. Also as noted the exact same can be said of Britain, whose military and intelligence chiefs had identified Nazi Germany as Britain's 'ultimate enemy' (their words) as early as 1934 (as I recall) and concluded that a resurgent Germany posed a direct threat of invasion to Britain. That is why they went to war, because they feared the threat the Nazis posed to Britain and her Empire. So like I said, pro-British not anti-German.


Not to mention the Spanish Civil War beforehand.

The conduct of the USSR, which provided perfunctory support at its most generous, in Spain is hardly proof of your point. And I'll let MH talk to you about the ideological underpinnings of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Soviet Union is his specialism, wartime Britain is mine.

[Guayaco]

People revolt against what condemns them to misery. They do not have a deep theoretical basis for revolting, they just have a sense that deep injustice exists. Since the masses only have the time and/or desire to superficially understand a political ideology, the subjective factor is the political leadership. These political leaderships, whose political ideologies represent opposing interests, compete to win over the disenchanted masses. Since Syrian Marxists have failed at this task, the leadership of the masses, by default, remains with alien class interests. For this reason Syrian divisions are not class-based, despite the fact that the neoliberal policies implemented by the Syrian State greatly marginalized the rural sunni population.

The Syrian Sunni bourgeoisie is currently split, a sector backs the regime, another sector backs the insurgency. However, the majority of the Syrian Sunni bourgeoisie is pragmatic and is likely only attempting to back who they believe to be the winning side. Developments on the ground will likely determine their loyalty. Petit bourgeois sunni arabs and urban, higher paid, working class sunni arabs tend to want "stability" (i.e. no war, business as usual). Rural sunni arabs and poorer suburban working class sunni arabs tend to support the insurgency.

The Syrian Regime, which has bonapartist characteristics, is backed by the Alawite, Christian, and Druze bourgeoisie. These sectors of the bourgeoisie have successfully mobilized their working class and petit bourgeois coreligionists behind the State.

While it is true that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and The US are backing certain factions of the insurgency, it is important to keep their influence in perspective. First, Syria is important from a geopolitical standpoint, so outside interference is inevitable. Second, the insurgency does not have a unified command structure, and the FSA headquarters in Turkey is a public relations front that does not have command and control of the overwhelming majority of operations. Rebel actions are carried out on a small unit basis by local actors. Command is strictly exercised at the local level. Yes, foreign powers are sponsoring certain insurgent units, but local insurgents have their own interests and armed men cannot be so easily controlled, such as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

Most leftist organizations have picked out one or two factors out of the complexity of these circumstances and given them unlimited importance, basing their entire positioning on their favorite convenient "talismanic" factor. When any fact on the ground creates cognitive dissonance for their thesis, the response is to either ignore it or to conjure up some convoluted conspiracy theory. (I´ve personally been called a CIA agent and an "imperialist cockroach" on a (foreign language) leftist forum for not joining the chorus calling for the Syrian State to crush the uprising).

With respect to the underlying debate, I strongly recommend Trotsky´s "Learn To Think. A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

[Joe Hill]

Guayaco's pseudo-intellectual analysis about Syria, influenced by ultra-leftist dogma, represents a problematic tendency among the Left today. Although the murderers and rapists participating in the counter-revolutionary movement in Syria are in no way seeking to realize the goals held by us leftists, the likes of Guayaco still insist on supporting these scoundrels even though their domination of Syria would have catastrophic socioeconomic consequences for the Syrian people and open the country up for imperialist penetration. The correct approach is to resist imperialism and uphold the popular-democratic achievements made by Syria since the revolution that took place in March 1963.

The Communist Party of Syria (Bakdash) has taken an absolutely correct approach towards the situation in Syria. What they have taught is that the imperialist and counter-revolutionary enemies of Syria must be defeated, while at the same time meeting the legitimate, democratic aspirations of the Syrian people, which are to preserve the position of the public sector in the economy and improve the living standards of the masses.

Syria in March 1963 experienced a popular-democratic revolution that was a part of the general national-liberation movement in the wider Arab world. The country forever shook off imperialism and established a positive relationship with the socialist countries. It took concrete steps against the bourgeoisie and landlords: banks and insurance companies were nationalized, the state sector came to exercise a dominant position in the economy, and agrarian reforms were implemented that gave land to the peasants. Syria has also been steadfast in its support of anti-imperialist and democratic forces in the region, such as in Lebanon and Palestine.

People revolt against what condemns them to misery.
This is not a revolt motivated by socioeconomic conditions, but is rather an imperialist-directed counter-revolution like in Spain or Nicaragua. The Syrian counter-revolution seeks a restoration of capitalism in Syria and wipe out the progressive advances achieved under the governance of the National Progressive Front.

You also do not cite any concrete facts to support your reckless thesis that this Syria's counter-revolutionary movement is broad-based and motivated by socioeconomic concerns. In fact, the Syrian workers represented by the trade unions have come out in support of the government the struggle against the counter-revolution.

The Syrian Regime, which has bonapartist characteristics, is backed by the Alawite, Christian, and Druze bourgeoisie.
The Baath Party, Communists, and others within the National Progressive Front are absolutely non-sectarian and represent the common interests of all ethnic groups and sects in the country. What you are doing with this divisive language that seeks to pit Alawites against Sunnis is inciting sectarian strife.

While it is true that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and The US are backing certain factions of the insurgency, it is important to keep their influence in perspective. First, Syria is important from a geopolitical standpoint, so outside interference is inevitable.
All of those regimes named above are interfering in Syria's internal affairs by funding and arming counter-revolutionary terrorists who have the blood of many thousands of Syrian workers and soldiers on their hands so that capitalism and neo-colonialism can be brought back to the country. You do not condemn this, but instead stop short of justifying their interference as "inevitable". But Communists demand self-determination for peoples and respect for their national sovereignty, which cannot be achieved by Syria while imperialists recruit and pay mercenaries and terrorists to wreak havoc in the country.

Rural sunni arabs and poorer suburban working class sunni arabs tend to support the insurgency.
The terrorists have the blood of workers on their hands, and are therefore the enemies of all leftists. This hostility to the working-class is to be expected of the terrorists because it is consistent with their goals of restoring capitalism and neo-colonial domination of Syria.

[A Marxist Historian]

Absolutely, and Britain, France, the US and the USSR went to war against Germany to defend their own interests - and in the case of the USSR, Britain and France, the direct threat posed by a resurgent, expansionist and aggressive fascist Germany to their own security.

And the precise same can be said of the Soviet Union, and it is only tangentially relevant to the origins of WW2.

Sure, in that he and his colleagues correctly perceived fascist aggression as a threat to the security and interests of the USSR - which is the precise same reason the others went to war with Germany. It wasn't an anti-German ideological motivation, but one of self-preservation and self interest. It was pro-USSR, pro-France, pro-Britain and pro-US policy - not what you suggested.

It was anti-fascist in that the invading power was fascist. But it remains the case that the USSR went to war ultimately because it was invaded by a hostile power bent on destroying it. As stated it was about self preservation and the protection of the USSR's interests. Also as noted the exact same can be said of Britain, whose military and intelligence chiefs had identified Nazi Germany as Britain's 'ultimate enemy' (their words) as early as 1934 (as I recall) and concluded that a resurgent Germany posed a direct threat of invasion to Britain. That is why they went to war, because they feared the threat the Nazis posed to Britain and her Empire. So like I said, pro-British not anti-German.

The basic trouble with all of the above, much of which is formally correct, is that it misses the point.

The Soviet Union was a bureaucratically deformed workers state, a product of the only successful workers revolution in history, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Therefore the distinctions you make are false, as the inherent nature of the USSR was anti-fascist. So the distinction between the interests of the USSR and anti-fascism is a distinction without a difference. Stalin, in signing a pact with Hitler, was acting against the best interests of the USSR--as became very clear shortly thereafter.

Barbarossa was inevitable, as destroying the "Judeo-Bolshevik menace to civilization" was what Nazism was all about. The Holocaust was essentially the other side of the coin of the invasion of the Soviet Union--pretty much the same thing from the Nazi POV.

By contrast, France, the USA and England were all imperialist capitalist states, none of which had any objective interest in opposing fascism as such, but did have a strong objective interest in expanding their empires, thereby inevitably leading to clashes between them and their German and Japanese rivals, who were feeling their oats as they had been hurt less by the Great Depression. So the distinction between fascist Germany and "anti-fascist" England etc. was, in the last analysis, subsidiary and secondary in wartime, as Neville Chamberlain understood so well.

Churchill, an extreme reactionary who admired Mussolini, went "anti-fascist" because he thought the best policy for English imperialism was allying with the USA instead of Germany. Unlike Chamberlain. I understand some British historians, like Charmley, disagree, and from their POV I suppose they have arguments on their side, given the shriveled state of the British empire these days.

-M.H.-




The conduct of the USSR, which provided perfunctory support at its most generous, in Spain is hardly proof of your point. And I'll let MH talk to you about the ideological underpinnings of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Soviet Union is his specialism, wartime Britain is mine.

[A Marxist Historian]

People revolt against what condemns them to misery. They do not have a deep theoretical basis for revolting, they just have a sense that deep injustice exists. Since the masses only have the time and/or desire to superficially understand a political ideology, the subjective factor is the political leadership. These political leaderships, whose political ideologies represent opposing interests, compete to win over the disenchanted masses. Since Syrian Marxists have failed at this task, the leadership of the masses, by default, remains with alien class interests. For this reason Syrian divisions are not class-based, despite the fact that the neoliberal policies implemented by the Syrian State greatly marginalized the rural sunni population.

The Syrian Sunni bourgeoisie is currently split, a sector backs the regime, another sector backs the insurgency. However, the majority of the Syrian Sunni bourgeoisie is pragmatic and is likely only attempting to back who they believe to be the winning side. Developments on the ground will likely determine their loyalty. Petit bourgeois sunni arabs and urban, higher paid, working class sunni arabs tend to want "stability" (i.e. no war, business as usual). Rural sunni arabs and poorer suburban working class sunni arabs tend to support the insurgency.

The Syrian Regime, which has bonapartist characteristics, is backed by the Alawite, Christian, and Druze bourgeoisie. These sectors of the bourgeoisie have successfully mobilized their working class and petit bourgeois coreligionists behind the State.

While it is true that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and The US are backing certain factions of the insurgency, it is important to keep their influence in perspective. First, Syria is important from a geopolitical standpoint, so outside interference is inevitable. Second, the insurgency does not have a unified command structure, and the FSA headquarters in Turkey is a public relations front that does not have command and control of the overwhelming majority of operations. Rebel actions are carried out on a small unit basis by local actors. Command is strictly exercised at the local level. Yes, foreign powers are sponsoring certain insurgent units, but local insurgents have their own interests and armed men cannot be so easily controlled, such as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

Most leftist organizations have picked out one or two factors out of the complexity of these circumstances and given them unlimited importance, basing their entire positioning on their favorite convenient "talismanic" factor. When any fact on the ground creates cognitive dissonance for their thesis, the response is to either ignore it or to conjure up some convoluted conspiracy theory. (I´ve personally been called a CIA agent and an "imperialist cockroach" on a (foreign language) leftist forum for not joining the chorus calling for the Syrian State to crush the uprising).

With respect to the underlying debate, I strongly recommend Trotsky´s "Learn To Think. A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

This is all quite valid in the abstract, but suffers from a big problem--an unthinking assumption that all mass movements, if they are movements of the masses, ought to be supported.

There are reactionary mass movements which should be opposed. Fascism is of course the obvious example, but not the only one.

Is the Syrian rebel movement a mass movement? Yes. Is it a movement of the Syrian working class and/or peasantry fighting for its social liberation? No.

It is more and more falling under the leadership of foreign imperialism. That is not decisive yet, as the imperialists have not yet decided to do a full-blast intervention. So at this point revolutionaries should not support either side, both of which are equally reactionary. But the second the bombs start dropping and the cruise missiles start flying, that would change.

The Assad regime currently has much more blood on its hands than the rebels, but it is increasingly becoming clear that this is true only because it is so much better armed. The more arms the rebels get, the more atrocities they commit against the sector of the civilian population still supporting the regime. Which is probably a minority by now, but a very significant minority, probably at least two-fifths.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

The conduct of the USSR, which provided perfunctory support at its most generous, in Spain is hardly proof of your point."Perfunctory"? Really? Sending Soviet tanks and generals is perfunctory? Being the only major country to defend the Spanish Republic on the world stage is perfunctory? Being the only country to actually send aid to the Republic (sans a shipment of arms from Mexico) is perfunctory? Organizing anti-fascists worldwide to publicize the Spanish struggle and even send ordinary people to fight fascism is perfunctory as well?

"To Kaganovich, Chubar. CC of the VKP(b), Moscow.

I consider it necessary to sell oil to the Spaniards immediately on the most favorable terms for them, at a discounted price, if need be. If the Spaniards need grain and foodstuffs in general, we should sell all that to them on favorable terms...

Stalin.
No. 4
18 August 1936"
(R.W. Davies (Ed.). The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence, 1931-1936. New York: Yale University Press. 2003. p. 327.)

I don't know what "strong" support would be. The USSR declaring war on Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy for sending troops to Spain? Stalin personally going on the territory of the Republic and leading the Soviet forces into battle? Soviet weaponry certainly was effective against its fascist counterparts well into the war.

AMH is free to talk about how the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is evil and all that, it's not going to be an enlightening experience since any conservative would happily endorse his views on the issue and will gladly echo the claim that Stalin "allied" with Hitler.

[Invader Zim]

Sending Soviet tanks and generals is perfunctory? Being the only major country to defend the Spanish Republic on the world stage is perfunctory? Being the only country to actually send aid to the Republic (sans a shipment of arms from Mexico) is perfunctory? Organizing anti-fascists worldwide to publicize the Spanish struggle and even send ordinary people to fight fascism is perfunctory as well?

As even a brief glance at the relevant literature would show you, what the Soviet Union sent to Spain was more often than not antiquated junk and vastly inferior to the aid supplied to the Nationalists.


I consider it necessary to sell oil to the Spaniards immediately on the most favorable terms for them, at a discounted price, if need be. If the Spaniards need grain and foodstuffs in general, we should sell all that to them on favorable terms...

Now that's just funny. They made the Spanish pay an inordinate price for the junk they sent. For instance, they charged the Republic $50 million for just two aircraft, and rigged the exchange rates so that the Republic payed well over the odds for ancient Maxim Guns and ammunition.

Indeed it is that massive fleecing that Radosh, Habeck and Sevostianov attribute to the ultimate defeat of the Republic. I suppose that will happen when your 'ally' steals $500 million of your funds.

[marxleninstalinmao]

Not only are Assad and Gadaffi (the latter being a 'were', not an 'are') not dictators- after all, we are currently in the dictatorship of the bourgeoise- Gadaffi was largely progressive and supportable on his own merits. I'm sure I'll get a lot of abuse for this correct statement from Trots and their scum****, anti-communist, treacherous allies, but I am prepared to be a martyr for the truth.

[Sasha]

Not only are Assad and Gadaffi (the latter being a 'were', not an 'are') not dictators- after all, we are currently in the dictatorship of the bourgeoise- Gadaffi was largely progressive and supportable on his own merits. I'm sure I'll get a lot of abuse for this correct statement from Trots and their scum****, anti-communist, treacherous allies, but I am prepared to be a martyr for the truth.

infraction for sexist language, also please don't necro old threads.

[Juche]

I saw this picture on facebook. Thought it was interesting.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/521931_223977261044526_798810684_n.jpg

I noticed it seems that most on the left are against Western imperialism. Although some may not agree.

I don't support Assad or Gaddafi because I view them as "good" but just because they stand up to the west and the government. Same for Iran because they're probably the next on the chopping block. I actually REALLY dislike the Iranian Islamic government but support themselves standing up to the West.
I support the PKK and PYD/Kurdish movement mostly through this because they're the best thing out there. They've been clashing more frequently with the islamic and fsa factions. Speaking of which I don't even think the opposition likes each other.

There are various factions in the opposition Al-Qeada and other islamic terrorists organizations, the original FSA. It's more of a religion/tribal faction battle.

[ckaihatsu]

I noticed it seems that most on the left are against Western imperialism. Although some may not agree.


Many on the left -- the 'so-called left', to be more precise, find themselves in the Western imperialist camp from simply being nationalist at their core. Reformist or reactionary, they will not admit to class interests being of more importance than that of nation-state. So, focusing on country to the exclusion of all other political priorities, these typical types will adopt the default, as so many others before them have slipped into inheriting the religion or superstitions of their given families.





I don't support Assad or Gaddafi because I view them as "good" but just because they stand up to the west and the government. Same for Iran because they're probably the next on the chopping block. I actually REALLY dislike the Iranian Islamic government but support themselves standing up to the West.


This is the best argument I've heard for this so far, and I'm sure I haven't heard it before -- that it's just like Iran's case. What people say to Iran (China, etc.) will *really* reveal their political stripes, as around the principle of political sovereignty.





I support the PKK and PYD/Kurdish movement mostly through this because they're the best thing out there. They've been clashing more frequently with the islamic and fsa factions. Speaking of which I don't even think the opposition likes each other.


My understanding is that this is a bourgeois-separatist move, and so is 'lateral' by our standards (like South Sudan).

I'd be interested to hear what any "leftist" FSA supporter is saying now, now that it's broken down and in disarray. This *particular* quagmire kicked in nicely right away, bogging down the U.S. in a diplomatic political pit that resembles quicksand made of rubber cement.

They got too close to their puppy and this time around they're having to deal with the mess -- bigger puppy this time around.





There are various factions in the opposition Al-Qeada and other islamic terrorists organizations, the original FSA. It's more of a religion/tribal faction battle.


We already know that these kinds of areas are *historically* underdeveloped, and will most likely remain so for the foreseeable future. For Westerners it's a stretch to imagine living in a bygone era, yet a major fraction of the world's population lives there, *today* -- with some blending, granted.

[Not Convinced]

To all here who support direct intervention, what next?

[ckaihatsu]

UNAC Statement on Syria: No War, No Sanctions, No Intervention!


Click HERE (http://www.iacenter.org/nafricamideast/syria-unac1225/) TO VIEW IN YOUR BROWSER PLEASE POST WIDELY


International Action Center - iacenter.org
About the IAC | Donate | IAC Books & Resources | Contact Us
Please post widely --

UNITED NATIONAL ANTIWAR COALITION (UNAC)

STATEMENT ON SYRIA

Hands off Syria and Iran! End the Drone Wars!

We Need Jobs, Education and Healthcare, Not Endless War!

The ominous signs of impending war with Syria escalate. NATO is massing troops and military equipment on Syria's borders, and preparing to install missiles aimed at Syria. U.S. warships are stationed off Syria’s coast. ‘Special operation’ units are readied. The U.S. government has been supplying arms and logistical support to a few selected Syrian paramilitary groups favored by the U.S. as “replacements” for Assad. The media bombards us with arguments that support foreign intervention, supposedly for “humanitarian reasons”. Like WMD’s in Iraq, alarms are sounded, with no credible evidence, that Assad may unleash chemical weapons, thus establishing a pretext for invasion.

These are the facts that impel us to oppose any military, economic, diplomatic, or covert intervention aimed at controlling the internal affairs of Syria or any other country:

· The Syrian people in their majority, regardless of their political positions re: the current government, have rejected calling for foreign intervention, such as occurred in Libya.

· Sanctions harm the people of Syria by causing food shortages, power outages, and blocking the distribution of goods.

· The U.S. is directly involved in arming and training a few selected Syrian militias favorable to the U.S., contributing to the escalation of violence, direct foreign military intervention, and total destabilization. The people who always suffer the most are the people not engaged in the armed struggle.

· We see the results of ‘humanitarian’ U.S. wars and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya today, where the people, especially women and children, are worse off than before, with millions dead, injured, and/or displaced, an infrastructure and economy in shambles, and where there is no peace. A country that has a river of Iraqi, Afghan, and Libyan blood on its hands has no right to tell other countries what to do.

· The U.S. government’s goals in Syria are to gain dominance in a part of the world that holds the vast majority of the known oil reserves and to gain strategic advantage as it seeks to isolate and contain competitors like Russia and China. The U.S. has no interest in democracy or the humanitarian well-being of a country’s peoples anywhere in the world, especially in areas where the U.S. has economic or strategic interests.

· The U.S. has a long history of thwarting the emerging economies and progressive initiatives of the third world while supporting repressive regimes.

While activists may hold different views of Syria’s internal political system, we must all agree that the U.S. government has no right to impose its will on other countries, especially those formerly colonized and exploited by the West. In all cases, we must support the right of nations to self- determination – that is to be able to decide on and resolve internal conflicts free from any foreign intervention.

The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) demands:

No U.S. or NATO intervention in the internal affairs of Syria!

No War! No Sanctions! No Intervention!

Self-determination for the Syrian people!


www.UNACpeace.org

12/24/12



About the IAC | Donate | IAC Books & Resources | Contact Us

International Action Center
c/o Solidarity Center
55 W 17th St Suite 5C
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
[email protected]
www.iacenter.org







------------
You are subscribed as [email protected]

Send a copy of this message to a friend with this link.

If you do not wish to receive this email, you can unsubscribe from it.

Additionally, you may wish to update your preferences.
powered by phplist v 2.10.18, © phpList ltd