Log in

View Full Version : An open letter on Syria to Western narcissists



Sasha
31st August 2013, 14:31
An open letter on Syria to Western narcissists

http://humanprovince.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/mideast_syria-08c3c.jpg?w=319&h=212 (http://humanprovince.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/mideast_syria-08c3c.jpg)

On the eve of what seem to be ineluctable strikes on Syria, Ive been struggling with what my position on Syria should be. Before I get to that though, I should say that while Im not Syrian, I too have some skin in the game, as it were. On our way to donate blood for a friends mothers surgery last month, my wife got a call from a friend telling us to avoid the neighborhood of Bir al-Abed in Beiruts southern suburbs, since there had just been a large explosion there (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/beirut-bomb-blast-hezbollah-neighborhood-beer-alabed.html). At Bahman Hospital, my wife and baby daughter and I saw ambulances speeding toward us carrying those who had just been wounded. And a few days after Id left for southern Turkey to conduct interviews with Syrians who had fled the war in their homes, I found out that a car bomb had just gone off a few blocks from my mother in laws home (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/bodies-reportedly-found-south-beirut-explosion-article-1.1427690) in the Hezbollah stronghold of Rweiss. It kills me that my daughter has heard the sound of a car bomb before her first birthday.
Extended family from Yarmouk, the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, have been displaced and are forced to seek refuge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omgJovb65HU) yet again in Lebanon, a country that doesnt want them (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/07/lebanon-palestinians-fleeing-syria-denied-entry). And even now, were making plans for what might happen if the impending strikes on Syria fuel an escalation in Lebanon, where living in the southern suburbs can get you killed if theres a war with Israel. And yet all of this pales in comparison to what my Syrian friends continue to go through on a daily basis.
All that to say that the current conflict in Syria isnt just of academic interest to me; its personal as well. This is partially why I have so little patience for some of the rhetoric Ive been seeing from Western leftist circles, where this conflict seems like nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon for scoring ideological points. This has been illustrated by the passing around of an article by Robert Fisk, who asks, Does Obama know hes fighting on al-Qaidas side? (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html) This lazy and facile opinion piece assures us that if the US attacks Syria, then the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaida. It is the flip side of the rhetoric that was so evident in the run-up to war in Iraq that equated any opposition to an idiotic war with support for Saddam Hussein. Well, guess what? There are lots of perfectly fine opinions that might put you on the same side as al-Qaida. Just to name one: if youre against drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as I am, then youre also on the same side as al-Qaida according to this logic.
This is the caricature of knee-jerk leftism, where everything is always and everywhere about the United States. The narcissism of such a position boggles the mind. In such an ideological stance its not enough to be critical of Washingtons actions and motivations, as well we should be, it is necessary to parrot the talking points of Washingtons enemies. (The same phenomenon can be seen in certain Islamophobic (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/11/bnp-nick-griffin-syria-assad) and right-wing (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/08/syria-crisis-russia-and-china-step-up-warnings-to-obama-over-strike.html) circles.) In this narrative, the militarization of the uprising in Syria was an American plan, not a foreseeable reaction to a brutally violent crackdown on a predominately peaceful opposition movement (http://www.alharak.org/nonviolence_map/en/) by the security forces of the Baath regime. This conflict is, so the argument goes, a creation of Washington, and perhaps Riyadh, and the opposition is made up of only of blood-thirsty sectarian Islamists who are generally seen as but tools of malicious statecraft. Such a narrative, of course, denies the agency of Syrians, seeing them as so many lifeless puppets waiting for a tug from the imperialist American hand.
This is why discussions of Syria in such quarters tend not to be discussions of Syria. Theyre actually discussions of American capitalism or American imperialism take your pick. So let me be clear: if your opinion of Syria is actually an opinion about the United States, I have no interest in hearing it, and its probably safe to say that most Syrians (or at least all of the ones I know) who are faced with the business end of the regimes ordinance dont either. I cant think of a single Syrian whos willing to get killed so you can flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your local coffee shop.
Lest I be accused of shilling for American intervention here, let me set a few things straight. In addition to endangering my familys lives, the proposed punitive strikes that are all but inevitable probably wont make anything better on the ground (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041080358452504.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories), and may make things worse, which is why Im against them. My opinion on American intervention in general and in this conflict in particular (about which more in a subsequent post) is that the US is not to be trusted to act in anything but what it sees as its interests, and often a woefully short-sighted understanding of those interests to boot. So no, Washington does not really care about those children killed last week in a chemical attack, just as it didnt care about the Iranians or Kurds killed in previous ones (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he _gassed_iran?page=full). Consequently, my feeling is that a vicious, and viciously short-sighted, realpolitik in Washington would probably like nothing better than to let its enemies fight indefinitely in Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0), burning the country to the ground as they do so.
But please, dont let the conflict in Syria be about opposing America. Let it be about Syria (http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html), and what might actually help Syrians you know, the actually existing people who are dying by the tens of thousands in this brutal war. But if you cant do that, then do me a favor, and please shut up.


http://humanprovince.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/an-open-letter-on-syria-to-western-narcissists/

Paul Pott
31st August 2013, 19:32
The American attack on Syria is bad, but c'mon guiz, this war has nothing to do with American imperialism, the rebels are just the Syrian Tahrir square with Kalashnikovs! The Syrian people are totally willing to die at the hands of proxy armies or western bombing for my liberal satisfaction seeing the bloody dictator overthrown! That's what all Syrians want regardless of how it's done, right?

#FF0000
31st August 2013, 19:54
Who exactly is this article for?

EDIT: I sort of see what the writer is going for, now. Opposing intervention because "yo it's al-qaeda" struck me as pandering, especially since certain Anti-Imperialists have "supported" islamist groups and parties in the past, but the fact that the strongest among these rebels are fundamentalist islamists is cause for concern, especially for the, Christians and Kurds and Alawites in Syria -- so mentioning "Al Qaeda" isn't necessarily making it "about America".

Also if you're "struggling to figure out your position on Syria", at least on the issue on American intervention, then you might be an idiot.

Paul Pott
31st August 2013, 19:58
Who exactly is this article for?

For anyone that opposes US imperialism. This person is a narcissist who wants it to be politically incorrect to even mention US imperialism.

Sinister Cultural Marxist
31st August 2013, 20:01
I think the article has more to do with criticizing Leftists who reduce all political issues to a discourse on US Imperialism than supporting an American strike. i.e ignoring the claims of human rights abuses by the Syrian government or downplaying them because they are used to justify American strikes. Whether or not the reports of human rights abuses are used by the US government to justify liberal interventions does not impact the importance of those human rights abuses, nor does it diminish the suffering of those persecuted. Discussing the Imperialism of states like the UK, France or USA is of course important, but their imperialism should not be used as an excuse to downplay the significance of human rights abuses by regimes which have been the target of imperialism. If Syria gassed people, that's important for people to recognize and critique just as much as the American or French intervention which used the gassing as a pretext.

#FF0000
31st August 2013, 20:05
i.e ignoring the claims of human rights abuses by the Syrian government or downplaying them because they are used to justify American strikes

To be totally fair, it seems incredibly unlikely that Assad used chemical weapons.

adipocere
31st August 2013, 20:06
Lest I be accused of shilling for American intervention hereBrave words, Sean. At this point, even Donald Rumsfield (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/donald-rumsfeld-syria-crisis-96024.html) has reservations.


I come to Beirut via Alabama and Paris. This blog is mostly concerned with the Middle East, Africa, genocide and US foreign policy.
My interests include foreign tongues, fallen empires, pear cider, ptanque, fresh cherries, capital cities, book shopping, Arab ice cream and root beer.
I have worked as an editor at the UN, university professor, high school teacher, picture framer, lawn mower, waiter, busboy and photographer’s assistant.
Shill.

edit: OP: why do you keep gently toeing this hornets' nest? I ask this because this article you posted here is absolutely transparent. "Neutral" western opinions penned by intelligence assets er...bloggers writing damage control propaganda are not in short supply. We are literally bombarded by this rubbish day in, day out. What is your angle?

khad
31st August 2013, 20:10
It sure is great to invoke Yarmouk, because unlike this shill, Palestinians in Yarmouk are fighting and dying to reclaim their homes from Al Nusra invaders.

Extended family from Yarmouk, the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, have been displaced and are forced to seek refuge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omgJovb65HU) yet again in Lebanon, a country that doesn’t want them (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/07/lebanon-palestinians-fleeing-syria-denied-entry). And even now, we’re making plans for what might happen if the impending strikes on Syria fuel an escalation in Lebanon, where living in the southern suburbs can get you killed if there’s a war with Israel. And yet all of this pales in comparison to what my Syrian friends continue to go through on a daily basis.
All that to say that the current conflict in Syria isn’t just of academic interest to me; it’s personal as well. If it's so personal, then why spend time whining to a bunch of Westerners in an intellectual exercise when you could be doing this:
OSf2yv7IARc
RIwjuRc6XEs
43TOJ540wE4

Let's be real for once here. If you're not engaged in fighting this war, it is an intellectual exercise for you. To believe otherwise and egregiously overvaluing one's own importance is the apotheosis of narcissism.