US: CIA to arm Syrian rebels

[blake 3:17]

U.S., citing use of chemical weapons by Syria, to provide direct military support to rebels

The United States has concluded that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its fight against opposition forces, and President Obama has authorized direct U.S. military support to the rebels, the White House said Thursday.

“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Rhodes said U.S. intelligence had determined with “high certainty” that Syrian government forces have “used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”

Intelligence agencies estimate that 100 to 150 people have died as a result of chemical weapons use, he said.

Rhodes did not detail what he called the expanded military support, but it is expected initially to consist of light arms and ammunition. He said the shipments would be “responsive to the needs” expressed by the rebel command.

Obama has “not made any decision” to pursue a military option such as a no-fly zone and has ruled out the deployment of U.S. ground troops, Rhodes said.

Syria’s outgunned rebels have issued urgent appeals this week for antitank and antiaircraft weaponry to counter a government offensive that is backed by Hezbollah fighters and Iranian militia forces.

“Suffice it to say this is going to be different in both scope and scale,” Rhodes said of the new assistance. Obama said last year that confirmation of chemical weapons use would cross a “red line” for the United States.

The shipments, to begin in a matter of weeks, are likely to be undertaken by the CIA, which has been the primary U.S. government interlocutor with the opposition’s Supreme Military Council, led by Salim Idriss. Such covert action requires a signed presidential finding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-concludes-syrian-forces-used-chemical-weapons/2013/06/13/59b03c66-d46d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

[TheYoungCommie]

I don't get why we have to do it there's plenty of other countries that can arm the rebels. I mean really we should not have to be the worlds police in this day and age.

[Manar]

Not surprising, the US has a long track record of arming proletarian revolutionaries.

[blake 3:17]

Not surprising, the US has a long track record of arming proletarian revolutionaries.

Huh?

[Manar]

Huh?
A sarcastic joke deriding the deranged "socialists" in Western countries that go as far as basically labeling the FSA Wahhabi cannibals proto-communists and revolutionaries.

[blake 3:17]

Ok -- try to stay on message. Ignore the deranged socialists. Just tore the shit out of Pham Binh and Louis Proyect again on Kasama. It's nonsense and everybody knows it. They're totally full of shit & I don't think anybody here supports that. If they do, they can make their case.

I'm more interested in actively opposing any American and Canadian involvement in Syria (and the rest of the world...).

[adipocere]

The New York Times published a story in March explaining in depth how the CIA was already smuggling arms to the opposition. This official announcement of non-specified military aid to the opposition is a technical war declaration, the point of which is to allow Washington to quietly implement a no-fly zone (air invasion) over Syria.

[Paul Pott]

Go ahead Obama, set the fucking world on fire. Assad is winning and you can't let the Ruskies and the ayatollahs have that one.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Dear Washington Post,


Thanks Captain Obvious! Better late than never!

[blake 3:17]

Dear Washington Post,


Thanks Captain Obvious! Better late than never!

Don't blame the WP. I just picked that one because it was relatively easy to post and from a widely accessible news site.


This is a change in direction for the Obama administration. I was trying to see something positive in their reluctance and there were a lot of hawks wanting to get in earlier. The idea that scientists have discovered Baathist forces used chemical weapons is a valid excuse for intervention is bullshit.

[Geiseric]

The Syrian opposition will gain internal support, and more of the Syrian army will defect when they see how assad needs help from Hezbollah and Iran. Lets hope the least amount of people die, and Assads capitalist pigs are by meathook by the end of it.

[blake 3:17]

The Syrian opposition will gain internal support, and more of the Syrian army will defect when they see how assad needs help from Hezbollah and Iran. Lets hope the least amount of people die, and Assads capitalist pigs are by meathook by the end of it.

I thought you were in SO.

[khad]

The Syrian opposition will gain internal support, and more of the Syrian army will defect when they see how assad needs help from Hezbollah and Iran. Lets hope the least amount of people die, and Assads capitalist pigs are by meathook by the end of it.
Cannibal freudian slip. I've come to expect this.

[Geiseric]

You know like mussolini. I have no more respect for assad than any other dictator, and I'm sure most people in Syria feel the same way, otherwise his police wouldn't of started murdering them for protesting.

That being said I don't support the rebel bourgeois who are fighting for hegemony, but an end to the war which will happen most likely when the leadership of the loyalists is out of the picture like libya, or if the masses of rebellious syrians are massacred in the crossfire between two factions both owned by capital.

The fsa and the Islamists are going to stay in syria though regardless if who wins, there is too much discontent with assads regime.

[Brutus]

This went so well in Afghanistan...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Syrian opposition will gain internal support, and more of the Syrian army will defect when they see how assad needs help from Hezbollah and Iran. Lets hope the least amount of people die, and Assads capitalist pigs are by meathook by the end of it.

And then what? The Syrian proletariat will have it as good as their counterparts in Iraq?

And obviously enough, the opposition is not winning internal support fast enough, since their sponsors have decided that they need weapons, sanctions against Syria, and are preparing for an outright invasion.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Is this "new evidence" from the same source as was provided to the French? They only found tiny traces of sarin in that sample, which doesn't really prove anything.

The White House statement says that along with this positive test, they are also going on "reports" of the Assad government planning to use chemical weapons. All this constitutes the "evidence" that the US is now using to justify arming the Syrian rebels.

As usual with these things, I have no idea what's going on. It isn't explained. I'm just supposed to believe what the US government tells me. But why would I?

[Sasha]

still waiting for condemnation on the propping up of a brutal dictator by the theocratic iranian and hezbollah bourgeoisie sending in their workers to die in an civil-war in another country armed with imperialist russian guns who want to safeguard their interests through the blood of thousands.
oh, wait, thats something different, thats "anti-imperialist solidarity" i guess...
I for one oppose the meddling of all bourgeois capitalist nation-states in this civil war... but being remotely consequent is probably just ultra-leftism again.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

agreed with psycho generally but the issue to take with the western influence in the conflict is based on the US trying to continue its voyage of empire and hegemony - its history repeating itself, as farce of course. either way, the working class loses and i don't want to see anyone sending guns into syria, whether they're for the ruling class or the jihadist cannibals that intend to take power. this isn't our fight. i hope that ordinary workers can find the strength to organize against all of these oppressive forces and that's what i would support.

[Lord Hargreaves]

still waiting for condemnation on the propping up of a brutal dictator by the theocratic iranian and hezbollah bourgeoisie sending in their workers to die in an civil-war in another country armed with imperialist russian guns who want to safeguard their interests through the blood of thousands.
oh, wait, thats something different, thats "anti-imperialist solidarity" i guess...
I for one oppose the meddling of all bourgeois capitalist nation-states in this civil war... but being remotely consequent is probably just ultra-leftism again.

No one should have to "condemn" anything at all in order to be against (or highly sceptical of) US or UK/French intervention in Syria. There are no conditions on speaking. That is straight out of the neoconservative George Dubya playbook - "If you're not for US intervention then I hold you in suspicion of being in favor of our enemies x,y,z....." Its bullshit, pardon my colloquial french.

And if you have something meaningful to say about how Iranian business interests and the Lebanese bourgeoisie are smuggling their subaltern classes into Syria to fight, or whatever, then make a thread about it. We will be eager to read and learn. Can you actually explain how class is influencing the civil war? Otherwise it is all just ultra-left posturing, isn't it?

[Dropdead]

You know like mussolini. I have no more respect for assad than any other dictator, and I'm sure most people in Syria feel the same way, otherwise his police wouldn't of started murdering them for protesting.

That being said I don't support the rebel bourgeois who are fighting for hegemony, but an end to the war which will happen most likely when the leadership of the loyalists is out of the picture like libya, or if the masses of rebellious syrians are massacred in the crossfire between two factions both owned by capital.

The fsa and the Islamists are going to stay in syria though regardless if who wins, there is too much discontent with assads regime.

People of Syria actually like Assad alot..

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

still waiting for condemnation on the propping up of a brutal dictator by the theocratic iranian and hezbollah bourgeoisie sending in their workers to die in an civil-war in another country armed with imperialist russian guns who want to safeguard their interests through the blood of thousands.
oh, wait, thats something different, thats "anti-imperialist solidarity" i guess...
I for one oppose the meddling of all bourgeois capitalist nation-states in this civil war... but being remotely consequent is probably just ultra-leftism again.

We are either with you, or we are with the terrorists, right, psycho? There is nothing ultra-leftists about opposing Hezbollah or the Ba'ath, but to pretend that the question of success or defeat for the imperialist incursion is irrelevant to the Syrian proletariat is ultra-leftist - and it objectively assists imperialism. The imperialism of "your" state or alliance of states, in fact, something that you have a duty to oppose.

Has anyone claimed that the Syrian proletariat need to support the Ba'ath unconditionally? I think very few people would say something like that. But to the extent that the Ba'ath regime is fighting the Islamist contras, the proletariat needs to support them, in order to drive the contras out of the country and prevent Syria from becoming a new Iraq.

[TheEmancipator]

still waiting for condemnation on the propping up of a brutal dictator by the theocratic iranian and hezbollah bourgeoisie sending in their workers to die in an civil-war in another country armed with imperialist russian guns who want to safeguard their interests through the blood of thousands.
oh, wait, thats something different, thats "anti-imperialist solidarity" i guess...
I for one oppose the meddling of all bourgeois capitalist nation-states in this civil war... but being remotely consequent is probably just ultra-leftism again.

So I'm not the only one here who finds this "Only the US can do wrong" rhetoric ridiculous?

Reassuring...

[Nakidana]

The US is probably stepping up their game because Assad has been gaining the upper hand recently (e.g. taking Al-Qusayr)


The New York Times published a story in March explaining in depth how the CIA was already smuggling arms to the opposition. This official announcement of non-specified military aid to the opposition is a technical war declaration, the point of which is to allow Washington to quietly implement a no-fly zone (air invasion) over Syria.

But Russia recently shipped S-300's to Syria. Unless they can implement the no-fly zone within the next month or two, the S-300s will probably be operational and there's no way they're gonna fly planes over Syria if there's a risk of them being shot down.

Probably they hope to be able to topple Assad just by directly shipping in increased amounts of arms to the rebels.

[Manar]

Actually even NATO has been very clear in the last few months that the vast majority of Syrians support the current government. Though of course they don't attribute it to the rebels' tendency to pillage, loot, shoot teenagers in the face, slit the throat of 2 year old girls and eat human hearts. They attribute it to the Syrian government's propaganda network(when your news stations don't spread fictional stories about SAA atrocities, they are propaganda networks, apparently).


still waiting for condemnation on the propping up of a brutal dictator by the theocratic iranian and hezbollah bourgeoisie sending in their workers to die in an civil-war in another country armed with imperialist russian guns who want to safeguard their interests through the blood of thousands.
oh, wait, thats something different, thats "anti-imperialist solidarity" i guess...
I for one oppose the meddling of all bourgeois capitalist nation-states in this civil war... but being remotely consequent is probably just ultra-leftism again.
Are you whining about Hezbollah volunteers(Iranian and Iraqi volunteers are defending Shia holy places from rebel cannibals, they are not engaging in any offensives against the cannibals) learning new offensive warfare and urban warfare skills to utilise against the Zionist Entity? The Hezbollah presence in Aleppo, and before Aleppo, in Al-Qusayr, was a favor extended to Hezbollah by the Syrian Government, not the other way around. Personally, I greatly admire the courageous and honorable(tell me again, what do the rebels to with their enemy wounded? behead them or eat their hearts, that's what. compare that with Hezbollah handing over wounded captured rebel cannibals over to the Red Cross (http://www.revleft.com/vb/assafir.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=771&EditionId=2482&ChannelId=59804)) Hezbollah volunteers who are willing to risk their lives and try to save Syria from NATO, Saudi and Qatari sponsored pillaging Wahhabi cannibals and fight for secularism.

Either way, we'll start condemning Hezbollah when Washington's running dogs like you start condemning the fact that at least half of the rebels in Syria are foreigners(of the thousand just captured in Al-Qusayr, 63% were foreigners). Condemn the tens of thousands of Lebanese, Jordanian, Palestinian, Turkish, Iraqi, Tunisian, Egyptian, Chechenian, Dagestani, Central Asian, UAE, Algerian, Saudi, Kuwaiti and Qatari Mujahideen fighting for Wahhabism and the Islamic Caliphate in Syria, and then we'll condemn the 2,000 Hezbollah volunteers, okay?

[Lord Hargreaves]

So I'm not the only one here who finds this "Only the US can do wrong" rhetoric ridiculous?

Reassuring...

I don't think anyone is saying that. It is a question of "let's find the least worst, least terrible situation for Syria". No one likes Islamism, no one likes state repression and murder, no one likes foreign fighters killing civilians (except the odd hysteric).

The point is that westerners have the actions of their own governments as their foremost responsibility, knowing that western military intervention is the surest way to turn a terrible bloodbath into a catastrophic one.

It is also about avoiding the faux objectivity of condemning everyone involved on all sides for every little thing, in the most minute detail, while ignoring the big picture of how US military power and global capital structures the way most things happen in the middle east.

(What allowed Iran to gain hegemony in the region? The Iraq war and the subsequent sectarian violence. Do US economic sanctions on Iran encourage the hardliners and foreign interventionists within the country? You bet. Why are the shia so influential in Syria and Lebanon? Hezbollah's successful resistance against Israel. How do the Saudi's fund the sunni fighters? With US oil money. Why did the rebels place a bomb Turkey? To coax NATO into Syria. The list goes on and on and on)

[adipocere]

The US is probably stepping up their game because Assad has been gaining the upper hand recently (e.g. taking Al-Qusayr)

But Russia recently shipped S-300's to Syria. Unless they can implement the no-fly zone within the next month or two, the S-300s will probably be operational and there's no way they're gonna fly planes over Syria if there's a risk of them being shot down.

Probably they hope to be able to topple Assad just by directly shipping in increased amounts of arms to the rebels.

Absolutely, Assad has the upper hand. He always did. From what I have gathered, the opposition has never had great numbers and practically no discipline except when it came to preening for Western cameras.

I believe the strategy now for the US is essentially to not just arm the rebels but to armor them - use CIA to train them to operate tanks and shit like that. I also think that the no-fly zone will serve as an international cover for Israel to conduct their air strikes. I hope Assad does have s-300's.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We are either with you, or we are with the terrorists, right, psycho? There is nothing ultra-leftists about opposing Hezbollah or the Ba'ath, but to pretend that the question of success or defeat for the imperialist incursion is irrelevant to the Syrian proletariat is ultra-leftist - and it objectively assists imperialism. The imperialism of "your" state or alliance of states, in fact, something that you have a duty to oppose.


How does it objectively assist Imperialism? I don't think either Assad or al-Nusra give two fucks what is said on this website, the vast majority of Syrians probably don't either, and I'm pretty sure that the US government makes its decisions independently of what a Dutch commie-anarchist thinks.

[cyu]

I don't think either Assad or al-Nusra give two fucks what is said on this website, the vast majority of Syrians probably don't either, and I'm pretty sure that the US government makes its decisions independently of what a Dutch commie-anarchist thinks.


Hey, I'm actually a fairly senior foreign policy analyst, and I provide assessments to both the foreign policy advisers in both the Obama and Assad administrations. It's part of my job to gather intelligence from a broad spectrum of sites discussing foreign policy, and provide an aggregated report of the discussions to various administrations willing to pay my fee ;) :laugh:

[Zaza]

You know like mussolini. I have no more respect for assad than any other dictator, and I'm sure most people in Syria feel the same way, otherwise his police wouldn't of started murdering them for protesting.


Too bad about 70% of the Syrians support him. Thanks to the Al-Nusra front and FSA it became like that, or even more.


I just think it's hilarious how people imply that a dictatorship is always bad.
Indeed, that the people can't decide what goes on in the state is not that pleasing. But hey, better to live in a semi-good dictatorship than a policestate where your vote does a jackshit.

Just like here. Alot of people read and believe propaganda newspapers. I doubt your vote was your one if you don't even know the truth.
As an example;
May I introduce : Stalin and his new army: http://www.bildblog.de/1029/apropos-king-kong/

[adipocere]

Is this "new evidence" from the same source as was provided to the French? They only found tiny traces of sarin in that sample, which doesn't really prove anything.

The White House statement says that along with this positive test, they are also going on "reports" of the Assad government planning to use chemical weapons. All this constitutes the "evidence" that the US is now using to justify arming the Syrian rebels.

As usual with these things, I have no idea what's going on. It isn't explained. I'm just supposed to believe what the US government tells me. But why would I?

The first UN probe into the chemical weapons angle was in April/May. Lead investigator Carla Del Ponte said, "This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,"
Not that it was surprising - basically all the attacks have been on those loyal to Assad with some civilians here and there.
Since then, however, the UN inspectors have been more compliant in their findings: Syrian Army are killing themselves with chemical weapons because there is no way the contras could have them. :rolleyes:

[Le Socialiste]

I absolutely love how when the subject of Syria comes up all logic goes out the window. Am I really supposed to be awed by the fact that Syrians 'support' the Assad regime? Hell, even former President Bush had a 90% approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx). Of course, it also raises the question - who is conducting these polls in the first place? I have a hard time believing that a group, party, or NGO can paint an accurate picture based on Syrian 'loyalties' within the present context of civil war and armed conflict. What's more, you have to consider the accuracy of any such results; after all, a pro-Assad Syrian will likely be much less willing to say so in rebel-held territory (and vice versa).

And of course we have the knee-jerk anti-imps who enjoy highlighting U.S. and Western involvement alongside the presence of Islamic fundamentalists, while simultaneously neglecting to point out the role of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian imperialism in the conflict. Hezbollah is now outright supporting the Assad government with arms and fighters, while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been deployed to train pro-Assad fighters. Russia's been flooding the country with weapons, which the government has used to continue its ruthless crackdown on the rebellion and wider population. It is right to point out the role of Western interests in the conflict (despite the fact that the U.S. hasn't been supplying the rebels directly or anything besides light weaponry through its allies in the Gulf (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57582025/syrian-rebels-to-get-1st-direct-u.s-support-as-$8m-in-medical-supplies-rations-set-for-delivery/) until just recently), but to play down or minimize the presence of Russian and Iranian interests is ridiculous.

Assad is not the lesser of two - or more - evils, and he is not worthy of support, even on a semi-critical basis. The fact that so many here and elsewhere have been turned off by the ugliness of the present conflict also hints at the lack of a proper analysis of the situation, and an acknowledgment that many would rather 'wait in the wings' until the "perfect" social conflict presents itself. As Lenin himself noted:


To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without (…) revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. – to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else, and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will be a social revolution! (…) Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.

The individual who head this blog (http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/the-syrian-revolution-and-the-speech-of-bachar-al-assad/) and is himself a member of the Revolutionary Left Current in Syria, has this to say about the Syrian conflict and the revolutionary process:


A revolutionary process is not all of one colour and never will be, otherwise it would not be a revolution. On the other hand, the role of the revolutionary Left is absolutely clear: to fight against the regime and to radicalize the popular movement!

[Zaza]

but to play down or minimize the presence of Russian and Iranian interests is ridiculous.

When did someone play down the interests of Russia and Iran in this conflict?
This conflict is very important for both of those countries. And the reason is clear.


If the extremists can be trained and supplied with weapons by countries like Turkey, the SAA is pretty much able to do the same.

France mentioned it's needed to make a balance between the rebells and syrian army. Ofcourse in the interest of the rebells.
But hey, they wanted balance and now they get balance.

[Nakidana]

Absolutely, Assad has the upper hand. He always did. From what I have gathered, the opposition has never had great numbers and practically no discipline except when it came to preening for Western cameras.

Of course, it's a standing army vs citizens who have taken up arms but have next to no training (except for the army defectors and foreign fighters).


I believe the strategy now for the US is essentially to not just arm the rebels but to armor them - use CIA to train them to operate tanks and shit like that.

I seriously doubt it. How the hell are they gonna transport tanks into Syria? And why would they when this is what happens when the rebels get hold of a tank:

J_HhlDx-Sf8


I also think that the no-fly zone will serve as an international cover for Israel to conduct their air strikes. I hope Assad does have s-300's.

Honestly I just don't see them being able to implement a no-fly zone. I don't see the political will plus Russia wouldn't allow it. I could be wrong, let's see.

[adipocere]

Proper analysis would never call this conflict a rebellion. Proper analysis would not equate Bush's 9/11 with Assad's Syria conflict. Nor would proper analysis use a story from CBS as evidence of anything other then the pro-Washington media echo chamber.

It's not incorrect to consider various other foreign motivations in a conflict, but it willfully ignorant to pretend that somehow other foreign powers are on an equal footing with the US. It is even more ridiculous when you consider that the US literally operates from a whole separate continent, has never been invaded, has no fear of invasion and that it's wars have always been absolute aggression. There is simply no legitimate excuse for the US to even be present in the middle-east unless it is to stir up shit.

[Nakidana]

The individual who head this blog (http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/the-syrian-revolution-and-the-speech-of-bachar-al-assad/) and is himself a member of the Revolutionary Left Current in Syria, has this to say about the Syrian conflict and the revolutionary process:

And where in Syria is the Revolutionary Left Current battalion currently fighting? Do they have any videos?

[adipocere]

[QUOTE]I seriously doubt it. How the hell are they gonna transport tanks into Syria? And why would they when this is what happens when the rebels get hold of a tank:Israel can supply tanks. For instance, "Israeli tanks moved Thursday to the border on the Israeli-occupied side of the Golan Heights.." -CNN
People can be trained to use different equipment or operators can be brought in. I'm not saying that would be the reality, but it's an option.


Honestly I just don't see them being able to implement a no-fly zone. I don't see the political will plus Russia wouldn't allow it. I could be wrong, let's see.I think the ultimate objective is to use NATO to start an intense air bombing campaign. I don't think Washington really gives two shits about the rebels at this point. Russia may be willing to stand up to the US, but not to Europe, NATO and the US.

[Le Socialiste]

Proper analysis would never call this conflict a rebellion.

Really. And what would you call it?


Proper analysis would not equate Bush's 9/11 with Assad's Syria conflict.

A proper response to my original post wouldn't make the mistake of thinking I was equating the two. Now what else you got?


Nor would proper analysis use a story from CBS as evidence of anything other then the pro-Washington media echo chamber.

Oh, for christ's sake! Get off your fucking high horse.


There is simply no legitimate excuse for the US to even be present in the middle-east unless it is to stir up shit.

Wasn't looking for a legitimate excuse, now was I? Nor was I saying the U.S. should be present; on the contrary, I oppose any and all attempts to influence, support, or otherwise intervene in the Syrian conflict by foreign powers. That includes the U.S. But then, I'm not particularly impressed by someone who claims membership in the CPUSA. :lol:

[Le Socialiste]

Nor would proper analysis use a story from CBS as evidence of anything other then the pro-Washington media echo chamber.


For instance, "Israeli tanks moved Thursday to the border on the Israeli-occupied side of the Golan Heights.." -CNN

Oh, the irony...

[Le Socialiste]

And where in Syria is the Revolutionary Left Current battalion currently fighting? Do they have any videos?

I'm not sure there is a 'brigade' or group of fighters. I do know that they're involved in the LCCs and other organizing efforts. But fighting on the front lines? There may be a few here and there, but I don't think there's any organized effort to send a group out there. Nevertheless, I believe the RLC has the right outlook and analysis of the situation.

[Nakidana]

Israel can supply tanks. For instance, "Israeli tanks moved Thursday to the border on the Israeli-occupied side of the Golan Heights.." -CNN
People can be trained to use different equipment or operators can be brought in. I'm not saying that would be the reality, but it's an option.

lol, it'll be a cold day in hell before Israel leaves its Merkavas in the hands of the rebels.

[adipocere]

lol, it'll be a cold day in hell before Israel leaves its Merkavas in the hands of the rebels.

Point taken. However Israel gladly sold Rios Montt heavy equipment, including helicopters, and the US paid for it. As far as Syria (much more convenient than Guatemala) it would be an even bigger incentive to sell it vicariously with the possibility of reacquiring it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How does it objectively assist Imperialism? I don't think either Assad or al-Nusra give two fucks what is said on this website, the vast majority of Syrians probably don't either, and I'm pretty sure that the US government makes its decisions independently of what a Dutch commie-anarchist thinks.

And, of course, imperialism can only be attacked through official channels. And there I was, thinking that the confused, pro-Islamist politics of many European and American socialist parties prevents organised proletarian resistance to imperial intervention in Syria, including protests, sabotage, strikes etc.


And of course we have the knee-jerk anti-imps who enjoy highlighting U.S. and Western involvement alongside the presence of Islamic fundamentalists, while simultaneously neglecting to point out the role of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian imperialism in the conflict.

Are Russia, China or Iran exporting capital to Syria, or do they plan to do so after replacing the current government with a neoliberal-Islamist puppet regime? If not, there is no Iranian, Chinese or Russian imperialism in Syria, except in the most colloquial sense.

And even if there is such imperialism, it is still preferable to another Iran or Iraq being created in the region.


The individual who head this blog (http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/the-syrian-revolution-and-the-speech-of-bachar-al-assad/) and is himself a member of the Revolutionary Left Current in Syria, has this to say about the Syrian conflict and the revolutionary process:


A revolutionary process is not all of one colour and never will be, otherwise it would not be a revolution. On the other hand, the role of the revolutionary Left is absolutely clear: to fight against the regime and to radicalize the popular movement!

That's the problem, though; communists should not simply tail every "popular" movement. In particular, supporting Islamists has always been suicidal, and always will be.

[adipocere]

LCC

You sympathize with an umbrella front operated by a US middle-east think tank. How interesting.

[Le Socialiste]

You sympathize with an umbrella front operated by a US middle-east think tank. How interesting.

Lol, prove it. How on earth are the LCCs, independent bodies initially formed at the very beginning of the uprising and comprising ordinary Syrians, an umbrella front for some American think tank? Seriously, people like you amaze me. :rolleyes:

Come back when you can actually back up the shit you say. I'll be waiting, but something tells me I shouldn't bother holding my breath.

[Rural Comrade]

Honestly if the rebels win they would be just like Assad in a few years. The ordinary Syrians will still suffer.

[adipocere]

Lol, prove it. How on earth are the LCCs, independent bodies initially formed at the very beginning of the uprising and comprising ordinary Syrians, an umbrella front for some American think tank? Seriously, people like you amaze me. :rolleyes:

Come back when you can actually back up the shit you say. I'll be waiting, but something tells me I shouldn't bother holding my breath.

Carnegie Middle East Center lists LLC under its publications.

The LLC spokesperson is Rafif Jouejati. She lives in Washington DC.
She is the CEO of P3 Solutions which is a management consulting firm (grant writing) that secures US govt/private funding for strategic business development.
She studied International Relations at The American University.

As far as Carnegie Middle East Center is concerned, Albright and McCain put it best:



“Carnegie remains a first-rate source of policy analysis and practical guidance on all the major international issues and I rely on the advice and counsel of many Carnegie scholars.”
– John McCain
U.S. Senator
“The Carnegie Endowment has been a training ground for many of the allstars in the State Department during the Clinton administration and throughout this century. ….”
– Madeleine Albright
Former Secretary of State



Anything else?

[Le Socialiste]

Yeah, provide links.

[adipocere]

I cant yet. I need 25 posts. You will just have to paste this into your browser.

http: //carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=50426

You can search for Rafif Jouejati and P3 Solutions

edit: and seriously if you're still going to argue the point then you are either in self-serving denial or you're sympathetic and/or affiliated with it.

[Turinbaar]

Yeah, provide links.

here's a link to the Carnegie think tank

http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/12/20/local-coordination-committees-of-syria/evqy

It also claims that the LCC are an umbrella organization, but that they emerged locally. It may be inaccurate to say that they were created and are operated by the think tank.

Rafif Jouejati is listed as a spokesperson based in the US. Also listed are members of the executive committee, based in Syria, Qatar and Jordan, and their representative on the SNC in Turkey.

[adipocere]

It may be inaccurate to say that they were created by the think tank.
This is true. She seems well connected on her own. According to the business owned by Rafif Jouejati, the LLC spokesperson, her clients include:
Federal Customers
National Weather Service
General Services Administration
United States Coast Guard
Federal Communications Commission
National Institutes of Health
Military Sealift Command
Internal Revenue Service
Transportation Security Administration
Commercial Customers
Microsoft Corporation
Dell Federal Services
KPMG LLP
Computer Sciences Corporation
QinetiQ North America
CACI
Avaya Government Solutions
Kadix Systems (a DRC Company)
Raytheon
Houston Associates, Inc. (a Raytheon Company)
Open System Sciences of Virginia
Subsystem Technologies

and the smoking gun as it were:
“What we don’t want to do is descend into the total chaos that Iraq did,” said Ms. Jouejati, who is participating in a similar planning effort among Syrian activists coordinated through the United States Institute of Peace, an independent but Congressionally financed organization in Washington. Even so, she added, “I don’t think we want the United States to impose lessons learned here.”
Link is: www(.)nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/middleeast/state-dept-and-pentagon-planning-for-post-assad-syria.html

[Le Socialiste]

here's a link to the Carnegie think tank

http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/12/20/local-coordination-committees-of-syria/evqy

Thanks, I've been looking at it.


It also claims that the LCC are an umbrella organization, but that they emerged locally. It may be inaccurate to say that they were created by the think tank.

That's a bit of an understatement, seeing as nothing I've read indicates that the LCCs are products of an American think tank (still laughing over that, btw).

Look Adipocere, if you want to argue this out that's fine. I'm more than willing to do that. But first I'd like to refer you to these posts here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2606589&postcount=24), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2613702&postcount=131), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2619142&postcount=171), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2615746&postcount=104), and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2615059&postcount=53), because I just know any future debate will hit on some of the topics contained in my older posts. So please, read them first - and then continue the discussion. I'm not going to go in circles again with someone who'll undoubtedly bring up some of the things I've already written about.


edit: and seriously if you're still going to argue the point then you are either in self-serving denial or you're sympathetic and/or affiliated with it.

*sigh*

Whatever works best for you I suppose. But seeing as you claim to be a member of the CPUSA, I'd watch who you call self-serving. ;)

[adipocere]

nothing I've read indicates that the LCCs are products of an American think tank (still laughing over that, btw).

Whatever works best for you I suppose. But seeing as you claim to be a member of the CPUSA, I'd watch who you call self-serving. ;)

I don't know what you read because it only took me about three Google searches on the keywords "LCC Syria" to find that it's funding comes from congress, and that it is attached to more then one US think tank (or whatever you call USIP) I didn't even know what LCC's were until you brought it up. In the context of how obvious it all is, your long-winded posturing over Syria is just bizarre.

Anyway, you can make immature little jabs at me over CPUSA, but I'm not the one trying to plant grass in astroturf.

nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/middleeast/state-dept-and-pentagon-planning-for-post-assad-syria.html

usip.org/search/apachesolr_search/Rafif%20Jouejati

[Paul Pott]

Dumbasses who still support the rebels on the grounds that the civil war is a "popular revolution" fail to realize that the Arab awakening in Syria is long over. Syrians who opposed Assad in 2011 and rose up against him in the streets - Alawite, Christian, and Sunni - now favor him over the rebels. Every emerging piece of data points this way.

The "LCCs" are an internet based opposition group, not a network of grassroots committees, even if there was an attempt to form something like that when the rebellion against Assad wasn't Islamist. Their biggest fan here, Le Socialiste, has never provided any proof they actually exist, much less that they control any armed group. Then he ignores that this would conflict with the rebels' system of religious courts, but heck, everyone's just blowing the islamist control of the rebellion out of proportion, right?

If committees and councils are reasons to support a side, then you'd be better off supporting Assad, because pro-government and anti-jihadist Syrians have supposedly set up their own "Popular Committees" (http://www.fairobserver.com/article/counter-insurgency-role-syria-popular-committee) to defend their neighborhoods against the rebels, and the militias attached to them demonstrably exist, unlike anything about the LCCs but the website and the spokesperson.

The only appropriate position for the working class movement in Syria or abroad is a demand for an end to the conflict, combined with the recognition that US imperialism is responsible for the war. The slogan that "Assad must go" is nice and romantic still but unattainable through this war without the sacrifice of everything the Syrian people aspire to.

"Radicalizing" the revolt by tailing knuckle dragging theocrats until it was too late worked real well in Iran, didn't it?

As for the Russian imperialism concerns, it is American imperialism on the offensive in Syria and elsewhere in the region, and it is American imperialism responsible for the war. Therefore the working class must concern itself first with American imperialism, not in defense of Russian interests as is the de facto policy of the regime, but for the cause of a progressive Syria.

[Turinbaar]

I don't know what you read because it only took me about three Google searches on the keywords "LCC Syria" to find that it's funding comes from congress, and that it is attached to more then one US think tank (or whatever you call USIP) I didn't even know what LCC's were until you brought it up.

nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/middleeast/state-dept-and-pentagon-planning-for-post-assad-syria.html

usip.org/search/apachesolr_search/Rafif%20Jouejati

I think some distinctions need to be made here. The article you provided said that the USIP is congressionally funded, and that Jouejati is working with them. She's a spokesperson, not a part of the LCC executive committee. This doesn't necessarily mean that congress funds the LCCs, though it seems that every side has some sort of foreign assistance of a kind.

here's a source often linked to by those critical of the rebels which describes the history of the LCCs

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/764


Local Coordination Committees

The LCC are well organized and have a clear political vision. Their pamphlets say that from the start of the revolution, tens of small groups formed across Syria. Each group took upon itself the obligation of meeting, planning, organizing, and coordinating locally on the ground. As the protest movement evolved, these groups joined under the LCC banner to better coordinate and communicate their efforts. They include representatives of activists from all over Syria, and have a media office, as well as committees in Syrian expatriate communities that help them communicate with the Western media.

Activism in Syrian expatriate communities and among allies of the Syrian revolution are meant to garner international support and to reach out to international organizations, Syrian and otherwise, to support a national council that would have legitimacy in the eyes of activists in Syria. The national council would, in turn, use its diplomatic relations to delegitimize the Syrian regime internationally.

LCC and the Federation are among the few organizations that are in touch with the protest movement in the street. They are committed to the LCC’s vision for Syria’s political future, a road map of how the country can emerge out of the crisis. These Local Committees always issue statements and take clear positions on developments in Syria.

[adipocere]

This doesn't necessarily mean that congress funds the LCCs

No it means that Congress (GO) places the responsibility in the hands of USIP (Government Operated NGO) to administer LCC's (GSO - Grassroots Support Organization) who reports back to them both. This is how the US govt. privatizes it's tax dollars - this is how the US government works.

[Turinbaar]

No it means that Congress (GO) places the responsibility in the hands of USIP (Government Operated NGO) to administer LCC's (GSO - Grassroots Support Organization) who reports back to them both. This is how the US govt. privatizes it's tax dollars - this is how the US government works.

Your article suggests that the LCC's are propagandizing abroad with through connections provided by the USIP, it doesn't talk of congress administrating the LCC's through it. Maybe it does, do you have a link for that though? (just so you know, I just heard about the LCC's too)

[Zaza]

Honestly if the rebels win they would be just like Assad in a few years. The ordinary Syrians will still suffer.

And what do you mean? Don't the ordinary Syrians already suffer in the regions which are controlled by the FSA and Al-Nusra ?

[Le Socialiste]

In the context of how obvious it all is, your long-winded posturing over Syria is just bizarre.

You're going to really hate what I've got to say below then. ;)


I don't know what you read because it only took me about three Google searches on the keywords "LCC Syria" to find that it's funding comes from congress, and that it is attached to more then one US think tank (or whatever you call USIP) I didn't even know what LCC's were until you brought it up. In the context of how obvious it all is, your long-winded posturing over Syria is just bizarre.

You know, I’ve visited the sites of these groups you’ve mentioned, and nowhere is the claim made that the Local Coordinating Committees of Syria (http://www.lccsyria.org/en/) originated with them. Of course, that isn’t an argument in and of itself, seeing as if such an organization wished to conceal its role in their creation it could plausibly do so. Having said that, your entire argument rests on the assumption (and it is an assumption, having failed to adequately link your claims up with tangible evidence) that the opposition within Syria is a product of Western - or perhaps more specifically, U.S. - intervention. If you’re to lay the foundations of your argument on this particular set of points, you’d best find something that goes beyond your prior posts and actually demonstrates, with concrete evidence, the ties connecting the entirety of the Syrian opposition (in this case the LCCs) with the U.S. government.

Because contrary to the claims made by many on this site and elsewhere amongst sections of our movement (and it is regrettably a sizable number), the U.S. government and its allies throughout the West and Middle Eastern Gulf simply do not possess the necessary means and general wherewithal to orchestrate something on such an immense scale as what we’ve been observing. Indeed, the original transition plans put forward by the U.S. involved a reform plan (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43596996/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-backs-syria-reform-plan-leaving-assad-place/#.UbwpNjkR7FI) that would leave Assad in place. The question here is obvious: why would the U.S. dedicate such a large amount of resources to fomenting an uprising against a man and leadership it intended to keep intact?

What is evident is that, in the face of a rising Islamist insurgency (and here the distinction should be made between the groups operating under this umbrella, as even this section contains differing splits and ruptures over the direction of a post-Assad Syria (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Aug-08/183858-syria-rebels-see-future-fight-with-foreign-radicals.ashx#axzz2WGQZKBdy)) and the chaotic nature of the conflict, the origins of the opposition lie in the initial, organic upsurge of popular frustration(s) with Assad’s government and the effects of its neoliberal agenda on the average Syrian. When Bashar al-Assad took over following his father’s death in 2000, his focus was and continues to be oriented around the liberalization of the Syrian economy - specifically those sectors under public ‘ownership.’ His government has overseen a myriad of reforms, from reducing food and oil subsidies (resulting in a 42 percent jump in prices for the latter) to wiping out price controls on products such as animal feed and fertilizer. Even workers’ and peasants’ unions were attacked by the regime as obstacles to its liberalization policies, deliberately deprived of the very funds necessary to continue functioning.

In 2006, Syria became the fourth-largest recipient (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/08/in-syria-follow-the-money-to-find-the-roots-of-the-revolt.html) of foreign direct investment, as well as of Arab Gulf states’ investments, rising from $115 million in 2001 to $1.6 billion in 2006. Villages and small to medium-sized cities like Daraa were by and large abandoned as Assad’s policies continued to exclusively benefit those at the top - at the expense of the wider Syrian population. As a result, Islamic charities and schools stepped in to fill the vacuum left in these areas. Majid Rafizadeh is correct to draw similar parallels (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/08/in-syria-follow-the-money-to-find-the-roots-of-the-revolt.html) with what unfolded in countries throughout N. Africa and the Middle East, resulting in what is commonly termed the “Arab Spring”:


As their leaders celebrated their profits, the people of Syria were left with nothing. This vast separation between the wealthy and the poor inevitably led to the revolt of the impoverished, not just in Syria but also in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen as well as in other Arab countries.

Suffice it to say, the idea that the present conflict in Syria is a result of Western imperialism in the contemporary - as opposed to historical - sense is foolhardy thinking, and deserves the condemnation of any who recognize it as such. The U.S. and its allies undoubtedly wish to mold the situation according to their liking, but to argue that these interests were involved from the very beginning, much less financing certain parties within the initial movement, requires serious evidence. At the heart of such an argument lies the negation of what most here identify as the key factor inherent in any capitalist society; that is, the role of class as a constantly shifting and competing force, pushing before it all the innate contradictions evident within capitalism’s structural foundation(s) and resulting in ruptures like we’ve seen in Syria.

This somehow escapes the most ardent critics of the Syrian opposition, whose consistent evaluations of the movement rests firmly on the virulent criticism of its participants as ‘imperialist functionaries.’ The prevalence of such rhetoric was noticeably absent at the height of the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings, its users having reserved their vitriol for the anti-Assad opposition on the grounds of anti-imperialism. Like many here I am firmly opposed to any intervention on the part of the U.S. and its allies in the Syrian conflict. This does not translate into some misguided support for Assad and his regime (which some comrades have done on a so-called “critical basis”), however.

Adipocere, I’m going to transition now from what you’ve argued in prior posts to what AntiNihilist has now put forward. I would encourage you to continue reading though, as what I’m about to address is as relevant and applicable to you as I expect it to be for AntiNihilist.

There has recently emerged an ongoing point within this debate that a majority of Syrians have shifted in favor of Assad in recent months, a clear indication of both the length and severity of the crisis unfolding in the country as well as the lack of any strong or viable revolutionary alternative - namely that of a sizable, dedicated section capable of pushing forward all others while understanding the line of march (as Marx and Engels put it). Such sections only presently exist within a limited capacity, and have been further atomized by the ruthlessness of Assad’s leadership in the current conflict. This fluctuation of popular opinion, if accurate, stands as a further testament to the fact that the working-class isn’t a static formation, but rather a constantly changing, ever-shifting entity capable of great leaps forward and similar-sized steps back.

We have countless historical examples to draw upon to illustrate this point, from Russia and Germany in the early 20th century to Egypt and Syria today. That a majority of Syrians appear to support Assad isn’t a testament to the man but a recognition of the elasticity of class struggle. It’s never as clear-cut or ‘pure’ as we’d like it to be, and it requires a more in-depth look at the situation. (For what it’s worth, a January 2012 poll (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349) indicated that while 55% of Syrians supported Assad at the time - 70% as of early June - half that number also believed he should step down, highlighting some of the contradictory, yet recognizable, processes currently unfolding in the country; it should also be noted, however, that of the 1,000 people surveyed, only 98 were from Syria - the rest having been polled in an assortment of 18 different countries and with 81% of its respondents saying Assad should go.)

As for my ‘advocacy,’ as some detractors put it, for the Local Coordinating Committees, I’ve outlined just where I stand in relation to these bodies in prior posts. Of course, it isn’t the committee that makes the revolution, but rather the origins and content of the entities in question as manifestations of people’s power from below. These may serve to organize and deepen the character and understanding of the opposition. These expressions of coordinative action at the grassroots aren’t always under the exclusive banner of the LCCs, as this article/post (http://www.leninology.com/2012/07/the-syrian-revolt-enters-new-phase.html) highlights. Some choose to merge with these coordinating committees, while others do not as a result of being either unable to, due to logistical constraints, or a conscious decision not to.

More often than not these groups have been organized on the basis of community support and protection, in the absence of the old institutions. The experience(s) of those residing in Taftanaz following the successful ouster of Assad’s forces (http://harpers.org/archive/2012/08/welcome-to-free-syria/) hints at a wider trend as more and more towns were confronted with the question of self-organization within their own communities:


. . . courts stopped working, trash piled high on the streets, and the police stayed home. To fill the vacuum, citizens came together to elect councils—farmers formed their own, as did merchants, laborers, teachers, students, health-care workers, judges, engineers, and the unemployed. In some cases, the councils merged with pre-existing activist networks called local coordinating committees. They in turn chose delegates to sit on a citywide council, which in Taftanaz and surrounding towns was the only form of government the citizenry recognized.

However flawed these manifestations may be (and they most certainly are), the fact that they’ve cropped up in the midst of this conflict speaks to what others have identified as the historical agency of the working-class as that body which gives impetus to all others. These neighborhood and community committees continue, in some instances, to carry the weight of society’s more conservative and reactionary tendencies. This is, given the character and composition of the Syrian population, unsurprising. Indeed, it’s a danger regardless of where it is. We can easily look to similar ideological hindrances on struggle in other parts of the world, whether it be amongst the Spanish indignados or the occupiers of Taksim Square and other cities and towns throughout Turkey.

We arrive back at Marx, who explicitly recognizes the necessity of the class ridding itself of the “muck of ages” in order to become fitted to “found society anew” (German Ideology). Marx posited that the working-class can only successfully arrive at the end of this integral process via revolution, and while he simplifies his thoughts here a little we can gather that bucking the dead weight of all prior developments is more easily said (in this case written) than done.

So what, if anything, does this have to do with Syria. Naturally, it illustrates the class character of the uprising, and the organic ways with which it took on new forms against the onslaught brought on by Assad’s government. Just as these organs of collective coordination, compelled to organize in lieu of a more formal, governmental presence, resemble the early embryonic expressions of class interest, they similarly carry conservative, oftentimes reactionary, tendencies. Herein one glimpses the contradictory character of these community and administrative councils (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/world/middleeast/syria-war-developments.html), further highlighting what I identified above as necessary for the uprising: that of an alternative voice or body that tackles these hindrances on struggle and understands the nuances of the Syrian situation.

As for AntiNihilist’s concerns that these councils (or, at the very least, the LCCs) exist, I’ll attempt to explain just how and where these bodies fit into the Syrian conflict. The LCCs, and others like them, represent the most cellular level of the uprising. A section of these committees have recognized the Syrian National Council (SNC) since its founding, and have some representation on it. They are, however, rather underrepresented in proportion to the more Islamic and liberal opposition groups. This poor representation in the SNC and its structural offshoots further indicates that the SNC doesn’t necessarily speak for the grassroots (something that many of us, myself included, long suspected). An even larger grouping of these committees refuses to recognize or affiliate with the leadership of the SNC. The LCCs have explicitly opposed imperialist intervention, and have even resisted the militarization of the conflict (http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2539/syrian-local-coordinating-committees-on-taking-up-) in some instances. Of course, these bodies are not politically unified as I outlined earlier. They contain within them a variety of differing tendencies, from the most reactionary to the more progressive. Thus (and I agree with Richard Seymour on this), it is the question of political representation that is the most significant aspect currently facing these groupings.

To say, then, that the only appropriate position for communists and the working-class to take is to call for an end to the conflict is misguided, being little more than a de facto acceptance of the Assad government’s presumed ‘right to rule’ and neoliberal agenda. Any resolution to the crisis that leaves the Assad regime intact will undoubtedly result in the dissolution of the opposition and a return to the very policies directly responsible for the current conflict. Thus its advocates, including AntiNihilist, display a fierce disregard for the factors that compelled so many Syrians to rise up in the first place.

Of course, such a resolution only prolongs the crisis - which may well seek to sweep the existing conflict under the rug but cannot fully evade the conditions that have fostered its existence and continual development. Furthermore, American imperialism isn’t solely responsible for the crisis; indeed, it has striven to shape the conflict but hasn’t the means to instigate something on this scale, as some have insinuated. Imperialism is merely an auxiliary component to the development and subsequent series of crises of capitalism, which in turn produces the kinds of social upheaval witnessed in Syria and elsewhere since ’08. To imply that American imperialism is responsible for the conflict neglects the fact that 1) it has no real interest in removing Assad (see my reference to their original reform plan); 2) Assad’s willingness to drown the movement in its own blood compelled many of its members to respond in kind, thus creating the conditions for the kind of conflict we’re seeing. Assad’s response to the uprising is responsible for the direction of the opposition.

In terms of Russian imperialism, it is obviously nowhere near the level and extent of the United States’. Whereas it has the advantage in terms of proximity and the nature of the regime (being a centralized and well-armed apparatus), Western powers are trying to co-opt and infiltrate sections of what has been accurately described as a ‘very loosely coordinated resistance.’ I’ll let Seymour sum up the argument I’ve been making on this matter:


However you assess the relative balance between the various intervening forces, though, the point is that if you want to talk about imperialism in Syria you cannot just ignore the intervention taking place on behalf of the regime.

That about sums up my thoughts. But let’s keep this going! :)

[billydan]

The CIA is only promoting imperalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

These neighborhood and community committees continue, in some instances, to carry the weight of society’s more conservative and reactionary tendencies. This is, given the character and composition of the Syrian population, unsurprising. Indeed, it’s a danger regardless of where it is. We can easily look to similar ideological hindrances on struggle in other parts of the world, whether it be amongst the Spanish indignados or the occupiers of Taksim Square and other cities and towns throughout Turkey.

Quite so. And I think that tailing petit-bourgeois movements like the Indignados is suicidal in any case. An alliance with the Inginados has resulted in no net gains for the proletariat, and an alliance with the Syrian opposition would most likely result in net losses - tailing a movement because it is "popular" or because it included bodies that are superficially similar to the soviets is a tactic that has never worked, especially not when dealing with Islamists. Why do certain sections of the Left refuse to accept this lesson?

[Geiseric]

Quite so. And I think that tailing petit-bourgeois movements like the Indignados is suicidal in any case. An alliance with the Inginados has resulted in no net gains for the proletariat, and an alliance with the Syrian opposition would most likely result in net losses - tailing a movement because it is "popular" or because it included bodies that are superficially similar to the soviets is a tactic that has never worked, especially not when dealing with Islamists. Why do certain sections of the Left refuse to accept this lesson?

Sure mr. Spartacist. Maybe you should read "the communists and the proletariat, " in the manifesto. So this is your excuse for supporting assad?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That is my "excuse", yes - a victory for the Islamists and for the imperial powers, and that is the most likely scenario if the Ba'ath government falls - would set back the proletarian movement by decades if not more. That is why the proletariat must struggle against such a scenario - with Assad to the extent that he is also fighting the Islamists, against Assad when the inevitable concessions start, against Assad as a bourgeois ruler, as a bonapartist, after the crisis has passed. It's not as if the concept of anti-imperialism is some crazy Spart invention.

[Geiseric]

Lol how did that work for the Communist Party of China during the canton insurrection, when they sided with left guomindang, ending in a massacre? Also many of the rebels are fighting for equality and transitional demands. These are why the U.S. hasn't really supported them yet, because the syrian working class who is struggling against this dictator doesn't want another one to replace him, they are forming new grassroots political bodies as we speak in some areas.

[khad]

Lol how did that work for the Communist Party of China during the canton insurrection, when they sided with left guomindang, ending in a massacre?
Obviously, the solution was to appeal for intervention from imperialists, set up an ethnic puppet state à la Manchukuo, and use that aforementioned puppet state as a springboard to rape and murder the rest of the country into submission.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1.

And I think that tailing petit-bourgeois movements like the Indignados is suicidal in any case.


That is why the proletariat must struggle [. . .] with Assad . . .

Uh-huh. Tailing nationalist neo-colonial dictators sure beats tailing workers whose politics we find "petit-bourgeois". There's some brilliant communist strategy for you.

2.
But, also, yeah, fuck American proxy armies.

[cyu]

Honestly if the rebels win they would be just like Assad in a few years.


Nah, I suspect as long as the rebels are in power, they'll continue to be like Afghanistan is today. The only way for them to even recover what Assad has, would be for them to be maneuvered out of power by the Western powers currently backing them, and replaced with a Western puppet like the one in Bahrain.

If Syrians want to prevent themselves from become a new colony of the West, it may require that they threaten multi-national executives with violence. Too bad Ken Saro-Wiwa has not yet been avenged.

[Manar]

Sure mr. Spartacist. Maybe you should read "the communists and the proletariat, " in the manifesto. So this is your excuse for supporting assad?
There is a chapter in the Communist Manifesto that asks communists to support NATO-sponsored cannibals? Shit, we must own different editions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Lol how did that work for the Communist Party of China during the canton insurrection, when they sided with left guomindang, ending in a massacre?

Unfortunately, the Canton Insurrection would have ended in a massacre, no matter who the communists allied with. And, as far as I know, the "left" wing of the GMD played no part in the crushing of the insurrection; perhaps you're referring to the subsequent events in Shanghai? But the error of the communists in that situation was to completely subordinate themselves to the GMD. I have never called for the proletariat to support the Ba'ath unconditionally.

The proletariat should support the Ba'ath just as the Chinese communists supported the GMD against Japan and their puppet states. And it should do so, if possible, using their own independent organisations, and realise that they will enter a conflict with the Ba'ath after the civil war.


Also many of the rebels are fighting for equality and transitional demands. These are why the U.S. hasn't really supported them yet, because the syrian working class who is struggling against this dictator doesn't want another one to replace him, they are forming new grassroots political bodies as we speak in some areas.

Even so, it seems that none of these allegedly progressive oppositionists - Le Socialiste casually admits that many of them are in fact controlled by reactionary elements - have the ability to challenge groups like Jubhat al-Nusra etc. etc.


Uh-huh. Tailing nationalist neo-colonial dictators sure beats tailing workers whose politics we find "petit-bourgeois". There's some brilliant communist strategy for you.

Except I never called for the proletariat to tail Assad; the goals of the proletariat and the goals of Assad happen to coincide at the moment, but there can, at best, be an alliance of convenience between the two. And how did you manage to find workers in the Indignados? I don't think that the Indignados are workers with petit-bourgeois politics. I think they are, mostly, part of the petite bourgeoisie. They have nothing to offer to the proletariat, except an IU or PSOE government (and, with apologies to the Militant tendency, that is not nearly enough) and closure of the coal mines in the Asturias because they "generate noise".

[brigadista]

This thread has improved - thanks to the posters for the info on this thread which has elevated it above the usual ....

I have just read this article from Robert Fisk in today's Independent and wondered what posters think about it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

[Paul Cockshott]

The interesting question is who will prevail. Is US imperialism able to do what it wants this time, does it command sufficient rebel forces on the ground that can do it, can it use airpower as it did in Libya if the Russians continue supplying modern anti-aircraft missiles. Will the US be able to force the Russians to back down here?
The dangers of escalation are considerable.

[Point Blank]

to the extent that the Ba'ath regime is fighting the Islamist contras, the proletariat needs to support them, in order to drive the contras out of the country and prevent Syria from becoming a new Iraq.

Ba'ath army officers or Islamist rebel officers, it doesn't really matter.

All of them are masters who - for the sake of their own power - are asking proletarians to die for them. And they all ought to be shot. :rolleyes:



the goals of the proletariat and the goals of Assad happen to coincide at the moment, but there can, at best, be an alliance of convenience between the two.

Sure, that's what they say all the damn time.

[Le Socialiste]

There is a chapter in the Communist Manifesto that asks communists to support NATO-sponsored cannibals? Shit, we must own different editions.

Please contribute something of value here, preferably beyond this repetitive bullshit. I beg of you, show me that every single fighter and organizer participating in the so-called 'opposition' is a NATO-sponsored cannibal hell-bent on furthering an imperialist agenda, or cease making these baseless claims. Your generalizations of what are and have been specific cases to the rest of the movement only distracts from the real issues facing the opposition. But then you probably don't mind that, do you?

[Per Levy]

Are Russia, China or Iran exporting capital to Syria, or do they plan to do so after replacing the current government with a neoliberal-Islamist puppet regime?

not to mention that assads regime is allready neoliberal, not to mention that russia has a military base in syria and so on.


And even if there is such imperialism, it is still preferable to another Iran or Iraq being created in the region.

good to know that there are "communists" who support imperialism, its quite unbelievable but hey here it is. also funny since you back a bourgeois dictatorship that is supported by iran and dont want another iran.


That's the problem, though; communists should not simply tail every "popular" movement.

nope, but communists should tail imperialists states and bourgeois dictators afterall.


In particular, supporting Islamists has always been suicidal, and always will be.

like supporting the muslim brotherhood, iran, the hamas, hizbollah oh these arnt really islamists, right?

[Le Socialiste]

Even so, it seems that none of these allegedly progressive oppositionists - Le Socialiste casually admits that many of them are in fact controlled by reactionary elements - have the ability to challenge groups like Jubhat al-Nusra etc. etc.

Controlled? Not necessarily. What I said was there remain many competing actors or sections in the Syrian uprising, and indeed much more within the opposition itself. These administrative bodies are, for the time being, in a continuous state of uncertainty; meaning, they carry the ideological baggage of past and present parties to the conflict. Any body of this origin will undoubtedly bear similar hindrances on its ability to act transparently and democratically, much less progressively. Regardless of where they crop up, entities or expressions of this sort will have to contend with the reactionary tendencies around or inside it. In some cases, the latter have overtaken or, in fact, founded these administrative cells, bringing them into conflict with their supposed "constituencies."

Take the case of Saraqib (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/world/middleeast/syria-war-developments.html?_r=0), a town in northern Syria. Many people there were angry at the presence and actions of the Nusra Front, who'd destroyed a milk factory there. When a group of masked men raided the headquarters of two civilian grassroots organizations, though, the town's population rallied against the Front and accused the local council of condoning or sanctioning the attack. People's response(s) to the raid even forced representatives of Al Nusra to adopt a more "conciliatory tone," which only emboldened them further. Said one man:


I won’t put up with their intimidation tactics anymore. Next time they dare come within five meters of this area [one of the two civilian headquarters], we will kill them.

Similar scenes are unfolding elsewhere throughout Syria where these bodies have emerged, though I wouldn't say it has happened in uniform fashion across the board - or even in altogether similar ways. At the root of this conflict is the unevenness of consciousness on display in these committees, and the efforts on the part of some conservative or otherwise reactionary sections of the anti-Assad movement to dominate the content and character of these entities. This does not, however, preclude revolutionaries or other progressive-minded groups from seeking to either upend this dominant position or build alternative, oppositional networks that can appeal to the broader population. Such groups exist, but like I've said in prior posts, they are constrained in terms of what capacity - if any - they can function in. This is not applicable to all cases where Syrians have sought to build and establish self-rule though, where whatever hitches or imperfections have been refined and worked through (all in the shadow of the Assad regime's relentless drive to bury them under the rubble of their own homes and infrastructure).

My "casual" mention of this isn't to say we should wash our hands of the conflict - indeed, I argue that the opposite is true. We must work to re-engage with the existing forces and institutions (new and old) on the ground, and seek to form a viable understanding of the conflict unfolding there (cue accusations of "tail-ism"). Rebellions against capital (and this is such an uprising) are rarely, if ever, so black and white. We, of all people, should understand this. This means we must work harder to identify all the moving pieces that are evident in the struggle, isolate them, and subsequently place them in relation to all other sections. Of course, we will draw different - even wildly divergent - conclusions from what we observe, but it makes sense to argue this out. How else are we to form a coherent idea of what is taking place?

[Zaza]

Also many of the rebels are fighting for equality and transitional demands.

Good, they can fight for that in their own country. It's Syria, only Syrians decide. (And it pretty much seems like they are standing with Assad.) Not some islamists which want to start the new khalifat from Syria.



Please contribute something of value here, preferably beyond this repetitive bullshit. I beg of you, show me that every single fighter and organizer participating in the so-called 'opposition' is a NATO-sponsored cannibal hell-bent on furthering an imperialist agenda, or cease making these baseless claims. Your generalizations of what are and have been specific cases to the rest of the movement only distracts from the real issues facing the opposition. But then you probably don't mind that, do you?

Ofcourse not every single of those terrorists is a "NATO-sponsored cannibal".
Some of them really think they try to free the country, "because to help their brothers against this bloody dictator." Which just makes me laugh.
Foreign terrorists have no place in a revolution. A revolution is for the people, and not against them.

The rebel claim to hate the Americans but to let me quote of on them:
"We hate America but we need their weapons!!"

Or when Israel attacked Syria and claimed they tried to stop a trade between the govnerment and the Hezbollah:
"Allahu akbar! Thanks to Israel! Tfouuuuuuu Hezbollah and Bashar Al-kalb"


Yeah.. no.

[hatzel]

Good, they can fight for that in their own country. It's Syria, only Syrians decide.

Yeah, I must admit I don't personally care all that much whether people sitting around on the internet want to declare their support for this side or that (mainly because it has very little if any real-world significance), but I do care if the argument for or against a certain position is simply the reification of national boundaries...

The fact that the International Brigades were not Spanish meant nothing for their legitimacy. The fact that the Viriatos were not Spanish meant nothing for their illegitimacy. We have (or at least should have) far better arguments than that, in the same way we should have better arguments against Ghuraba al-Sham and/or Hezbollah (depending which side we want to criticise) than simply claiming that those individuals do not belong to the specific abstract national community which is supposedly allowed to monopolise political action within a certain rigidly delimited territory ruled over by a monolithic state claiming to represent that national community and only that national community, as this is a complete capitulation to the logic of nationalism, or at the very least comes dangerously close.

If the rebels' actions in Syria are illegitimate - as you clearly believe them to be - then they're equally illegitimate regardless of whether these people are from Aleppo, Baghdad or San Francisco. Don't muddy the waters by bringing their being 'foreign' to the table, as if it is politically relevant.

[Zaza]

How is this not relevant?
Any Syrian has the right to protest against their govnerment and want a change, but not someone who doesn't belong to that country.
Or since when should I care about if the American govnerment should be democrat or republican? It's not my country, I don't live there and never will.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ba'ath army officers or Islamist rebel officers, it doesn't really matter.

It really does matter, unless you think there is no difference, from the standpoint of the proletariat and of the communist movement, between a republic ruled over by the local bourgeoisie and the puppet regime of the imperial bourgeoisie supported by semifeudal elements?


All of them are masters who - for the sake of their own power - are asking proletarians to die for them. And they all ought to be shot. :rolleyes:

Alright, but who will shoot them? There is no communist movement in Syria strong enough to fight on two fronts. Nor is Syria in the middle of a democratic revolution that could organically develop into a socialist revolution. Therefore, the defense of Syria against imperialism remains the paramount task of the Syrian proletariat.


Sure, that's what they say all the damn time.

Who does?


Please contribute something of value here, preferably beyond this repetitive bullshit. I beg of you, show me that every single fighter and organizer participating in the so-called 'opposition' is a NATO-sponsored cannibal hell-bent on furthering an imperialist agenda, or cease making these baseless claims.

That's an odd request; can you prove that every single fighter and organiser participating in the, for example, División Azul was a German-sponsored fascist hellbent on furthering an imperialist agenda?


not to mention that assads regime is allready neoliberal, not to mention that russia has a military base in syria and so on.

The Ba'ath government is not neoliberal enough for the liking of the imperialist states. And how is the Russian military base in Syria relevant? Imperialism, in Leninist theory at least, is an economic phenomenon connected to the export of capital and the extraction of superprofits, not military adventurism.


good to know that there are "communists" who support imperialism, its quite unbelievable but hey here it is. also funny since you back a bourgeois dictatorship that is supported by iran and dont want another iran.

Because, surely, every country that Iran supports becomes another Iran. And, mutatis mutandis, every state supported by the Kemalist Turkey should have become another Kemalist Turkey, including the Soviet Union? Right? No, because this "theory" is absolute rubbish.


nope, but communists should tail imperialists states and bourgeois dictators afterall.

What bleeding imperialist states? And of course I support tailing the Ba'ath government, that is why I pointed out, several times, that the communist element should fight alongside the Syrian Arab Army without becoming politically subservient to the Ba'ath, and that the Syrian communists should prepare themselves for a future confrontation with the Ba'ath.


like supporting the muslim brotherhood, iran, the hamas, hizbollah oh these arnt really islamists, right?

Hizbullah is an Islamist organisation active in Lebanon. Their presence in Syria is purely military, and they act under the supervision of the secular Syrian Arab Army. The regime in Iran is to be opposed, of course, but only an idiot could think that an imperialist intervention is going to result in improvements for the workers, women, LGBT people etc. That is simply not how imperialism works. Smashing the Iranian state is the task of the Iranian workers, and the international proletariat. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they oppose the Ba'ath from the right, as anyone even remotely familiar with the history of Syria could have told you.


My "casual" mention of this isn't to say we should wash our hands of the conflict - indeed, I argue that the opposite is true. We must work to re-engage with the existing forces and institutions (new and old) on the ground, and seek to form a viable understanding of the conflict unfolding there (cue accusations of "tail-ism"). Rebellions against capital (and this is such an uprising) are rarely, if ever, so black and white. We, of all people, should understand this. This means we must work harder to identify all the moving pieces that are evident in the struggle, isolate them, and subsequently place them in relation to all other sections. Of course, we will draw different - even wildly divergent - conclusions from what we observe, but it makes sense to argue this out. How else are we to form a coherent idea of what is taking place?

How is the present uprising a "rebellion against capital"? This is probably the crucial difference between those sections of the left that support the FSA and similar formations and the rest of the communist movement. It seems to me that your analysis is purely impressionistic; there is an uprising, perhaps even a popular uprising, that was sparked by neoliberal policies of the regime. But need I remind you that the American-orchestrated deposition of Allende was sparked by a miners' strike? Are there any significant democratic or revolutionary elements in the Syrian opposition? Each time this question is posed, the FSA supporters respond with anecdotal reports about this or that minor group of council. But is this enough? The final chief of government of the Spanish Republic was a fascist, Miaja, does this mean that the Spanish Republic was a fascist regime? It does not. What is important is the aggregate character of the entire movement. And the presence of workers, or the rural poor and so on, does not make the revolution a socialist one, or even a democratic one. Unfortunately, the militant lower strata are sometimes simply lazzaroni, fighting against their objective class interest.

[DaringMehring]

The first rule of the socialist Marxist is to oppose "their own" bourgeoisie (who are only "their own" in the sense that their actions can fight against them the most directly and effectively). Anybody who wants to get behind US Imperialism's project in Syria is violating rule #1.

Let the Syrians fight their battle, bringing in the US bourgeoisie won't help them actually take power in their own names. You can see a longer essay on this subject here: http://livingrevolution.co/

[cyu]

How covert policy is telescoped in offical propaganda...

Stages of a CIA operation:

1. "We have no operations in the area at this time."
Translation: We are currently bribing the opposition and attempting to corrupt figures in positions of power.

2. "We are not involved, but we are concerned about human rights in the area."
Translation: We are currently arming the factions that we believe will be useful to us.

3. "We are considering our options to protect human rights."
Translation: We have just escalated our arms shipments.

4. "I think it's time to start funding support for the freedom fighters."
Translation: We are now ready to grant ourselves retro-active legal cover to do what we've already been doing.