The Anti-Imperialism of Fools and the Syrian Spring [Archive]

View Full Version : The Anti-Imperialism of Fools and the Syrian Spring

Binh

19th July 2012, 12:22

Fresh off of arguing that North Korea is a live issue (http://links.org.au/node/2726) for American socialist organizing in the context of Occupy (http://links.org.au/node/2735), Paul D’amato takes issue (http://socialistworker.org/2012/07/16/siding-with-the-empire) with my argument that the Western left puts itself at odds with revolutionary Syrians by opposing U.S. intervention full stop – no ifs, ands, or buts. Siding with revolutionary Syrians and Libyans regardless of their calls for foreign airstrikes since they do not have an air forces of their own to protect themselves hardly adds up to cheering the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” the United States military.

Full text: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=1263

freeeveryone!

28th July 2012, 05:22

Binh

31st July 2012, 04:17

^ You obviously didn't read anything I wrote. Try not to make a fool of yourself.

Leftsolidarity

31st July 2012, 04:51

I'm not going to talk about the fact that I do not view these "revolutionaries" in Syria as a progressive force. I'm going to pretend that I support them for a moment because, even then, I would oppose US intervention. As the main imperialist power in the world that time after time stages reactionary coups and "humanitarian interventions" in the interests of capital, why would that suddenly change when it comes to Syria? Why would their motives suddenly be pure and why would they not usurp the movement for their own purposes like they always do?

freeeveryone!

1st August 2012, 20:08

^ You obviously didn't read anything I wrote. Try not to make a fool of yourself.yes I did. some highlights...

my argument that the Western left puts itself at odds with revolutionary Syrians by opposing U.S. intervention full stopindicating we should not oppose intervention.

Why? Because NATO did not follow the Western left’s example by standing meekly on the sidelines, twiddling its thumbs, while the conflict between revolution and counter-revolution raged.indicating we should support intervention and using the same argument as all cruise missile leftists.

If only the anti-imperialist left in the West had been strong enough to stop NATO’s planes from bombing Ghadafi’s tanks as they headed towards Benghazi in March of 2011 to do what the Assad regime is doing now to Syrians, if only comrade D’amato had gotten his way, then the Libyan Spring would be in good shape, buried under a pile of bloody corpses no doubt, but with its anti-imperialist credentials safely intact, which, of course, is the important thing in all this.indicating that not only should we not oppose intervention, we should aim for it. also using the faulty logic that NATO intervention saves lives, which is not a lie any principled internationalist believes in.

He did not mention anything about Russian and Chinese imperialism, both of which are aiding Assad by intervening not only with words but with weapons shipments and diplomatic muscle at the United Nations Security Council.using the presence of other countries imperial efforts as justification for rooting for your own countries imperialism. a necessity for any social-chauvinist.

the rest of it is just cheerleading the ruthless bombing campaign.

Threetune

2nd August 2012, 21:55

What is really true in the real vicious class struggle?
Nothing but struggle! And more and more vicious struggle!

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

2nd August 2012, 22:09

Are you actually comparing the fsa with Lenin or his train ride with NATO airstrikes? You're an idiot.

Threetune

2nd August 2012, 22:35

As argued above, only the well strapped militant revolutionary Leninist theoretical understanding can guarantee victory over the cap crap.
Get ready
Read Lenin.
Read Write and Fight.
Revolutionary Workers Federation

Tukhachevsky

3rd August 2012, 20:33

Are you actually comparing the fsa with Lenin or his train ride with NATO airstrikes? You're an idiot.

It's common knowledge that germans stimulated the russian socialist revolution so as to destabilize the russian empire and later push the Brest-Litovsk treaty down their throats.
What I think he was trying to say is that this "anti imperialist" rhetoric is very out of of touch with reality; it manipulates people to feel emotionally or morally related to conflicts unrelated to their lifes or to socialism, to be the useful idiots of autocracies and dictatorships.

I don't think comparing fsa with bolsheviks is so wrong, both are pursuing what they think is best for their countries.
And don't forget that there were 165,000 japanese, british and american troops intervening (or just watching) in russian civil war.

Skyhilist

3rd August 2012, 20:50

Leftsolidarity

3rd August 2012, 21:49

It's common knowledge that germans stimulated the russian socialist revolution so as to destabilize the russian empire and later push the Brest-Litovsk treaty down their throats.
What I think he was trying to say is that this "anti imperialist" rhetoric is very out of of touch with reality; it manipulates people to feel emotionally or morally related to conflicts unrelated to their lifes or to socialism, to be the useful idiots of autocracies and dictatorships.

I don't think comparing fsa with bolsheviks is so wrong, both are pursuing what they think is best for their countries.
And don't forget that there were 165,000 japanese, british and american troops intervening (or just watching) in russian civil war.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The comparisons don't work. The imperialists powers fought against the October revolution and are aiding the so called "revolution" in Syria. They do this for the same reasons; the interests of capital.

To your comments about self-described anti-imperialists as "useful idiots" for dictators and autocracies, how so? Now look at people like you. Who are you useful for? You're useful for the capitalist imperialists because you cheerlead for occupations and interventions, you attack the victims of imperialism, and you do nothing to fight back against imperialism. How can you call yourself a socialist without fighting imperialism, which is capitalism on steroids? You support actions that are in the interests of capital! How on earth could you call yourself a socialist or pass judgement on other socialists?

Leftsolidarity

3rd August 2012, 21:52

There's really no need for an air strike or anything like that anyways. If most countries would simply stop buying products from Syria and any countries supporting them (their government, not their rebels), the whole regime would topple a lot quicker. Why people can't see that option and think that things like an air strike are going to help and aren't just for imperialist purposes are beyond me.

That's still imperialism and in the interests of capital! The only difference is that they are attacking economically instead of militarily. The imperialists already do that to Cuba and Iran. You are blatantly stating your support for imperialism.

Crux

4th August 2012, 12:29

That's still imperialism and in the interests of capital! The only difference is that they are attacking economically instead of militarily. The imperialists already do that to Cuba and Iran. You are blatantly stating your support for imperialism.
While an economic blockade against Syria would be hypocritical as far as the Main Powers are concerned as well as most likely be off-loaded by the regime on the civilian population (like Iraq in the 90's for example) I don't think it's a bad thing if Russia stopped providing Assad's regime with weapons. Or if the gulf states and the regime stopped steering this towards a sectarian civil war. I support the Syrian working class who has nothing to gain from either band of murderers. This is doubtlessly a complicated situation, but, like in Lebanon during the height of the civil war, the only position a revolutionary could and should take is for non-sectarian committees of self defence in the cities, villages and neighbourhoods. And to anyone who thinks this means I approve of a "no-fly zone", no U.S or U.N intervention will not be anything but a disaster, this is not just knee-jerk anti-imperialism but "humanitarian imperialism" simply is not, never has and never will be "humanitarian". I could provide a long list of examples if you need it.

hatzel

4th August 2012, 21:25

An interesting article on this issue is this one (http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/assad-apologists-ostrich-syndrome) by a Hicham Safieddine. I post it purely because I think it's pretty interesting, not necessarily because I agree with (every single word of) it or anything like that, so if you happen to disagree, don't go quoting from it and having a go at me as if I were the one who wrote it...

Rusty Shackleford

4th August 2012, 23:08

the rebels dont even have tanks, so we should send some NATO Armored divisions as well!

Per Levy

4th August 2012, 23:13

the rebels dont even have tanks, so we should send some NATO Armored divisions as well!

maybe turkey have send them some allready, they most certantly send them recources, so why not some old out of date tanks?

ckaihatsu

4th August 2012, 23:19

While an economic blockade against Syria would be hypocritical as far as the Main Powers are concerned as well as most likely be off-loaded by the regime on the civilian population (like Iraq in the 90's for example) I don't think it's a bad thing if Russia stopped providing Assad's regime with weapons.

I'd like to pointedly second Leftsolidarity, and note that this equivocating on your part isn't quite as bad as Binh's 'cruise-missile socialism', but it *is* still a shifting of position nonetheless -- maybe it should be called 'manpad socialism'....

Anyway, conditions seem less-than-appropriate at the moment for a decisive forestalling of bourgeois geopolitical civil war. Certainly it would be preferable, and I'd *rather* see it, if it's at all possible, but I'm just not that optimistic in its strength at the moment.

Or if the gulf states and the regime stopped steering this towards a sectarian civil war.

I support the Syrian working class who has nothing to gain from either band of murderers. This is doubtlessly a complicated situation, but, like in Lebanon during the height of the civil war, the only position a revolutionary could and should take is for non-sectarian committees of self defence in the cities, villages and neighbourhoods.

The messy part of all of this is that the working class has virtually no advantages in the places you've listed. A genuine working class strategy would have to be able to overshadow and face-down the rampant multi-national imperialism that's circling over Syria.

And to anyone who thinks this means I approve of a "no-fly zone", no U.S or U.N intervention will not be anything but a disaster, this is not just knee-jerk anti-imperialism but "humanitarian imperialism" simply is not, never has and never will be "humanitarian". I could provide a long list of examples if you need it.

Okay, but given current conditions, we don't have the luxury of dismissing a viable counteracting of NATO aggression. We saw what happened when Russia and China neglected Libya when it was threatened with NATO predation -- I'd rather see all-out warfare if it allows Syria to ultimately repel FSA/NATO invasions.

Crux

4th August 2012, 23:28

I don't think it's a luxury not to be further drowned in blood by the Assad regime. Unlike you and the OP I don't see either band of murderers as preferable or more capable to somehow protect the people they are currently murdering. Non-sectarian committees of self-defence, limited as they may be, is the only position I think is permissible to take. As for what can be done from here it is our responsibility to do what we can to stop either the U.S or China or Russia or Saudi Arabia etc etc to arm either sectarian gang, not to take sides.

ckaihatsu

5th August 2012, 00:28

Non-sectarian committees of self-defence, limited as they may be, is the only position I think is permissible to take.

Understandable, and preferable.

I don't think it's a luxury not to be further drowned in blood by the Assad regime. Unlike you and the OP I don't see either band of murderers as preferable or more capable to somehow protect the people they are currently murdering.

I'm not claiming that either side would be able to protect the people -- that's certainly not their interest.

Also, I resent the equivalency you're imparting to my position, in relation to Binh's.

As for what can be done from here it is our responsibility to do what we can to stop either the U.S or China or Russia or Saudi Arabia etc etc to arm either sectarian gang, not to take sides.

My concern here is that one can't just treat the two sides of the geopolitical civil war as being somehow equivalent. Again, given current conditions, if Russia and China can in any way mitigate and/or neutralize NATO aggression, then it should be tolerated.

agnixie

5th August 2012, 00:31

My concern here is that one can't just treat the two sides of the geopolitical civil war as being somehow equivalent. Again, given current conditions, if Russia and China can in any way mitigate and/or neutralize NATO aggression, then it should be tolerated.

This isn't the cold war, this is Belle Epoque power blocs.

The only "good" situation in these conditions, if there's any such thing, is keeping them in deadlock and ensuring solidarity crosses borders (no stupid sacred alliance take 2)

ckaihatsu

5th August 2012, 00:51

This isn't the cold war, this is Belle Epoque power blocs.

Just "mopping up" with neocolonialism -- got it, and well-taken, but I don't know if the power dynamics from one era to the next are so different anyway.

The only "good" situation in these conditions, if there's any such thing, is keeping them in deadlock and ensuring solidarity crosses borders

Yes, that's what I'm arguing.

(no stupid sacred alliance take 2)

I don't understand this.

agnixie

5th August 2012, 01:18

I don't understand this.

The sacred alliance (or union, I forget) was the nickname the french gave to the various national agreements between socialists that led to the bullshit where left parties in most of Europe joined in the patriotic bloodbath of ww1 and dropped plans to derail the war, allowing things like the acquittal of Jaures' murderer (his widow had to pay damages to boot) or the piecemeal destruction of most revolutionary movements that hit Europe in 1919 when the dust of the war settled - Hungary, Germany (both the Spartakists and revolutionary movements within the separate german states), France, Austria, etc.

ckaihatsu

5th August 2012, 01:23

The sacred alliance (or union, I forget) was the nickname the french gave to the various national agreements between socialists that led to the bullshit where left parties in most of Europe joined in the patriotic bloodbath of ww1 and dropped plans to derail the war, allowing things like the acquittal of Jaures' murderer (his widow had to pay damages to boot) or the piecemeal destruction of most revolutionary movements that hit Europe in 1919 when the dust of the war settled - Hungary, Germany (both the Spartakists and revolutionary movements within the separate german states), France, Austria, etc.

Okay -- yeah, thanks.

Crux

5th August 2012, 02:14

Understandable, and preferable.

I'm not claiming that either side would be able to protect the people -- that's certainly not their interest.

Also, I resent the equivalency you're imparting to my position, in relation to Binh's.

My concern here is that one can't just treat the two sides of the geopolitical civil war as being somehow equivalent. Again, given current conditions, if Russia and China can in any way mitigate and/or neutralize NATO aggression, then it should be tolerated.
As for your last point, sure fair enough, but neither of us holds any sway over the russian and chinese regimes. They will most likely just act out their interests and both are imperialist powers. the Syrian regime itself has acted as a local imperialist power, particularly in Palestine and Lebanon. As with other nominal enemies Israel and the U.S have also regarded the regime as a "stable" factor. Which is why war with Syria wasn't much on the cards before.

Well at this very present the difference is the regime has more Syrian blood on it's hands than the hired guns of the Gulf States. makes it understandable why the illusion of "humanitarian imperialism" should appear again. But it didn't work in Libya, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on and so on.

cynicles

5th August 2012, 05:48

I think at this point any genuine cohesive popular movement for positive change has been cannibalized by sectarians, the regime and apathy.

Threetune

6th August 2012, 22:05

Well at this very present the difference is the regime has more Syrian blood on it's hands than the hired guns of the Gulf States. makes it understandable why the illusion of "humanitarian imperialism" should appear again. But it didn't work in Libya, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on and so on.

You do of course have impeccable sources to support this forthright statement.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-a-comment/syria/1673-how-the-us-bankrolls-the-propaganda-for-military-intervention-and-regime-change-in-syria

"It's a tale about some of the most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business."

"But it's never too late to ask questions, to scrutinise sources. Asking questions doesn't make you a cheerleader for Assad – that's a false argument. It just makes you less susceptible to spin. The good news is, there's a sceptic born every minute."

freethinker

6th August 2012, 22:09

Leftsolidarity

7th August 2012, 00:26

The whole uprising in Syria has unfortunately been shaped by imperialism from all sides more worse with China and Russia but with all of the super powers :(
But thats reality

Quite Frankly I throw my whole support behind the rebels, as to make this simple:
When an government has nothing left in legitimacy except from going door to door in murder then they are done it is just a matter on how many will die.

I hope Syria will be better without than with Assad, but that's hoping Religious Extremism docent exist in the middle east

So it doesn't matter if it's the imperialists behind the opposition to the government of Syria or that it is in the complete interests of imperialism that this armed groups seize power, you're just supporting them to support them?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th August 2012, 00:41

So it doesn't matter if it's the imperialists behind the opposition to the government of Syria or that it is in the complete interests of imperialism that this armed groups seize power, you're just supporting them to support them?

Are you suggesting that the US/NATO Powers are the only imperialists on the planet? The regime staying in power is also in the interests of imperialism, imperialism of the Russian and Chinese variety.

Leftsolidarity

7th August 2012, 01:05

Are you suggesting that the US/NATO Powers are the only imperialists on the planet? The regime staying in power is also in the interests of imperialism, imperialism of the Russian and Chinese variety.

That's bullshit. First off, I do not believe that "Chinese imperialism" is actually a thing and even if it was, it is no where on the level of NATO's imperialism.

I mean holy fuck, do you not see what JUST happened to Libya???

TheGodlessUtopian

7th August 2012, 01:11

Remember to keep your arguments calm and logical comrades, so far we have done decently in regards to avoiding flaming so lets keep it that way. :)

agnixie

7th August 2012, 01:16

I do not believe that "Chinese imperialism" is actually a thing

Thankfully we're not discussing religion. Faith is irrelevant.

I mean holy fuck, do you not see what JUST happened to Libya???

A NATO aligned regime became an inconvenience to its NATO masters, its main backer in NATO threatened to quit over it before reluctantly supporting the rest of the alliance after rumors of italian mercenaries started to go around probably as a subtle way to threaten Berlusconi, and eventually quit less than a year after, while former regime men remained in power in the aftermath.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th August 2012, 02:13

That's bullshit. First off, I do not believe that "Chinese imperialism" is actually a thing and even if it was, it is no where on the level of NATO's imperialism.

I mean holy fuck, do you not see what JUST happened to Libya???

I'm an anti-imperialist, in the sense that I actually oppose imperialism. I don't side with certain imperialists over others based on what their level is :rolleyes:

Leftsolidarity

7th August 2012, 02:36

I'm an anti-imperialist, in the sense that I actually oppose imperialism. I don't side with certain imperialists over others based on what their level is :rolleyes:

Obviously not if you support the armed groups in Syria

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th August 2012, 03:05

Obviously not if you support the armed groups in Syria

I started off in this thread by calling the op an idiot for comparing the fsa to actual historical revolutionaries. Both sides are aligned with the imperialists, both sides are shit.

A Marxist Historian

7th August 2012, 20:57

maybe turkey have send them some allready, they most certantly send them recources, so why not some old out of date tanks?

According to the latest reports, the rebels in Aleppo have acquired tanks. They claim they took them from Assad's forces, which may or may not be true.

-M.H.-

TheGodlessUtopian

7th August 2012, 21:32

For the talk on Chinese Imperialism please see this thread (which I split)...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-imperialism-split-t174145/index.html?t=174145

Binh

12th August 2012, 20:52

So it doesn't matter if it's the imperialists behind the opposition to the government of Syria or that it is in the complete interests of imperialism that this armed groups seize power, you're just supporting them to support them?

U.S. imperialism once stood behind Ho Chi Minh. I guess anti-imperialists should've opposed him too? Viet Nam was better off without that kind of anti-imperialism.

Lynx

12th August 2012, 21:18

If and when NATO intervenes, Assad is toast. Support from a million armchair generals won't save him.

A Marxist Historian

13th August 2012, 03:03

If and when NATO intervenes, Assad is toast. Support from a million armchair generals won't save him.

Not so simple, Syria is not Libya, and it took NATO damn near a year to take down Qaddafi, a much weaker figure.

NATO is in a mess, more worried right now about Greece and Spain and Portugal and Italy than about anything outside Europe. And Obama just got out of Iraq and wants to get out of Afghanistan, last thing he wants is US troops bogged down in another Muslim country.

And if NATO intervenes, a lot of Syrians currently keeping their heads down and trying not to get killed would flock to Assad's side out of Syrian patriotism.

Now, Israel could intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels, militarily that is a highly practical and effective possibility, but polically that would be the best present anyone could possibly give Assad.

So that's why everything hinges around Turkey, which is Muslim, governed by a Muslim regime, and possesses a large army. But Assad cleverly and cynically has thrown the Kurds in the way, and that's a Pandora's box the Turks seriously don't want to open.

All in all, Assad is in serious trouble, but then so is Obama. I think both of them will still be in power next year, but on balance the chance of Romney toppling Obama is probably higher than the rebels toppling Assad.

Lynx, you pay too much attention to the bourgeois press, which has been claiming for months now that Assad would fall any second. All wishful thinking.

-M.H.-

Lynx

13th August 2012, 16:33

Not so simple, Syria is not Libya, and it took NATO damn near a year to take down Qaddafi, a much weaker figure.

NATO is in a mess, more worried right now about Greece and Spain and Portugal and Italy than about anything outside Europe. And Obama just got out of Iraq and wants to get out of Afghanistan, last thing he wants is US troops bogged down in another Muslim country.

And if NATO intervenes, a lot of Syrians currently keeping their heads down and trying not to get killed would flock to Assad's side out of Syrian patriotism.

Now, Israel could intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels, militarily that is a highly practical and effective possibility, but polically that would be the best present anyone could possibly give Assad.

So that's why everything hinges around Turkey, which is Muslim, governed by a Muslim regime, and possesses a large army. But Assad cleverly and cynically has thrown the Kurds in the way, and that's a Pandora's box the Turks seriously don't want to open.

All in all, Assad is in serious trouble, but then so is Obama. I think both of them will still be in power next year, but on balance the chance of Romney toppling Obama is probably higher than the rebels toppling Assad.

Lynx, you pay too much attention to the bourgeois press, which has been claiming for months now that Assad would fall any second. All wishful thinking.

-M.H.-
I don't need the mainstream press or a crystal ball to predict the military outcome of this conflict. If NATO intervenes, the Syrian army will be ground into the dust. The difference from Libya is that it will be a bigger bloodbath.

Whether an intervention gets the green light is a political question and there are a number of factors, including the ones you stated.

A Marxist Historian

14th August 2012, 01:25

I don't need the mainstream press or a crystal ball to predict the military outcome of this conflict. If NATO intervenes, the Syrian army will be ground into the dust. The difference from Libya is that it will be a bigger bloodbath.

Whether an intervention gets the green light is a political question and there are a number of factors, including the ones you stated.

NATO intervened for more than half a year in Libya, and it came damn near not working, at points it looked like the rebels were losing anyway. NATO bombers and cruise missiles would if anything be less effective in Syria than they were in Libya.

You don't seriously think NATO would be able to send ground troops do you? They couldn't even do that with Serbia. Never happen, the whole idea is so utterly politically impossible as to be irrelevant. NATO ground troops are almost as unusable against Syria as NATO nuclear weaponry.

The Turks or the Israelis could send in the tanks and do a real intervention. That's what's relevant. Syria is not a little oil semi-sheikdom like Libya, it's a real and important country, that can't be knocked over like ninepins. To take Assad out, NATO would have to take the kind of measures used vs. Saddam Hussein, and that just ain't happening.

-M.H.-

blake 3:17

14th August 2012, 01:50

A good response from Mike Ely to Pham Binh: http://kasamaproject.org/2012/07/20/an-answer-to-pham-binh-our-responsibility-to-oppose-new-u-s-crimes/

blake 3:17

14th August 2012, 01:52

To take Assad out, NATO would have to take the kind of measures used vs. Saddam Hussein, and that just ain't happening.

-M.H.-

Unless Obama goes freakin nuts to be re-elected and bombs the shit out of Iran and Syria...

A Marxist Historian

15th August 2012, 06:29

Unless Obama goes freakin nuts to be re-elected and bombs the shit out of Iran and Syria...

Bombing alone wouldn't do it. Syria is not Libya. There would have to be "boots on the ground" as they say. And that definitely is not happening, that would lose Obama the election.

The question is whether Obama will find it convenient to finally give Israel the green light to bomb Iran. I don't think so, he is too smart for that, though maybe after the election, when he'd be a lame duck so wouldn't have to worry about the political consequences, which would inevitably help the Republicans, as the biggest warhawks.

I don't think afterwards either, for one reason and one only, namely that it probably wouldn't work, just give Iran the excuse they need to actually build nuclear weapons. And the Iranians do have missiles already that could reach Israel and could carry nuclear weapons very nicely if they had them... They are behind the North Koreans on the nuclear front, but far ahead of them on the missile front.

-M.H.-

Lynx

15th August 2012, 13:45

A Marxist Historian

15th August 2012, 20:46

I don't expect ground troops to be sent in, an air campaign would be sufficient. What is it about the Syrian army that makes you believe they are equipped to resist an aerial bombardment?

Part of the timing might involve an attack on Iran, which appears inevitable. This has the potential to escalate, but I remain optimistic that it won't. Russia and China, despite their involvement, are bit players. The Middle East is ruled by US interests, and it is their sandbox.

All armies can resist aerial bombardments. No war has ever been won from the air in military history.

The fairly pathetic by comparison with Syria Libyan army took more than half a year to be degraded enough to get beat by the Libyan rebels, who had probably somewhat broader popular support than the Syrian rebels.

And the Syrian army is one of the major armies of the Middle East, the only one which in combat with Israel gave Israel any real trouble. And has excellent Russian-supplied anti-air defenses and fighter planes, so air strikes on the Syrian army wouldn't necessarily be a cakewalk either.

It could be done certainly, but it would have to be done the same way Saddam Hussein was taken out. Not just by some Libyan-style bombing missions and cruise missile strikes.

And I don't think an invasion of Iran is inevitable at all. More importantly, neither does the Obama regime, which wants to avoid that at any cost--other than Iran not kissing the American boot. A contradiction that could result in a US-Israeli assault on Iran if Obama screws up.

I suspect that what will finally happen is that Iran will agree to some modified versions of American demands on it, as allout war is against everybody's interests, including in the last analysis Israel's too.

For Obama, all this Middle East stuff is leftovers from the Bush administration that he wants to get out of. He's gotten out of Iraq, plans to get out of Afghanistan, avoided getting into Pakistan by knocking off Bin Laden, and managed to get rid of Qaddafi without using US troops or an occupation. Last thing he wants is another American occupation of another Islamic country.

The country he really wants to go after is the same one Bush Jr. wanted to go after till he got distracted by 9-11. It's China.

-M.H.-

Crux

15th August 2012, 23:44

Obviously not if you support the armed groups in Syria
Hate to break it to you but it's infinitely more complicated than that. For starters there's about 5 groups claiming the name Free Syrian Army. Secondly Assads regime is increasingly becoming more and more dependent on an alawite militia/mafia/secterian gang. And also, Qatar, Suadi Arabia and others are backing up the Brotherhood by sending in jihadists. Even in the currently most stable Kurdish areas, where element of self-rule has been established, there are different imperialist sides pulling strings, primarily turkey, PKK and the mafia regime in iraqi kurdistan. And this is just an extremely brief and superficial run-down. Your black-and-white U.S-centered "anti-imperialism" is simply not sufficient here.

Which is no less black and white and wrong than the supporters of the "FSA" and intervention by the way.

blake 3:17

16th August 2012, 00:32

Bombing alone wouldn't do it. Syria is not Libya. There would have to be "boots on the ground" as they say. And that definitely is not happening, that would lose Obama the election.

The question is whether Obama will find it convenient to finally give Israel the green light to bomb Iran. I don't think so, he is too smart for that, though maybe after the election, when he'd be a lame duck so wouldn't have to worry about the political consequences, which would inevitably help the Republicans, as the biggest warhawks.

I don't think afterwards either, for one reason and one only, namely that it probably wouldn't work, just give Iran the excuse they need to actually build nuclear weapons. And the Iranians do have missiles already that could reach Israel and could carry nuclear weapons very nicely if they had them... They are behind the North Koreans on the nuclear front, but far ahead of them on the missile front.

-M.H.-

Ground troops are no go, but some kind of crazy bombing campaign is a distinct possibility close to the US elections.

There's been a bunch of talk from Israel about independent military actions/adventures which would either help determine US policy on the Middle East.

I am less inclined to give the imperialists the degree of insight you're allowing them. People are disposable to them.

Lynx

16th August 2012, 00:46

All armies can resist aerial bombardments. No war has ever been won from the air in military history.
Recent air campaigns by the US and NATO have been successful in destroying heavy weaponry, such as tanks, artillery and command & control installations. Control of the skies is key to winning a war, or helping ground forces.

The fairly pathetic by comparison with Syria Libyan army took more than half a year to be degraded enough to get beat by the Libyan rebels, who had probably somewhat broader popular support than the Syrian rebels.

And the Syrian army is one of the major armies of the Middle East, the only one which in combat with Israel gave Israel any real trouble. And has excellent Russian-supplied anti-air defenses and fighter planes, so air strikes on the Syrian army wouldn't necessarily be a cakewalk either.
They are no match for the Israelis or NATO. When it comes to shooting unarmed civilians they are effective. When using heavy weaponry against lightly armed rebels, they are surprisingly inept. (Assuming the death toll of 19k is accurate)

It could be done certainly, but it would have to be done the same way Saddam Hussein was taken out. Not just by some Libyan-style bombing missions and cruise missile strikes.
Saddam could have been toppled by his own people following the first gulf war had the no-fly zones been enforced. Once the heavy weapons are gone, the conflict becomes a shooting war between a majority versus a minority. The invasion of Iraq didn't prevent bloodletting between Sunnis and Shias.

And I don't think an invasion of Iran is inevitable at all. More importantly, neither does the Obama regime, which wants to avoid that at any cost--other than Iran not kissing the American boot. A contradiction that could result in a US-Israeli assault on Iran if Obama screws up.
No ground invasion, merely air strikes and perhaps a small strike team to ensure that the intended targets are destroyed. By all accounts, that is the plan, no intention of toppling the Iranian regime.

I suspect that what will finally happen is that Iran will agree to some modified versions of American demands on it, as allout war is against everybody's interests, including in the last analysis Israel's too.
Maybe, but time is running out.

For Obama, all this Middle East stuff is leftovers from the Bush administration that he wants to get out of. He's gotten out of Iraq, plans to get out of Afghanistan, avoided getting into Pakistan by knocking off Bin Laden, and managed to get rid of Qaddafi without using US troops or an occupation. Last thing he wants is another American occupation of another Islamic country.
He (or a future president) will not avoid getting involved in Pakistan.

The country he really wants to go after is the same one Bush Jr. wanted to go after till he got distracted by 9-11. It's China.

-M.H.-
I suspect that is more bluff and bluster than actual operations. They will try to squeeze China strategically and both sides will act belligerently, but this is just a show. Nuclear powers cannot go to war with each other, or so conventional wisdom would have us believe.

A Marxist Historian

17th August 2012, 03:39

Ground troops are no go, but some kind of crazy bombing campaign is a distinct possibility close to the US elections.

There's been a bunch of talk from Israel about independent military actions/adventures which would either help determine US policy on the Middle East.

I am less inclined to give the imperialists the degree of insight you're allowing them. People are disposable to them.

Oh, certainly it's possible, an American politician who desperately wants to be reelected is liable to do anything desperate if he thinks he is losing. And people are definitely disposable from their POV.

But I do think Obama is more insightful than your average bourgeois politician. He really is a very bright guy, which is why he is so dangerous. Even bourgeois press coverage indicates that Obama is quite well aware of just how bad the consequences for American imperialism could be if he lets Israel off the leash.

And right now, in the election campaign, it is Romney not Obama doing stupid and desperate things to get elected. I hear from a friend of mine in DC that Democrats were practically dancing in the streets when Romney picked Paul Ryan for Veep.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

17th August 2012, 04:02

Recent air campaigns by the US and NATO have been successful in destroying heavy weaponry, such as tanks, artillery and command & control installations. Control of the skies is key to winning a war, or helping ground forces.

They are no match for the Israelis or NATO. When it comes to shooting unarmed civilians they are effective. When using heavy weaponry against lightly armed rebels, they are surprisingly inept. (Assuming the death toll of 19k is accurate)

Conventional armies are remarkably useless against urban guerilla warfare, as the US found out in Iraq.

Control of the skies is great to help winning a war. Once established, yes, a US or Israeli all out invasion of Syria would do in the Syrian army fairly quickly I should think. But no war can be won from the skies or ever has been. Any military historian will tell you that.

And even trying to help out the urban guerillas with "pinpoint air strikes" is more likely to backfire by giving Assad nationalist street cred and pushing the undecided to his side than make his army collapse.

Saddam could have been toppled by his own people following the first gulf war had the no-fly zones been enforced. Once the heavy weapons are gone, the conflict becomes a shooting war between a majority versus a minority. The invasion of Iraq didn't prevent bloodletting between Sunnis and Shias.

In the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War Saddam's army had been more or less destroyed, so maybe immediate no fly zones might have made a difference. Or, more to the point, the troops that had marched into southern Iraq could have just stayed there a month or two longer and oversaw the creation and arming of a Shi'ite regime.

But once Saddam managed to put his army back together, the no fly zones which Clinton imposed, which he enforced very thoroughly, had no real military impact on Iraq at all. They did help starve a million or so Iraquis to death however.

No ground invasion, merely air strikes and perhaps a small strike team to ensure that the intended targets are destroyed. By all accounts, that is the plan, no intention of toppling the Iranian regime.

Right. Which is why not just Obama but the former heads of Mossad and Shin Bet, the Israeli spy organizations, are against the idea. Unlike that idiot Netanyahu, they know better.

Maybe, but time is running out.

He (or a future president) will not avoid getting involved in Pakistan.

I suspect that is more bluff and bluster than actual operations. They will try to squeeze China strategically and both sides will act belligerently, but this is just a show. Nuclear powers cannot go to war with each other, or so conventional wisdom would have us believe.

Of course. What the US has wanted for a long time now, and the first US president directly pushing in this direction was Bush Jr. (you had an actual shooting incident between the US and Chinese navy shortly after he was elected) has been to restart the Cold War, this time against China.

Gradually squeezing China, militarily, politically, diplomatically but *not* economically, much too risky for the US economy, though Congress doesn't realize that, whether you're talking Democrats or Republicans.

In the hopes of persuading the Chinese bureaucrats to go the Gorbachev route, or perhaps to help mount a "democratic" revolution of the rapidly growing Chinese bourgeoisie vs. the regime. Or both at the same time.

Obama seems more interested in pressure on the bureaucrats from above rather than sponsoring some sort of "human rights" dissident movement, to the annoyance of liberal Democratic Cold Warriors, whose labor constituents are into protectionism vs. China too. Scoop Jackson/Hubert Humphrey all over again.

As for Pakistan, you could be right, but here the Pakistanis have been barring US military shipments for Afghanistan through their country for half a year now, with nary a peep about it from Obama. Now most military shipments come from Central Asia, only possible 'cuz Putin, whose influence in Central Asia has increased dramatically lately, has decided to allow that.

So it's pretty clear that Obama doesn't want to get involved in Pakistan, which certainly shows wisdom on his part from his POV.

-M.H.-

Lynx

17th August 2012, 15:52

Conventional armies are remarkably useless against urban guerilla warfare, as the US found out in Iraq.

Control of the skies is great to help winning a war. Once established, yes, a US or Israeli all out invasion of Syria would do in the Syrian army fairly quickly I should think. But no war can be won from the skies or ever has been. Any military historian will tell you that.

And even trying to help out the urban guerillas with "pinpoint air strikes" is more likely to backfire by giving Assad nationalist street cred and pushing the undecided to his side than make his army collapse.
Why do you believe Assad would be more successful in wrapping himself in the flag than Saddam was?

But once Saddam managed to put his army back together, the no fly zones which Clinton imposed, which he enforced very thoroughly, had no real military impact on Iraq at all. They did help starve a million or so Iraquis to death however.
I thought it was the sanctions that caused many deaths, as Iraq was unable to repair infrastructure damage from the first war.

A Marxist Historian

18th August 2012, 00:22

Why do you believe Assad would be more successful in wrapping himself in the flag than Saddam was?

I thought it was the sanctions that caused many deaths, as Iraq was unable to repair infrastructure damage from the first war.

As for Saddam, he was sufficiently successful in wrapping himself in the flag to stay in power for a decade after his humiliation in the Gulf War. And the resistance movement vs. the US, which gave the US so much trouble, was mostly Saddam supporters.

It wasn't until after Saddam was judicially murdered that the "resistance" decided that the smart thing to do was to go over to the American side, as they hated Iran and the Shi'ites more than they did the Americans. And that is how the US "won" the Iraq war, which it was totally unable to win militarily.

And yes, it was the sanctions with caused over a million deaths, not just by preventing infrastructure repair but by directly blocking food and medicine imports. The no fly zones played a big role in enforcing them.

-M.H.-

Lynx

18th August 2012, 01:01

As for Saddam, he was sufficiently successful in wrapping himself in the flag to stay in power for a decade after his humiliation in the Gulf War. And the resistance movement vs. the US, which gave the US so much trouble, was mostly Saddam supporters.
His regime was purposefully left in place following the first gulf war. With regards to the insurgency, the worst violence was between Sunni and Shia.

It wasn't until after Saddam was judicially murdered that the "resistance" decided that the smart thing to do was to go over to the American side, as they hated Iran and the Shi'ites more than they did the Americans. And that is how the US "won" the Iraq war, which it was totally unable to win militarily.
Then the 'lesson' would appear to be straightforward: execute Assad and his minions as soon as possible. The segment of the population that benefited from the baathist regime would suffer additional reprisals, but that is only inevitable.

A Marxist Historian

18th August 2012, 07:30

His regime was purposefully left in place following the first gulf war. With regards to the insurgency, the worst violence was between Sunni and Shia.

The worst violence? Yes.

But the best violence was against the US occupying forces. Which damn near kicked the US right out of Iraq. The occupation was on the verge of collapse by 2007 or so. What rescued the US forces was that the pro-Saddam forces, who were the bulk of the resistance to the occupation, went over to the US side after Saddam was judicially murdered.

After all, Saddam got his start as a US puppet

Then the 'lesson' would appear to be straightforward: execute Assad and his minions as soon as possible. The segment of the population that benefited from the baathist regime would suffer additional reprisals, but that is only inevitable.

Er, who do you have in mind to have him wacked? Been watching reruns of Godfather movies, or that disgusting Mafia show on HBO people loved so much during the Iraq war?

Obama is definitely into Mafia-style "targeted assassinations." He does enough of that crap already without lefties making suggestions... We could be next after all, he's already offed one bona fide US citizen.

Sooner or later, some US Prez will get the same medicine in return, and if you wanna blame anyone for that, blame Obama.

-M.H.-

cynicles

18th August 2012, 10:11

Lol at Obama wanting to get out of the middle east.

Lynx

18th August 2012, 16:32

Er, who do you have in mind to have him wacked? Been watching reruns of Godfather movies, or that disgusting Mafia show on HBO people loved so much during the Iraq war?
I'd give the contract to Vladimir Putin if he were willing...

Obama is definitely into Mafia-style "targeted assassinations." He does enough of that crap already without lefties making suggestions... We could be next after all, he's already offed one bona fide US citizen.

Sooner or later, some US Prez will get the same medicine in return, and if you wanna blame anyone for that, blame Obama.

-M.H.-
Ideally it should be the Syrians who rid themselves of their tyrant. If the assassins were Alawites, that would be even better.

A Marxist Historian

18th August 2012, 18:03

I'd give the contract to Vladimir Putin if he were willing...

Ideally it should be the Syrians who rid themselves of their tyrant. If the assassins were Alawites, that would be even better.

"Ideally"?

The rebels don't seem to have a leader, but when they finally come up with one, one thing you can be sure of is that he'll be somebody just as unpleasant as Assad, though not with as much blood on his hands quite yet, not having the levers of power at his command.

I suppose by your logic we should therefore urge Assad to kill every rebel he gets his hands on. Actually, advice he's following already.

Assassinations are basically a bad idea. Whoever you kill just gets replaced by somebody even worse, and you turn whoever you offed into a martyr.

But for the ruling classes, they can kinda work, since they ultimately rule by force not by moral authority, which is why the Americans and especially Obama like them so much.

And why that Mafia thing on HBO was so popular.

-M.H.-

Lynx

18th August 2012, 18:41

Assassinations are basically a bad idea. Whoever you kill just gets replaced by somebody even worse, and you turn whoever you offed into a martyr.
Assad won't be missed. His death during a civil war could come about in several ways. If he is seen to have died at the hands of his own people, then I believe that would be the best possible outcome, given the circumstances.

But for the ruling classes, they can kinda work, since they ultimately rule by force not by moral authority, which is why the Americans and especially Obama like them so much.
Assad could have taken early retirement, before too many people had died. Exile to somewhere warm and luxurious has always been an option for ruling class parasites.

And why that Mafia thing on HBO was so popular.

-M.H.-
I never watched it, although I heard the lead character had 'issues'.

A Marxist Historian

19th August 2012, 03:17

Assad won't be missed. His death during a civil war could come about in several ways. If he is seen to have died at the hands of his own people, then I believe that would be the best possible outcome, given the circumstances.
...

Er, you do realise that this posting of yours is basically meaningless, unless intended as helpful advice to Obama and the CIA?

But not very necessary advice. No doubt there are conversations like that going on in Langley as we speak, with various spooks saying the same thing quite likely in the exact same words, right down to commas and punctuation marks.

I especially like the "if he is seen" clause, has the proper cloak and dagger ring to it.

-M.H.-

Aristophenes McTwitch

19th August 2012, 11:47

I'm completely opposed to NATO intervention, but Assad is a bully who needs to be disposed of for terrorizing his people for far too long.

Lynx

19th August 2012, 16:39

Er, you do realise that this posting of yours is basically meaningless, unless intended as helpful advice to Obama and the CIA?
It's intended for my audience, namely you.

But not very necessary advice. No doubt there are conversations like that going on in Langley as we speak, with various spooks saying the same thing quite likely in the exact same words, right down to commas and punctuation marks.
Nevertheless, please be sure to pass on my helpful advice next time you're there.

I especially like the "if he is seen" clause, has the proper cloak and dagger ring to it.

-M.H.-
Well, perception is 9/10ths reality. If he were to die from choking on a pretzel, nobody would believe it.

A Marxist Historian

20th August 2012, 18:25

It's intended for my audience, namely you.

Nevertheless, please be sure to pass on my helpful advice next time you're there.

Well, perception is 9/10ths reality. If he were to die from choking on a pretzel, nobody would believe it.

True, so how do you plan to arrange the hit, in your freelance activity on behalf of the US ruling class?

Or do you just want me to pass on your helpful advice to Langley, like you said? Well, I really do understand how much more practical that would be, but sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to do that yourself. Definitely not my cuip of tea.

Anyway, why bother, I'm sure they're way ahead of you.

As for audiences, last I checked on the website, seems as if you and I are not the only folk who look at Revleft.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

20th August 2012, 18:29

I'm completely opposed to NATO intervention, but Assad is a bully who needs to be disposed of for terrorizing his people for far too long.

By whom? "Disposing of" people is something done by the CIA and the Mafia, and other similar organizations. Which did you have in mind?

-M.H.-

P.S. Your posting is a glaring example of that very old writing rule that the passive voice should almost always be avoided.

Grenzer

21st August 2012, 00:54

By whom? "Disposing of" people is something done by the CIA and the Mafia, and other similar organizations. Which did you have in mind?

Don't be an ass. It's pretty clear that he has the Syrian proletariat in mind.

As he has noted, he is opposed to NATO intervention; so unless he's a complete hypocrite, he means that the Assad regime should be overthrown in the course of proletarian revolution. Your trite comebacks are not amusing anyone.

brigadista

21st August 2012, 02:30

WMD issue now....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/20/barack-obama-syria-chemical-weapons

US president Barack Obama bluntly warned Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on Monday not to cross a "red line" by using chemical or biological weapons in his country's bloody conflict and suggested that such action would prompt the United States to consider a military response.

Pointing out that he had refrained "at this point" from ordering US military engagement in Syria, Obama said that there would be "enormous consequences" if Assad failed to safeguard his weapons of mass destruction.

It was Obama's strongest language to date on the issue, and he warned Syria not only against using its unconventional weapons, but against moving them in a threatening fashion.

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised," Obama said. "That would change my calculus."

"We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people," Obama told an impromptu White House news conference. He acknowledged he was not "absolutely confident" the stockpile was secure.

Obama said the issue was of concern not only to Washington but also to its close allies in the region, including Israel.

Seeking re-election in November, Obama has been reluctant to get the United States involved in another war in the Middle East, even refusing to arm rebels fighting a 17-month-old uprising against Assad.

Syria last month acknowledged for the first time that it had chemical and biological weapons and said it could use them if foreign countries intervene - a threat that drew strong warnings from Washington and its allies.

Western countries and Israel have expressed fears chemical weapons could fall into the hands of militant groups as Assad's authority erodes.

Israel has said that if Syrian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas used the situation to take control of the weapons, it would "act immediately and with utmost force."

"We're monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans," Obama said when asked whether he envisioned the possibility of using US forces at least to safeguard Syria's chemical arsenal.

The Global Security website, which collects published intelligence reports and other data, says there are four suspected chemical weapons sites in Syria: north of Damascus, near Homs, in Hama and near the Mediterranean port of Latakia. Weaponsproduced include the nerve agents VX, sarin and tabun, it said, without citing its sources.

Obama also used the opportunity to renew his call for Assad to step down.

"The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war, he should move in the direction of a political transition," Obama said. "But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant."

Obama said the United States had already provided $82m in humanitarian assistance for Syrian refugees and will "probably end up doing a little bit more" to keep the situation from destabilising Syria's neighbors.

KurtFF8

22nd August 2012, 13:34

A Marxist Historian

22nd August 2012, 18:16

Don't be an ass. It's pretty clear that he has the Syrian proletariat in mind.

As he has noted, he is opposed to NATO intervention; so unless he's a complete hypocrite, he means that the Assad regime should be overthrown in the course of proletarian revolution. Your trite comebacks are not amusing anyone.

NO I'm not being "an ass" at all. Assassination is not a proletarian method of struggle, and for that matter would be extremely difficult if not impossible for Syrian workers to carry off. Assad's personal security protections are excellent, not anything anyone other than professional assassins might be able to penetrate. At this point, it'd probably be technically easier to assassinate just about anybody else anywhere.

That is, assuming they wanted to, which is a big assumption, as there is no connection between the rebels and proletarian organizations as far as I know.

Whereas assassinating somebody like Assad most definitely is something that not only the CIA has done and does, but in all likelihood is being plotted by Langley as we speak.

If he thinks that the way to deal with Assad is by proletarian insurrection, he should stop babbling about "disposing of" Assad Mafia style.

Note that he seemed to imply that the judicial execution of Saddam by America's Shi'ite servants in Iraq through a gross parody of any form of justice in Iraq was something he was in favor of.

-M.H.-

Peoples' War

22nd August 2012, 18:39

Communists shouldn't be saying "Go Assad!" or "Go Rebels!". They should be saying "Go workers! Organize, arm yourselves, revolt against the national and imperialist bourgeoisie!"

ckaihatsu

23rd August 2012, 05:21

Communists shouldn't be saying "Go Assad!" or "Go Rebels!". They should be saying "Go workers! Organize, arm yourselves, revolt against the national and imperialist bourgeoisie!"

While I agree in spirit, it's questionable whether the correct call here is for the *arming* of the proletariat in Syria, for the same reason as this:

Assassination is not a proletarian method of struggle, and for that matter would be extremely difficult if not impossible for Syrian workers to carry off.

We also saw what happened to the overly militaristic faction that sparked the uprising in Libya -- the logic of armaments fed into the larger scope of *NATO* armaments, and the faction got co-opted. (Granted, I can see that you're *not* welcoming of the international imperialist bourgeoisie.)

Fortunately I've seen no calls here for the explicit support of Assad -- that said, though, the sovereign integrity and self-determination of *Syria* should be paramount now in the face of imperialist incursions.

DasFapital

23rd August 2012, 18:01

A Marxist Historian

23rd August 2012, 19:50

Even if the Assad regime was worthy of backing (which I don't believe it is) we still have to accept the fact his government would not survive in the face of NATO's superior armaments. A power vacuum would exist which would probably allow for the rise of theocracy. This is the major flaw of third world centered anti-imperialism, the simple fact that the resistors, no matter how well progressive they are, will always been outgunned by the oppressors. This is why I believe it is more important to work on setting the stage for revolution in the imperialist countries instead of just always showing our solidarity with any anti-imperialist movement.

Er, not so simple. Ever heard of Vietnam? Or Algeria? And the US intervention into Iraq was not exactly a smash success. Nor is Afghanistan working out too good for Obama.

The imperialists themselves are a lot less optomistic about overthrowing Assad than you are.

Thus, read this sober assessment from American imperialism's most intelligent voice, the New York Times, yesterday. And you don't have to read too far between the lines to see that the NYT is channeling Obama and his people in this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/world/middleeast/risks-of-syrian-intervention-limit-options-for-us.html?ref=middleeast

Of course, this does not mean that we should just turn into Third Worldists. Algeria ended up right back in the economic hands of imperialism after the French were defeated militarily, as the new Algerian bourgeois regime inevitably became a neocolonial servant of the imperialists all over again.

And Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese communists went the China route, and Vietnam, though vastly better off now that it unlike Algeria was freed from colonialism, has a pro capitalist Stalinist regime.

The only route to liberation of anybody in this era is worldwide workers revolution, both in the Third World and in the imperialist centers.

-M.H.-

Lynx

23rd August 2012, 20:12

That article does not suggest that Assad has a chance of survival, only that bigger problems will ensue. But they may well occur anyway, the longer the civil war drags on.

DasFapital

24th August 2012, 00:22

Er, not so simple. Ever heard of Vietnam? Or Algeria? And the US intervention into Iraq was not exactly a smash success. Nor is Afghanistan working out too good for Obama.
Yes but the resistance in those cases were primarily guerrilla groups, not actual organized state governments as in the case of Assad.

The only route to liberation of anybody in this era is worldwide workers revolution, both in the Third World and in the imperialist centers.

Completely agree.

A Marxist Historian

24th August 2012, 17:31

That article does not suggest that Assad has a chance of survival, only that bigger problems will ensue. But they may well occur anyway, the longer the civil war drags on.

Of course not, "Assad has no chance of survival" is just about the official propaganda position of the US capitalist class, and has been for a while. Mostly intended for Assad's own ears. They want him to leave voluntarily.

What are his chances of survival? Hard to say. I think both Obama and Assad will still be in power a few months from now, but I would say Romney's chance of toppling Obama, despite recent embarrassments, is still higher than the rebel's chances of toppling Assad any time soon.

-M.H.-

Crux

24th August 2012, 17:54

The Syrian cauldron (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5903)

Lynx

24th August 2012, 20:26

Of course not, "Assad has no chance of survival" is just about the official propaganda position of the US capitalist class, and has been for a while. Mostly intended for Assad's own ears. They want him to leave voluntarily.
It may be too late for that (exile), too many people have died. Saddam's fate was similarly sealed, his only option was to go into hiding.

What are his chances of survival? Hard to say. I think both Obama and Assad will still be in power a few months from now, but I would say Romney's chance of toppling Obama, despite recent embarrassments, is still higher than the rebel's chances of toppling Assad any time soon.

-M.H.-
His chances are nil. Zero. Scenarios that have Assad prevailing are anti-imperialist fantasies. The only question is when.
I don't know whether "sooner than later" would make any difference in the number of lives that will be lost, but allowing this war to drag on carries its own risk, as the CWI article makes clear.

blake 3:17

25th August 2012, 01:20

I don't know whether "sooner than later" would make any difference in the number of lives that will be lost, but allowing this war to drag on carries its own risk, as the CWI article makes clear.

How does it end sooner?

Lynx

25th August 2012, 11:46

How does it end sooner?
Military intervention makes it end sooner.

Crux

25th August 2012, 16:42

Military intervention makes it end sooner.
Actually, probably not. With or without Assad, civil wars are tricky.

A Marxist Historian

25th August 2012, 18:05

It may be too late for that (exile), too many people have died. Saddam's fate was similarly sealed, his only option was to go into hiding.

His chances are nil. Zero. Scenarios that have Assad prevailing are anti-imperialist fantasies. The only question is when.
I don't know whether "sooner than later" would make any difference in the number of lives that will be lost, but allowing this war to drag on carries its own risk, as the CWI article makes clear.

Nah. The Assads have successfully crushed insurrections before, as in the infamous Hamas massacre. A couple years ago a lot of folk in the West thought the Iranian regime was doomed, but it managed to survive the "Green Revolution" quite well.

Syria is due now for probably several years of bloody civil war that will ravage the country and essentially destroy it, after the Iraq model. Who ends up on top at the end is not certain at all. Whether surrounding countries will be drawn into the all-destroying bloodbath is also not certain. If the imperialists do not directly intervene, then maybe that kind of horror can be escaped.

What's the solution? Well, where's a "third workers camp" when you actually need one. Hopefully, the imperialists will realize that intervention would make things worse from everybody's perspective including theirs, and the Syrian working class will realize that both sides are equally reactionary, get tired of the sectarian bloodshed, and put a stop to it.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Or maybe imperialist intervention would be a good thing, if it united everyone in Syria against it. But that doesn't look too likely either.

-M.H.-

ckaihatsu

25th August 2012, 18:25

Military intervention makes it end sooner.

Actually, probably not. With or without Assad, civil wars are tricky.

And it's getting even trickier -- for you 'cruise-missile socialists' who want to somehow reconcile socialist ideals with inviting imperialist geopolitical interventions.

Just judging by the two quotes above it looks like your camp is *already* splintering, since your position now saddles you with the necessity of having to put forth a plan on how things should proceed. As things stand now, it's the *imperialists* who are calling the shots:

Big-power interests

THE LACK OF a united working-class alternative meant that religious, sectarian and pro-capitalist oppositionist figures were able to partially fill the political space. Many youth and workers came under the broad umbrella of the FSA but reactionary elements were also involved from the start. As the mass street protests fell back, the FSA grew and armed struggle became the dominant form of resistance, further sidelining the mass movement. Reactionary Gulf regimes, along with Turkey, and with western imperialist backing, intervened with guns and money for the opposition, political strings attached, of course.

The FSA leaders’ aim is to overthrow Assad’s regime but not to replace it with real democracy and prosperity for all.

The Syrian cauldron

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5903

Crux

25th August 2012, 20:20

And it's getting even trickier -- for you 'cruise-missile socialists' who want to somehow reconcile socialist ideals with inviting imperialist geopolitical interventions.

Just judging by the two quotes above it looks like your camp is *already* splintering, since your position now saddles you with the necessity of having to put forth a plan on how things should proceed. As things stand now, it's the *imperialists* who are calling the shots:
Our "camp"? Perhaps you should stop being a lying liar or show me where we, the CWI, have argued for [sic] "cruise missile socialism". I'll wait.

ckaihatsu

25th August 2012, 20:46

Our "camp"? Perhaps you should stop being a lying liar or show me where we, the CWI, have argued for [sic] "cruise missile socialism". I'll wait.

Excuse me -- my mistake. I lumped you in with Lynx, who holds *this* position:

I don't expect ground troops to be sent in, an air campaign would be sufficient.

Here's yours:

[W]rong [is] the supporters of the "FSA" and intervention by the way.

However, you then continue to say that anti-U.S.-imperialism is not sufficient and that the situation of power is "infinitely more complicated". This is a divergence and an equivocation from a straightforward anti-imperialist line.

[I]t's infinitely more complicated [...]. For starters there's about 5 groups claiming the name Free Syrian Army. Secondly Assads regime is increasingly becoming more and more dependent on an alawite militia/mafia/secterian gang. And also, Qatar, Suadi Arabia and others are backing up the Brotherhood by sending in jihadists. Even in the currently most stable Kurdish areas, where element of self-rule has been established, there are different imperialist sides pulling strings, primarily turkey, PKK and the mafia regime in iraqi kurdistan. And this is just an extremely brief and superficial run-down.

Your black-and-white U.S-centered "anti-imperialism" is simply not sufficient here.

Crux

25th August 2012, 20:57

Excuse me -- my mistake. I lumped you in with Lynx, who holds *this* position:

Here's yours:

However, you then continue to say that anti-U.S.-imperialism is not sufficient and that the situation of power is "infinitely more complicated". This is a divergence and an equivocation from a straightforward anti-imperialist line.
I am certainly an anti-imperialist, but the situation itself is hardly straightforward. The vulgarized anti-imperialism put forward by WWP, for example, is simply so crude and over-simplified as to be useless. Meanwhile here in Sweden we've mostly had to debate those that hold undue illusions in the FSA. Why? Because the situation is extremely complex, there are several regional, religious and ethnic factors. I think the statements from the CWI have been pretty clear on this. I also I recently had a long discussion with a Syrian comrade in exile and what I got from that is, it seems, the left, again throws all nuance and analysis out the window and instead wish to line up either behind they "revolutionaries" of the FSA (which of the 5 they never seem to specify), worker's power particualrly true to their infantile violence fetischism, and on the other side we have those dismissing virtually all the opposition as some kind of U.S/CIA plot against the "anti-imperialist" Bashar al-Assad.

ckaihatsu

25th August 2012, 21:37

I am certainly an anti-imperialist, but the situation itself is hardly straightforward. The vulgarized anti-imperialism put forward by WWP, for example, is simply so crude and over-simplified as to be useless.

Well, with all due respect, I can't entirely agree. My understanding is one of *priorities*, and that it's *most* critical to oppose the force that's doing the *most* damage -- NATO.

Nothing could be more straightforward than that, and in the context of Syria, that means that interventions must be repulsed so that internal problems can be dealt with internally (and by a broader proletarian struggle).

Meanwhile here in Sweden we've mostly had to debate those that hold undue illusions in the FSA.

Yes.

Why? Because the situation is extremely complex, there are several regional, religious and ethnic factors.

But those are hardly the *determining* factors regarding Syria.

I think the statements from the CWI have been pretty clear on this. I also I recently had a long discussion with a Syrian comrade in exile and what I got from that is, it seems, the left, again throws all nuance and analysis out the window

and instead wish to line up either behind they "revolutionaries" of the FSA

Yes, unfortunately.

(which of the 5 they never seem to specify),

worker's power particualrly true to their infantile violence fetischism,

(You mean their concept is of a misguided grassroots militarism, like we saw in Libya -- ?)

and on the other side we have those dismissing virtually all the opposition as some kind of U.S/CIA plot against the "anti-imperialist" Bashar al-Assad.

Well, there's no need to mix scales here -- anti-imperialism is against *NATO*, and for the *country* of Syria, not for the *person* named Assad. Likewise, those who are *for* U.S. troops out of Afghanistan are not necessarily for *Obama*, just because he happens to be in office when that might happen.

I realize that Syrians themselves might tend to personalize their country to Assad, just as those in the U.S. do for the president, but it's a fallacy in all cases, since national policy transcends any given person's administration.

Lynx

25th August 2012, 21:37

The path of least resistance has been the installation of conservative Islamist regimes, committed to the continuation of neo-liberal economic policy. This is an option for Syria.

Violence could spread following an intervention, but it might spread anyway. Look at Rwanda, which precipitated what came to be known as Africa's World War.

The enemy of the working class in the middle east is neo-liberalism. Eventually they will realize this. But not now. Not while there are tyrants to be removed.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman will have their spring too. The only dynasty that seems to have avoided trouble is Jordan.

cynicles

26th August 2012, 00:40

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman will have their spring too. The only dynasty that seems to have avoided trouble is Jordan.

No, the west wishes that Jordan had avoided the issues, things continue to simmer there.

brigadista

26th August 2012, 18:30

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-bloody-truth-about-syrias-uncivil-war-8081386.html

A few hours after the ferocious attack on Damascus by the Free Syrian Army began last month, the new Syrian minister of information, Omran Zouhbi, turned on journalists in the capital. "What are you doing here in Damascus?" he roared. "You should be out with our soldiers!" And within a day, tired images of a primly smiling President Bashar al-Assad and pictures of Syrian troops happily kissing children were replaced by raw – and real – newsreel footage of commandos fighting their way across Baghdad Street under fire from the rebel opponents of the regime, grimy-faced, running from street corners, shooting from the cover of walls and terraces. "We've cleaned up here," one tired but very angry officer said. "So now we're going to get the rest of those bastards." Never before – not even in the 1973 war when the Syrian army stormed Observatory Ridge on the heights of the Golan – had the Syrian public witnessed anything as real as this on their television sets.

And – despite all the mythical tales of its presence in every smashed village – the battle for Damascus really was fought by Maher al-Assad's ruthless 4th Division. The soldiers loyal to Bashar's younger brother gave no quarter. "It was a slaughter, a massacre," a Syrian with expert knowledge of the military told me. "A lot of the corpses were already bloated within hours, but you could tell some of them weren't Syrian; there were Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, one Turk, Sudanese …" He counted 70 bodies at one location, 42 of them non-Arab. The FSA said it lost only 20 men, and claimed that the Syrians emphasised the number of "foreign fighters" they found among the dead. "Syrian soldiers don't like to think that they are shooting at fellow Syrians – they feel much more comfortable if they believe they are shooting at foreigners," the young man said.

The statistics of the Syrian war will always be in dispute – both sides will minimise their losses while they are fighting and exaggerate the number of their "martyrs" once the conflict is over; nor will we ever know the true number of the civilian dead, nor the exact identity of their killers. Given unprecedented access last week to majors and generals whom the West accuses of war crimes, I found only one officer who would partially admit the existence of the murderous shabiha militia credited with atrocities in largely Sunni Muslim towns and villages. "The shabiha doesn't exist," he told me. "It is a figment of imagination. There are village 'defenders' who guard some areas …"

And that, of course, is exactly what the shabiha claim to be, local Syrian civilians protecting their homes from the government's enemies. They existed in Algeria during that country's barbaric conflict between the dictatorship in Algiers and the Islamist rebels in the 1990s, protecting their families while committing atrocities in towns and villages believed to be used by – or sympathetic to – their "terrorist" Muslim enemies. In Algeria, too, the government's opponents were called foreign fighters, men who had fought in the Afghan war against the Russians and who had returned to continue their holy war against the secular regime in France's former colony. Now another former French colony's secular – albeit Alawite-dominated – leadership says it is fighting men from Afghanistan, making no distinction between Unity Brigades or Muslim Brothers or Salafists or just plain Free Syrian Army. No one will be surprised to learn that there has always been the closest military-intelligence relationship between Algiers and Damascus.

But the government army's battle with its Syrian and foreign antagonists has not always gone as smoothly as the regime would like the world to believe. Despite the narrative now peddled in the West, armed men were present on the streets of Syrian cities and villages since the very early days of the Syrian awakening 18 months ago. True, the Arab Spring initially took the form of demonstrations by tens of thousands of unarmed protesters in the great cities of Syria, but an Al Jazeera camera crew captured film of gunmen attacking Syrian soldiers near the village of Wadi Khallak in May 2011. That same month, Syrian television obtained tape of men armed with Kalashnikovs near crowds of unarmed Syrian protesters in Deraa, where the revolt began after secret police officers tortured to death a 13-year-old boy.

Yet when they first entered Deraa, it appears, Syrian officers and their soldiers did not themselves believe they were facing armed opponents. "Sixty per cent of the city was secured by us in just one day," a Syrian familiar with the operation says. "We sent in only 1,100 soldiers – this would never happen now – because they did not think there were any armed groups there. But by the time we had recovered the rest of the city in the next five days, we had lost 17 of our men dead to sniper fire." This was not the only surprise: once pitched battles began later in the year, the Syrian military was amazed by the firepower of its opponents.

"In Homs, the army was inside a building that received hundreds – literally hundreds – of rocket-propelled grenades," a Syrian familiar with the operation says. "There were thousands of explosions, and eventually we had to evacuate the entire building because it was going to crumble. When the soldiers were out, they had to explode the whole place before it crashed to the ground." And for an army condemned for its own cruelty in battle, the Syrians were astonished by the ruthlessness of those opposed to them.

In Andan, a heavily defended army checkpoint was wiped out last year when the Liwa Tawhid, the Unity Brigade, assaulted the position and killed all 75 soldiers and four officers. In a later ambush at Shughour, 120 soldiers were killed. Army files record nine security officers murdered at a police station at al-Hadr in Hama province, eight policemen at another office in the same province. In Salkin, another town in Hama, an ex-army civilian lorry driver employed by the Army's Vehicle Service Station 5036 was assaulted by civilian crowds. Abdul Fatah Omar Abdul Fatah was accused of being a member of the shabiha, stripped naked and hanged, then his corpse was pelted with shoes and decapitated. In Duma, a mosque leader told worshippers: "Among us, there is an Awaini," – a traitor. The man was beaten to death. His name is recorded as Abu Ahmed Akera.

When the Free Syria Army followed up its attack on Damascus with an assault on Aleppo, the authorities found that the first target of their enemies was the artillery school. More than 70 cadets managed to resist until reinforcements reached them. Word has it that all anti-aircraft missile crews at the school were hastily taken out of Aleppo to save them from capture and help protect the country's tactical missile defences from possible Israeli or Nato attack.

Syrian soldiers fighting their way through the winding, narrow streets of Aleppo's old city this week might choose to remember a young Egyptian student who spent months in Aleppo in the 1990s, working on an urban planning thesis that included the very battlefield in which the army is now fighting: Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the US. Some of the attacks on Syrian officials have been planned with great care; scientists at the Scientific Research Centre outside Damascus have been murdered. Long before the air force was first used in the war – the army claims this was in June – seven pilots were killed by rebels last year. The military says that it began using artillery – as opposed to mortars – only in February.

For the government, the outlook appears harsh. The army believes Idlib – reported to be an al-Qa'ida stronghold – will be one of the most critical battles in the war. There are reports of fearful conscripts seized from a civilian bus in central Syria and given an option: either their parents hand over 450,000 Syrian pounds (£7,000) to the Free Syrian Army or the young men must join the rebels. In the village of Rableh near al-Qusayr, a largely Christian population of 12,000 is said to be held hostage by rebels as human shields, although the army has apparently decided it would be too costly to take the village.

Bashar al-Assad's government faces a resourceful, well-armed and ruthless enemy whose Islamist supporters are receiving help from the West – just as the Islamist mujahedin fighters were funded and armed by the West when they fought the Russians in Afghanistan during the 1980s. With up to 50,000 men under arms and perhaps 4,000 battle tanks, the Syrian army, per se, cannot lose. But can they win?

A Marxist Historian

27th August 2012, 06:55

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-bloody-truth-about-syrias-uncivil-war-8081386.html

...
Bashar al-Assad's government faces a resourceful, well-armed and ruthless enemy whose Islamist supporters are receiving help from the West – just as the Islamist mujahedin fighters were funded and armed by the West when they fought the Russians in Afghanistan during the 1980s. With up to 50,000 men under arms and perhaps 4,000 battle tanks, the Syrian army, per se, cannot lose. But can they win?

Fisk has it about right. The Syrian army cannot lose, but cannot win. This will go on for years, and turn the country into a bloody ruin, Algeria style. As in Algeria, in the end the Assad regime will probably win.

Unless the imperialists intervene seriously (not in the petty lowgrade way they are now), in which case everything will explode and that whole part of the world will become a bloody ruin. And conceivably lead to direct conflict between the world's two biggest nuclear powers, the USA and Russia, in which case we all could end up toast.

-M.H.-

brigadista

27th August 2012, 08:47

Fisk has it about right. The Syrian army cannot lose, but cannot win. This will go on for years, and turn the country into a bloody ruin, Algeria style. As in Algeria, in the end the Assad regime will probably win.

Unless the imperialists intervene seriously (not in the petty lowgrade way they are now), in which case everything will explode and that whole part of the world will become a bloody ruin. And conceivably lead to direct conflict between the world's two biggest nuclear powers, the USA and Russia, in which case we all could end up toast.

-M.H.-

imho the imperialistic intervention presently is not petty or lowgrade- it seems its the salvadorian option again -

Binh

10th September 2012, 01:53

Robert Fisk embedded himself with Assad's military a la Fox News in 2003. Now he's as "fair and balanced" as they were.