Shame on the Labour Party

[Gnat60]

With the help of Labour MP's it looks like RAF bombs will join their allies in France, the US in killing thousands of innocents while acting as a recruiter for ISIS. Another example if needed that the Labour Party is aro imperialist party with it without Corbyn.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To be fair when you say 'shame on the Labour Party':

a) I think the least of the Labour Party's problems are its moral compass/worries about shame. It's biggest problem is that the majority of its MPs are either 'soft left' capitalists or reconstructed Blairites;

b) When you talk about the Labour Party, you are talking about a party where the majority of members, the majority of union supporters and the majority of registered supporters, as well as the leader, are fully opposed to interventionist foreign policy. The biggest problem the Labour Party has is that there are a great number of spineless, tory-lite MPs.

Though I guess you are right in that historically the Labour Party has been an interventionist party, especially so in the past few decades.

[piet11111]

Regarding B i would not call that the biggest issue but the result of the biggest issue.
Namely Corbyn being a spineless jellyfish that capitulates the moment he runs into opposition from the blairite scum.

Unity at any price seems to be his guiding principle and shame on those who fail to recognise that.

[Hit The North]

Unity at any price seems to be his guiding principle and shame on those who fail to recognise that.

You're absolutely right.

Corbyn and the majority grass-roots Labour activists are in a weak position because the Blair/Brown clique still control the party machine and are integrated into the corporate media spectacle. The British media, briefed by shadow-cabinet careerists, has mounted an aggressive attack on Corbyn for having a position at odds with British imperialist foreign policy and for trying to whip it through the Labour Party (even though it is in tune with over 75% of the party members as well as a majority of Labour MPs). Some of these shady shadow cabinet stooges have been so full of imperialist blood-lust they have screamed their dissent into Corbyn's face - literally, if insider-reports of Monday's shadow cabinet meeting are to be believed. Unless he stops capitulating he will be out on his arse by February. But his weapons are few.

The only option for the Corbynites is to work towards the de-selection of right-wing Labour MPs and their replacement by left-wing candidates. But the party machine will prevent this from happening.

Ultimately, Corbyn is likely to be chewed-up by the inexorable logic of the Labour Party - bourgeois to its core - because it is a machine for winning elections and Corbyn is unlikely to deliver that.

....

[piet11111]

Ultimately, Corbyn is likely to be chewed-up by the inexorable logic of the Labour Party - bourgeois to its core - because it is a machine for winning elections and Corbyn is unlikely to deliver that.

....

Corbyn could win an election thats what the blairites want to avoid at any cost they would rather destroy the party and give the tory's the victory then have a leftist (even if its one of the spineless reformist types) prove that the right wing politics they have been pushing are what makes Labour un-electable.

[Hit The North]

Corbyn could win an election thats what the blairites want to avoid at any cost they would rather destroy the party and give the tory's the victory then have a leftist (even if its one of the spineless reformist types) prove that the right wing politics they have been pushing are what makes Labour un-electable.

Again, you are right. But along with the Media, the intransigence of the Labour right, is a key reason why Corbyn will be unable to win a general election, even if - and it's a big 'if' - he manages to last that long.

.......

[Gnat60]

For me Corbyn has always and will always be a reformist politician who believes that you can gradually transform capitalism into either a more humane form of capitalism or that socialism can be introduced through parliament. When the capitalist class does not go along with this perspective he is left high and dry.

On the question of supporting the bombing of Syria Corbyn would accept a UN mandate as if that makes imperialist intervention even more acceptable. It's not and can never be.

I only hope that after the lessons of Corbyn has been learnt enough members of the working class will start to look to our own independent action based on a communist perspective and start to build a movement that looks to get rid of capitalism on a global scale.

[piet11111]

For me Corbyn has always and will always be a reformist politician who believes that you can gradually transform capitalism into either a more humane form of capitalism or that socialism can be introduced through parliament. When the capitalist class does not go along with this perspective he is left high and dry.

On the question of supporting the bombing of Syria Corbyn would accept a UN mandate as if that makes imperialist intervention even more acceptable. It's not and can never be.

I only hope that after the lessons of Corbyn has been learnt enough members of the working class will start to look to our own independent action based on a communist perspective and start to build a movement that looks to get rid of capitalism on a global scale.

Well what i am hoping for and its a long shot but that Corbyn will either force out the blairites or that a split will happen and that the Corbyn faction will run into his reformist limitations and that a true leftist will then manage to get to a leadership position.

Corbyn as a means to clear the way for a leftist program is the most that can happen.
Heck if the time comes im certain he would oppose it for going to far and too sectarian for refusing to cooperate with the right wing.

[Црвена]

Corbyn is literally the same as every single social democratic politician in history who has spouted a whole lot of rhetoric which amounts to a whole lot of nothing. We need to stop pretending that this time it's going to be any different. End of.

[reviscom1]

Regarding B i would not call that the biggest issue but the result of the biggest issue.
Namely Corbyn being a spineless jellyfish that capitulates the moment he runs into opposition from the blairite scum.

Unity at any price seems to be his guiding principle and shame on those who fail to recognise that.

Agreed.

[The Feral Underclass]

397 for and 223 against the motion to bomb Syria.

This means we will start bombing Raqqa shortly.

I've had the debate on all day. It's been interesting to listen to. The Foreign Secretary and others talked about how there are 70,000 anti-Assad coalition troops waiting to wage a ground campaign against Daesh that our air strikes would support...I'm assuming this is some kind of fantasy?

[Sibotic]

Labour aren't half seeming spineless. It's almost like Corbyn's election was someone else's idea, and they just happened to be in the Labour Party. Poor guy, maybe the Conservatives might have been more welcoming after years of having to put up with David Cameron earlier.


I've had the debate on all day. It's been interesting to listen to. The Foreign Secretary and others talked about how there are 70,000 anti-Assad coalition waiting to wage a ground campaign against Daesh that our air strikes would support...I'm assuming this is some kind of fantasy?
An interesting reprise of the olden ideas of a 'coalition of the willing' which was to 'win over hearts and minds,' but you sort of wonder if ISIS' characterisation of them as a 'coalition of devils,' who are 'demoralised,' isn't significantly better, and, if I may say so, significantly wittier. Other than people making up this 'air strikes only' thing which is apparently a normal mode of attack on something, despite the West not having used it before - Osama bin Laden perhaps - it also seems like something the West might have issues with using against 'terrorism' in the first place, let alone mostly to placate some population. Maybe a throwback to the blockade of Berlin under Stalin? In any case, it seems more likely to be an expression of feelings than a) the existence of any real, coherent coalition, let alone one which would be left alone unless the war was effectively given up on (obviously if the West weren't interested in ousting Assad there, then how much this could be called a 'coalition' is questionable. That Assad and ISIS are still assumed to be wholly opposed is on the one hand peculiar, on the other hand assumes that given that apparently forces from both Assad and against Assad are taking on 'Daesh,' that ISIS are being assumed to be a significantly greater power and threat, geologically and politically, than the West would admit, especially to themselves. Generally speaking it would take quite some desperation to produce that unity, that it's unquestioned implies that this goes beyond exactly desperation.), b) a credible threat to anyone.

[ckaihatsu]

The wording is less-than-precise these days, since ISIS *controls* part of Syria (and Iraq) -- so 'bombing Syria' now doesn't mean 'going after Assad', it tends to mean 'going after ISIS', as in Raqqa.

Interestingly the regular 'NATO' grouping is now *split* on (originally neoconservative) objectives, and there's no solid consensus regarding an anti-Assad position.

Perhaps ISIS is now the 'easy pick', especially since the act of terrorism committed in Paris, but I'll agree with the line that says the U.S. -- or France, for that matter -- shouldn't be trusted in the region since Assad / Syria is still on their shit list.

For good coverage and analysis see this prior thread:


Attacks in Paris

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attacks-paris-t194578/index.html

[bricolage]

I've had the debate on all day. It's been interesting to listen to. The Foreign Secretary and others talked about how there are 70,000 anti-Assad coalition troops waiting to wage a ground campaign against Daesh that our air strikes would support...I'm assuming this is some kind of fantasy?

Much of the debate around the feasibility of the British strategy has focused on Mr Cameron’s statement that we do indeed have a partner, of whose existence few were previously aware. He said that there are 70,000 “Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups”. The impression given is that there is a “third force” in Syria which will provide a powerful ally for the US, France and Britain.

This would be very convenient but, unfortunately, its existence is very debatable. “The notion that there are 70,000 moderate fighters is an attempt to show that you can fight Isis and [President Bashar al] Assad at the same time,” says Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syrian politics. But he is dismissive of the idea that such a potential army exists, though he says there might be 70,000 Syrians with a gun who are fighting for their local clan, tribe, warlord or village. “The problem is that they hate the village down the road just as much they hate Isis and Assad,” he said.

He recalls that one group he met during a recent visit to Latakia province in north-west Syria claimed to have 2,000 fighters, but probably numbered only 500.

He warns that they pretend to the outside world that they are more moderate than they really are, speaking of “the equality of all Syrians before the law” when they are outside Syria or communicating with people who have never been to the country, but express “hatred for Shia and Allawites” on all other occasions.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-on-the-verge-of-entering-into-a-long-war-in-syria-based-on-wishful-thinking-and-poor-a6756476.html

[BIXX]

Coworkers are very happy about this.

[Gnat60]

Wondering if all those individuals and organizations that rushed to join the Labour Party due to Corbyn will now rush out before they become further demoralised.

[Sewer Socialist]

So what specifically are people referring to of Corbyn? All the news coverage I'm getting is about Corbyn's opposition to war.

[blake 3:17]

So what specifically are people referring to of Corbyn? All the news coverage I'm getting is about Corbyn's opposition to war.

He allowed Labour MP's a free vote. A few weeks ago he'd indicated that he wouldn't allow a free vote. The majority of the sitting Labour MPs are hostile to him and there are all sorts of nasty games being played against him. 66 Labour MPs voted for the air strikes.

It was a pragmatic decision on his part, and probably very necessary one.

[Comrade Jacob]

"Even if Karl Marx himself was the leader of the British Labour Party it would still be a party of imperialism" - Harpal Brar

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Corbyn is basically between a rock (his support from his anti-war leftist base) and a hard place (the Blairite elite). I wouldn't want to be Corbyn right now - basically, it will be very difficult for him to maneuver politically.

In no small part, Labor is a dysfunctional marriage between bourgeois social liberals and leftist workers who want to attain some kind of social democratic pacifist state. The rule change which led to Corbyn's election just heightened that discord, at the benefit of returning disillusioned members to the party.

[Sewer Socialist]

He allowed Labour MP's a free vote. A few weeks ago he'd indicated that he wouldn't allow a free vote. The majority of the sitting Labour MPs are hostile to him and there are all sorts of nasty games being played against him. 66 Labour MPs voted for the air strikes.

It was a pragmatic decision on his part, and probably very necessary one.

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that the leader of a party could do that over there.

[logfish111]

Listening to Hilary Benn's speech was depressing in that he is so different to his father. McDonnell hit the nail on the head when he said it reminded him of Blair's speech on Iraq in 2003, where the assertion was made that the west should operate as the world police, as well as the judge, jury and executioner. I went back to watch that speech and the similarities were eery.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"Even if Karl Marx himself was the leader of the British Labour Party it would still be a party of imperialism" - Harpal Brar

To be fair Harpal Brar is the sort of politician who would have executed Karl Marx for not following Harpal Brar's line. Brar is delusional and detached from reality. If you listen to what he says, it's clear that he manipulates and strains evidence to support his own ideas and views, rather than forming his ideas based on solid evidence.

Corbyn clearly seems to be planning to 2020. If he was planning to just stay for a couple of years I imagine he would take a harder line and would have whipped MPs to vote against the Syria conflict. Whilst it's less than ideal to be in charge of a party of which 1/3 of MPs (at least) are supporters of this war, I think the lesson to be learned is that the strategy Corbyn et al. are following is one of transforming the Labour Party, and they recognise that this is not an overnight process. To be successful, they are having to play to a longer-term strategy, however painful some of the compromises along the way might be. Of course, you always have to keep in mind red lines not to be crossed, but I don't think allowing a 'free' vote on Syria is anywhere near crossing a red line.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The government has done the classic PR strategy of striking while the iron is hot (after Paris), talking up the threat to Britain's national security, talking up the possibilities of quickly defeating ISIS (by focusing on bombing campaigns and talking up this imaginary group of 70,000 fighters) and forcing the vote through quickly and with little debate.

Then as soon as the vote is passed they can talk about it being a long campaign, by which they mean they'll kill a shit load of civilians and end up with troops on the ground, leading to deaths on the British side too.

It's a total fuck up and I suspect that this has more to do with Cameron wanting to do the 'macho' thing of leading his country to war like Blair, Thatcher and all the other warmongering bastards that lord it over us.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In addition, I haven't met a single person face-to-face who supports bombing Syria. Genuinely, not a single one. Even at school, there's not a single kid in any class that has anything other than negative feelings about bombing Syria, and that's quite rare.

[Emmett Till]

397 for and 223 against the motion to bomb Syria.

This means we will start bombing Raqqa shortly.

I've had the debate on all day. It's been interesting to listen to. The Foreign Secretary and others talked about how there are 70,000 anti-Assad coalition troops waiting to wage a ground campaign against Daesh that our air strikes would support...I'm assuming this is some kind of fantasy?

"Our" air strikes? Not mine!

The British public is being maneuvered slowly in the direction of "boots on the ground." When the fantasy bubble pops, oh so reluctantly Cameron will explain that if you want to keep "our womenfolk" safe from being forced to wear veils or be sold as sex slaves as the unstoppable hordes of ISIS swarm over Western civilization, then Britain will have to bear the white man's burden and send its boys to foreign lands again... And Labour will go along, and Corbyn will have to accept that, otherwise the Labour party might split, how horrible.

In America, the girls too, what would Abu Ghraib have been like without women in uniform after all.

[ckaihatsu]

ISIS will not be defeated by airstrikes. But the Obama administration, the Pentagon and the American public have little appetite for a full ground invasion — which would be another quagmire, result in the deaths of huge numbers of Syrians and thousands of U.S. troops, and repeat the very conditions that gave rise to ISIS in the beginning. It is clear that ISIS can only be defeated by forces on the ground who are from the region itself. But the only ground forces with the experience and capability to take them on are the Syrian Arab Army, the YPG and their allied militias. That is the central contradiction in U.S. policy, and it cannot be wiggled out of.


Attacks in Paris

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2859444&postcount=72

[Emmett Till]

He allowed Labour MP's a free vote. A few weeks ago he'd indicated that he wouldn't allow a free vote. The majority of the sitting Labour MPs are hostile to him and there are all sorts of nasty games being played against him. 66 Labour MPs voted for the air strikes.

It was a pragmatic decision on his part, and probably very necessary one.

Absolutely correct. If Corbyn wants to continue being the leader of the British Labour Party, he will need to drop all his leftism and make it clear to everyone that he is just as servile to the British ruling class as any other Labour leader.

The whole idea of the British Labour Party is to be a reformist workers party with a bourgeois pro-capitalist program, ultimately a tool in the hands of the capitalists to keep the workers in line.

Corbyn has stopped for the moment the transformation of the Labour Party into being an outright bourgeois party, but unless he abandons Labourist "party of the whole class" ideas and accepts that the Labour party can do without its bourgeois Blairite right wing, which would go against everything he has ever stood for, at the end of the day his leadership of the Labour Party will mean nothing.

There is no real left in the Labour Party, as a real left would have to fight Corbyn too, and right now it is the right wing fighting Corbyn. And if he keeps on capitulating, which he probably will, they will win.

At this point, the flocking of the British left into the Labour Party to support Corbyn is just another disastrous left mistake.

[Emmett Till]

Attacks in Paris

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2859444&postcount=72

The quote in the post is from the Answer Coalition, whose political godmothers want the US to re-establish the US alliance with Assad which Republicans have often supported, as during the Persian Gulf War and Bush Jr.'s second term. When Bashir succeeded Hafez, the claim back then was that he was a pro-Western reformer, unlike his nasty axis of evil father.

Always a bit problematic as Israel has always seen Syria as its real enemy, and for the Israelis opposition to Syria is strategic and the alliance with the USA is a tactic which they are not 100% committed to. And Israel is the strongest power in the Middle East.

So a Republican like say Donald Trump could get away with doing that, but no Democrat, due to the nature of American politics.

The YPG is another matter. The Iraqi Kurdish parties are reliable tools of US imperialism, and the bipartisan Washington consensus is that there is no reason that the YPG couldn't become that also. The YPG's anarcho-Stalinism is now quietly ignored as a passing phase, as Washington powerbrokers see that as a facade over what the YPG is really all about, Kurdish nationalism. However, that pisses off the second most militarily powerful US ally in the area, Turkey, so indeed Obama is caught in a cleft stick.

[ckaihatsu]

The quote in the post is from the Answer Coalition, whose political godmothers want the US to re-establish the US alliance with Assad which Republicans have often supported, as during the Persian Gulf War and Bush Jr.'s second term.


Your sectarianism is unwarranted, and your review of the geopolitical facts is incorrect -- here's info that shows Syria was on the right-wing 'hit list' from at least 10 years ago:


---


http://pnac.info/category/syria/


15.11.05

William Arkin connects the “Syria’s next” dots

OUTSIDE ANALYSIS, SYRIA

In the following blog post/article, the Washington Post’s William Arkin finds signs of U.S. military preparation for conflict with Syria going back to last year and further, and also highlights some of the quotes from administration figures (most notably, neocon — and now U.N. Ambassador — John Bolton) from as far back as 2002.

I’m archiving the post here, but the original has a lot of inline links that you might want to see.

Wag the Damascus?

By William M. Arkin | November 7, 2005

Last year, U.S. intelligence agencies and military planners received instructions to prepare up-to-date target lists for Syria and to increase their preparations for potential military operations against Damascus.

[...]


---





When Bashir succeeded Hafez, the claim back then was that he was a pro-Western reformer, unlike his nasty axis of evil father.


On the contrary:





The New York Times reported that soon after Assad assumed power, he "made Syria’s link with Hezbollah — and its patrons in Tehran — the central component of his security doctrine.[50]"




In his foreign policy, Assad is an outspoken critic of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.[54]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Presidency


---





Always a bit problematic as Israel has always seen Syria as its real enemy, and for the Israelis opposition to Syria is strategic and the alliance with the USA is a tactic which they are not 100% committed to. And Israel is the strongest power in the Middle East.


Okay.





So a Republican like say Donald Trump could get away with doing that, but no Democrat, due to the nature of American politics.

The YPG is another matter. The Iraqi Kurdish parties are reliable tools of US imperialism, and the bipartisan Washington consensus is that there is no reason that the YPG couldn't become that also. The YPG's anarcho-Stalinism is now quietly ignored as a passing phase, as Washington powerbrokers see that as a facade over what the YPG is really all about, Kurdish nationalism. However, that pisses off the second most militarily powerful US ally in the area, Turkey, so indeed Obama is caught in a cleft stick.

[Gnat60]

The attempt to transform the Labour Party into an anti capitalist pro socialist/Communist party has plagued the British left since the foundation of the Labour Party during the early part of the 20th century.Each and every attempt failed and will continue to fail as the essence of the Labour Party is to seek reforms within the context of a capitalist society. The history of the party is to win enough votes including the middle class to introduce legislation beneficial to workers such as the NHS, housing, education etc. This strategy is dependent on the capitalist economy growing at a high enough level. Failing this reforms are ditched and belt tightening by workers is the order of the day. So it doesn't matter how left the leader is he/she will always be faced with this and will always follow this logic.

I think that the reason why so much of the left flocked into Labour Party is that their horizons have become so narrowed that they were willing to accept almost anything.

In my view there are no short cuts to building/facilitating a Communist consciousness within the working class. All that can be done is to explain patiently be there to argue for a Marxist perspective and hope that workers will start to consciously organise through councils\soviets to overthrow the capitalist state before its too late.

[Invader Zim]

The decision is of course ludicrous. Leaving aside the moral arguments and the class politics for a moment; from a strategic perspective this seems to foolhardy, insufficent and an expensive waste of resources. Let us consider the following questions:

If they really want to destroy ISIS then doing so from a great height based on limited intelligence and limited precision is not going to do the job. So what comes next strategically?

From a 'hearts and minds' point of view, what does the UK plan to do next after Syria has been levelled and who is going to rebuild?

If this bombing does help the mythical 70,000 achieve victory, who is going to stop them splintering into dozens of factions, including the various other Salafi jihadist fanatics fill the power vacuum left in ISIS wake?

With no answer to the previous question, is Hameron planning on letting Assad, whom he wished to bomb back in 2013, re-establish his brutal authority across the entire region?

Dave has no answers to any of these questions and the entire debate was a joke. The fact is that this decision had little to do with Syria, but everything to do with the various power struggles between the major British political parties and indeed their own internal fractures.

[Emmett Till]

US policy in Syria has gone back and forth over the years, from listing Syria in the "Axis of Evil" all the way over to Bush Jr. sending "War on terrorism" prisoners to Assad for torture. So all the stuff you mention below is not wrong exactly, but just one part of the picture, a gross oversimplification.

You do at least know, I hope, that when the US invaded Iraq under Bush Sr., Syria sent troops to participate?


Your sectarianism is unwarranted, and your review of the geopolitical facts is incorrect -- here's info that shows Syria was on the right-wing 'hit list' from at least 10 years ago:

http://pnac.info/category/syria/

15.11.05

William Arkin connects the “Syria’s next” dots

OUTSIDE ANALYSIS, SYRIA

In the following blog post/article, the Washington Post’s William Arkin finds signs of U.S. military preparation for conflict with Syria going back to last year and further, and also highlights some of the quotes from administration figures (most notably, neocon — and now U.N. Ambassador — John Bolton) from as far back as 2002.

I’m archiving the post here, but the original has a lot of inline links that you might want to see.

Wag the Damascus?

By William M. Arkin | November 7, 2005

Last year, U.S. intelligence agencies and military planners received instructions to prepare up-to-date target lists for Syria and to increase their preparations for potential military operations against Damascus.

[...]


---





On the contrary:









---





Okay.

[bricolage]

By the way the government is already going back on that magical 70,000 number: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/04/syria-row-no-10-admits-70000-fighters-figure-made-up-of-disparate-groups

Absolutely shameless.

[The Idler]

"Even if Karl Marx himself was the leader of the British Labour Party it would still be a party of imperialism" - Harpal Brar
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-01-2015/-aFk5K.gif

[Emmett Till]

The wording is less-than-precise these days, since ISIS *controls* part of Syria (and Iraq) -- so 'bombing Syria' now doesn't mean 'going after Assad', it tends to mean 'going after ISIS', as in Raqqa.

Interestingly the regular 'NATO' grouping is now *split* on (originally neoconservative) objectives, and there's no solid consensus regarding an anti-Assad position.

Perhaps ISIS is now the 'easy pick', especially since the act of terrorism committed in Paris, but I'll agree with the line that says the U.S. -- or France, for that matter -- shouldn't be trusted in the region since Assad / Syria is still on their shit list....

[/url]

So if the US and French imperialists decide Assad is useful again, like when Bush Jr. was sending prisoners to Syria for torture, then they are ... trustworthy?

Is that the new idea here on Revleft? Long live US imperialism and all its running dogs, to paraphrase Mao? Spread the Pox America to the Middle East?

Well, that's pretty revolutionary, but not the kind of revolution I for one care for.

[ckaihatsu]

US policy in Syria has gone back and forth over the years, from listing Syria in the "Axis of Evil" all the way over to Bush Jr. sending "War on terrorism" prisoners to Assad for torture. So all the stuff you mention below is not wrong exactly, but just one part of the picture, a gross oversimplification.

You do at least know, I hope, that when the US invaded Iraq under Bush Sr., Syria sent troops to participate?





So if the US and French imperialists decide Assad is useful again, like when Bush Jr. was sending prisoners to Syria for torture, then they are ... trustworthy?


I'll take this as a *rhetorical* question.





Is that the new idea here on Revleft? Long live US imperialism and all its running dogs, to paraphrase Mao? Spread the Pox America to the Middle East?


Can't wait to see what the flag you make for *that* one will look like -- !


= )





Well, that's pretty revolutionary, but not the kind of revolution I for one care for.


I'll prefer to invoke the 'politics makes for strange bedfellows' saying on this one, because I do happen to see the elimination of ISIS as ranking *very* high right now, with the need to overthrow global imperialism right behind it.

[ckaihatsu]

Regarding the following article I have to note some points of contention:





“Every blow struck against the NATO marauders, even by the atavistic jihadis (holy warriors) of the I.S., is in the interests of the exploited and oppressed.


I can't see IS-originating attacks as being *politically neutral*, as this line implies -- if, for the sake of argument, ISIS became formidable enough to take on NATO directly, the *world* would then have a debt to pay to the Islamic fundamentalists, in political capital, for defeating the imperialists. ISIS would simply supplant the West to become the *new* global imperialist force.





(In the U.S. there have been no major antiwar protests since Obama began bombing: since liberals support the war on the I.S., the opportunist leftists who tail after them stay home.)




http://www.internationalist.org/parisslaughter1511.html


From my own observations I've seen liberals -- or radicals, at least -- to be generically 'anti-war', across-the-board, which is a blind-spot and problematic considering the distinct geopolitical threat that ISIS has become (not to excuse imperialist crimes against humanity).

[Emmett Till]

I'll take this as a *rhetorical* question.,,,



It's a rhetorical question only if you didn't actually mean what you actually said in the posting I criticized.

So if "politics makes strange bedfellows," does that mean you don't actually support US imperialism, you just want to get in bed with US imperialism? Not an improvement.

[ckaihatsu]

The wording is less-than-precise these days, since ISIS *controls* part of Syria (and Iraq) -- so 'bombing Syria' now doesn't mean 'going after Assad', it tends to mean 'going after ISIS', as in Raqqa.

Interestingly the regular 'NATO' grouping is now *split* on (originally neoconservative) objectives, and there's no solid consensus regarding an anti-Assad position.

Perhaps ISIS is now the 'easy pick', especially since the act of terrorism committed in Paris, but I'll agree with the line that says the U.S. -- or France, for that matter -- shouldn't be trusted in the region since Assad / Syria is still on their shit list....





So if the US and French imperialists decide Assad is useful again, like when Bush Jr. was sending prisoners to Syria for torture, then they are ... trustworthy?

Is that the new idea here on Revleft? Long live US imperialism and all its running dogs, to paraphrase Mao? Spread the Pox America to the Middle East?

Well, that's pretty revolutionary, but not the kind of revolution I for one care for.


---





It's a rhetorical question only if you didn't actually mean what you actually said in the posting I criticized.


No, yours is a rhetorical question, regardless. (And, yes, I did mean what I said, above.)





So if "politics makes strange bedfellows," does that mean you don't actually support US imperialism, you just want to get in bed with US imperialism? Not an improvement.


No, I'm saying that Western imperialism happens to be anti-ISIS now, which is also in the best interests of the people of the world.

[Emmett Till]

---

No, yours is a rhetorical question, regardless. (And, yes, I did mean what I said, above.)

No, I'm saying that Western imperialism happens to be anti-ISIS now, which is also in the best interests of the people of the world.

You have it backwards. ISIS is, momentarily (could easily change) in conflict with the imperialists who have been ravaging the Middle East since WWI. In particular the American imperialists, who have inflicted a death toll in Iraq, starting with Clinton's starvation blockade in the '90s, that by now has reached some two million dead, nearly Holocaust proportions. Compared to that, the crimes of ISIS are downright trivial.

This is absolutely in the best interest of the people of the world, including the people who live in the USA. US "victory over ISIS" would be absolutely disastrous in America, we'd be all slimed by the imperial triumphalism after other colonial wars America has won down the years, with the right wing rampant. I'm not looking forward to a Donald Trump presidency.

[ckaihatsu]

You have it backwards. ISIS is, momentarily (could easily change) in conflict with the imperialists who have been ravaging the Middle East since WWI. In particular the American imperialists, who have inflicted a death toll in Iraq, starting with Clinton's starvation blockade in the '90s, that by now has reached some two million dead, nearly Holocaust proportions. Compared to that, the crimes of ISIS are downright trivial.

This is absolutely in the best interest of the people of the world, including the people who live in the USA. US "victory over ISIS" would be absolutely disastrous in America, we'd be all slimed by the imperial triumphalism after other colonial wars America has won down the years, with the right wing rampant. I'm not looking forward to a Donald Trump presidency.


I'm sorry, but I just can't see regular people's best interests being served by the actions of Islamic fundamentalists. Of course that's not to apologize for 'Western fundamentalism', but my point from post #38 holds -- any blows against the empire by ISIS will not be 'free'. The Islamic State will claim ground of their own from whatever efforts of theirs are successful, and they'd have no problem subjugating people to their belief system.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/against-isis-in-syria-pre_b_8740828.html

December 7, 2015

Policy Director, Just Foreign Policy

Against ISIS in Syria, President Obama's Diplomacy Push Is Crucial
Posted: 12/07/2015 1:45 pm EST Updated: 1 hour ago

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3753800/images/n-OBAMA-large570.jpg

On Sunday night, President Obama addressed the nation on "keeping the American people safe."

Here was President Obama's bullet point on diplomacy:

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process  --  and timeline  --  to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL  --  a group that threatens us all.

The New York Times' main article on the speech did not even mention President Obama's bullet point on diplomacy.

But U.S. diplomacy to end the Syrian civil war is crucial to confronting ISIS.

In late September, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the UN General Assembly that five countries -- the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran -- were key to finding a political solution in Syria.

On November 14, these five countries and others signed an agreement for talks to begin between the Syrian government and opposition representatives on a transition government by New Year's Day. According to the agreement, as soon as the talks on a transition government start, the five countries will support an immediate, UN-monitored ceasefire between everyone in Syria participating in the talks. No such agreement existed before between these five countries.

How do we know that the five countries are taking the agreement seriously? They're arguing vigorously over the details of its implementation. If its details are worth arguing about, then the agreement must matter.

In particular, the five powers must believe that it's likely that there's going to be a ceasefire between the Syrian government and its non-ISIS opposition, because they're arguing about which groups are going to be covered by the ceasefire. And the five powers must believe that the talks on a transition government matter, because they're arguing about which groups are going to be represented at the talks.

If it matters that ISIS holds so much territory in Syria, then the November 14 Vienna agreement matters. If territory is going to be taken away from ISIS, then it has to be occupied by somebody else. The "somebody else" isn't going to be Western ground troops. That would be unsustainable -- as President Obama said Sunday night -- and Western publics won't support it. Even if Western publics would support it in the beginning, they wouldn't maintain their support when it becomes a quagmire. The "somebody else" has to be local. And for "local" to work, there has to be a diplomatic agreement between the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran.

In the absence of a diplomatic agreement, any proposal for "local" to be the present Syrian government is likely to be undermined by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In the absence of a diplomatic agreement, any proposal for "local" to be people currently fighting to overthrow the Syrian government is likely to be undermined by Russia and Iran. Without a diplomatic agreement, there can be no sustainable significant reduction in the territory controlled in Syria by ISIS. Diplomacy to end the Syrian civil war isn't just a nice idea. It's the only way out.

You can show your support for Secretary Kerry's efforts for a ceasefire and talks on a negotiated transition government in Syria by New Year's Day here.

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

[ckaihatsu]

Here's from an email -- note the *inherent contradiction* in the two statements.... (If the two offensive parties are politically / existentially 'reinforcing' each other then how could *either one* be 'dormant' if *both* parties actually exist -- ??)





Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand [...] These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other.




"You could say that the Islamic fundamentalist forces in the world would be largely dormant if it weren't for what the U.S. and its allies have done and are doing in the world-but you cannot say the opposite."




http://org.salsalabs.com/o/1170/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1334468


I'll also add that the second statement is a *ridiculous* hypothetical, considering the historic rivalry between Western Civilization (Christianity, anyway) and the Muslim World, going back centuries, roughly to the origins of both.

Overall, my assessment is that -- in this unique circumstance -- *everyone* to the left of the liberals is being ultra-left right now, because the radicals' line of 'The-Western-countries-created-this-ISIS-mess-so-their-actions-can-only-exacerbate-it' isn't proactive / realistic right now. Basically this is a *geopolitical* situation and the geopolitical dimension to it *has* to be addressed and resolved.

[Emmett Till]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see regular people's best interests being served by the actions of Islamic fundamentalists. Of course that's not to apologize for 'Western fundamentalism', but my point from post #38 holds -- any blows against the empire by ISIS will not be 'free'. The Islamic State will claim ground of their own from whatever efforts of theirs are successful, and they'd have no problem subjugating people to their belief system.

Actually, the best way to get people in the Middle East to "subjugate" to their "belief system" is to help the imperialists commit more atrocities on the Sunni Arabs who are now embracing ISIS as their only protectors. I mean, why the hell do you think ISIS arose in the first place?

With imperialism, the problem ain't "belief systems," it's that imperialism is a material force, the highest stage of capitalism in fact.

In fact, probably the best way to defeat ISIS over the long term is for the imperialists and their little helpers like you (in spirit at any rate), to leave it alone, and let the people under ISIS rule realise that ISIS are their oppressors not their defenders.

[Emmett Till]

Here's from an email -- note the *inherent contradiction* in the two statements.... (If the two offensive parties are politically / existentially 'reinforcing' each other then how could *either one* be 'dormant' if *both* parties actually exist -- ??)

I'll also add that the second statement is a *ridiculous* hypothetical, considering the historic rivalry between Western Civilization (Christianity, anyway) and the Muslim World, going back centuries, roughly to the origins of both.

Overall, my assessment is that -- in this unique circumstance -- *everyone* to the left of the liberals is being ultra-left right now, because the radicals' line of 'The-Western-countries-created-this-ISIS-mess-so-their-actions-can-only-exacerbate-it' isn't proactive / realistic right now. Basically this is a *geopolitical* situation and the geopolitical dimension to it *has* to be addressed and resolved.

And there we have it, Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" right here in River City--er, I mean, Revleft. The dominant ideological concept of the Republican Party as to foreign affairs. Got his start advocating carpet bombing in Vietnam, went on to be a key adviser of the apartheid regime in South Africa in the '80s, and then he got really famous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

Time for us all to defend Western Civilization against the raghead barbarians.

Honestly, what the hell is Ckaihatsu doing on Revleft? He is by his own description at best a liberal on the most important thing going on in the world right now, and in fact most liberals consider this kind of crap over the top and bad news.

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, the best way to get people in the Middle East to "subjugate" to their "belief system" is to help the imperialists commit more atrocities on the Sunni Arabs who are now embracing ISIS as their only protectors. I mean, why the hell do you think ISIS arose in the first place?

With imperialism, the problem ain't "belief systems," it's that imperialism is a material force, the highest stage of capitalism in fact.

In fact, probably the best way to defeat ISIS over the long term is for the imperialists and their little helpers like you (in spirit at any rate), to leave it alone, and let the people under ISIS rule realise that ISIS are their oppressors not their defenders.


This is *precisely* the radical line that I outlined in post #44 -- and my critique of it remains, that *ignoring* ISIS isn't going to fly, because that organization has already proven itself to be a significant threat, and it turns out that the multipolar geopolitical world *may* collectively get its shit together to finally deal with ISIS in a comprehensive way.

(The world didn't benefit with the major powers being at war in either of the two world wars of the twentieth century, so in these *current* conditions I'd rather see *cooperation* at that level than a continued Russia-Turkey schism that could realistically be the seed of a potential worldwide conflagration, over the question of ISIS.)





And there we have it, Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" right here in River City--er, I mean, Revleft. The dominant ideological concept of the Republican Party as to foreign affairs. Got his start advocating carpet bombing in Vietnam, went on to be a key adviser of the apartheid regime in South Africa in the '80s, and then he got really famous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

Time for us all to defend Western Civilization against the raghead barbarians.


No, this is a *spurious* extrapolation and conclusion -- I'm not saying *anything* along the lines of what you're describing. I simply referenced *actual history* in the service of making a specific critique, if you'd like to review that.





[Huntington] argued that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Islam would become the biggest obstacle to Western domination of the world. The next West's big war therefore, he said, would inevitably be with Islam.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington#.22The_Clash_of_Civilizations .22


---





Honestly, what the hell is Ckaihatsu doing on Revleft? He is by his own description at best a liberal on the most important thing going on in the world right now, and in fact most liberals consider this kind of crap over the top and bad news.


Are you referring to the news article at post #43 -- ?

If so, I rebuff your characterization because the line I'm advancing regarding ISIS, above, is *not* sufficient to say that my politics have *changed*. I have 9,248 posts over 7 years, not to mention my years of political activity going back to 1991, that is my history of *only* revolutionary politics.

I'm not being a 'liberal' to point out that the most expedient step right now would be for an international grouping that decisively curtails ISIS' abilities for violence, at an absolute *minimum*. This is merely a 'step', or a 'tactic', if you like, one that could not itself transform one's politics.

[Emmett Till]

This is *precisely* the radical line that I outlined in post #44 -- and my critique of it remains, that *ignoring* ISIS isn't going to fly, because that organization has already proven itself to be a significant threat, and it turns out that the multipolar geopolitical world *may* collectively get its shit together to finally deal with ISIS in a comprehensive way.
(The world didn't benefit with the major powers being at war in either of the two world wars of the twentieth century, so in these *current* conditions I'd rather see *cooperation* at that level than a continued Russia-Turkey schism that could realistically be the seed of a potential worldwide conflagration, over the question of ISIS.)....

ISIS is a significant threat to--what exactly? The peoples of the Middle East? Well yes, but a much less significant threat than US imperialism, as plain body counts prove if nothing else.

As a result of WWI we had the Bolshevik Revolution, and as a result of WWII, fascism ended up in the dustbin of history, the Western colonial empires broke down, and you even got actual revolutionary regimes in China, Vietnam and, indirectly, Cuba. You don't think those are benefits? That's because whereas you may formerly have been a revolutionary, now you are something else.

In capitalist wars, revolutionaries since WWI have advocated military defeatism, i.e. hoping both sides lose so as to discredit the ruling classes and further revolution. This does not mean desiring war, peace would be much better, but capitalism leads inevitably to war. In the particular case of Syria it would be much better if Turkey, Russia and all capitalist foreign powers were to get out and stay out, and likewise for Iraq etc. If this happened, likely ISIS would soon collapse, not because of alleged foreign funding, but because then the Sunni Arab people of Syria and Iraq would not feel forced to line up behind ISIS as their sole defenders.




....Are you referring to the news article at post #43 -- ?

If so, I rebuff your characterization because the line I'm advancing regarding ISIS, above, is *not* sufficient to say that my politics have *changed*. I have 9,248 posts over 7 years, not to mention my years of political activity going back to 1991, that is my history of *only* revolutionary politics.

Up until WWI broke out, Benito Mussolini was not just a revolutionary, but the leader of the revolutionary wing of the Italian Socialist Party. But in 1915, he decided that you needed to make a little exception to that, and support Italy joining the war, so as to get Italian national liberation etc. etc., justifications rather parallel to yours. All else followed naturally.

I don't care if you wrote a zillion revolutionary posts in the past, or even if you did great stuff in the real world. Now is now, and you have gone renegade, electronically at any rate. Granted, it's all electrons in motion here, maybe in the real world you are still a revolutionary and your recent postings are just mental masturbation. But you are now at any rate a cyber-renegade from the revolutionary cause.


I'm not being a 'liberal' to point out that the most expedient step right now would be for an international grouping that decisively curtails ISIS' abilities for violence, at an absolute *minimum*. This is merely a 'step', or a 'tactic', if you like, one that could not itself transform one's politics.

I'm sure that's what Mussolini said. "Hey, it's just a temporary tactic for the current situation."

[Gnat60]

Think that we may have gone of message a little bit regarding the disgraceful actions of the British Labour Party in giving Cameron justification, if he needed it, for the bombing of Syria. Saying that I couldn't help but say that for the working class of the Middle East, even of the world, both imperialist intervention as well as the rise of ISIS, and other political religious movements, is a disaster. Seems to me that what we are seeing globally due to the lack of a working class communist/Marxist perspective is a gradual, and not so gradual, decomposition of societies. Where the working class is unable to resolve the contradictions and the capitalist class is able to continue proceeding with their class struggle against workers then a decomposition seems to develop which allows organisations such as ISIS to develop and gain undue influence.

On the Labour Party I think that those who rushed to join after Corbyn's election must be wondering why the hell they bothered. Especially now that the so called left opposition Momentum has placed an embargo not only on seeking deselection of right wing MPs but also any criticism of the right wing of the party. Will leftists now see that the LP is an organic tool of capitalism/imperialism and will always be. What is needed is militants in both workplaces as well in communities who will argue for workers councils forms of organisation to both overthrow the capitalist state but also to be the basis for a new form of non exploitative society not only in Britain but also globally.

[ckaihatsu]

ISIS is a significant threat to--what exactly? The peoples of the Middle East? Well yes, but a much less significant threat than US imperialism, as plain body counts prove if nothing else.


Here's my position on the 'body count' issue, from another thread:





Okay, you know what it is -- ?

I'm going to take your resounding silence on the matter of ISIS -- along with the rest of the left -- as being indicative of a calculus that only goes by *body count*.

So, whatever U.S. imperialism racks up -- as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc. -- is placed next to what *ISIS* has racked up, and therefore Islamic fundamentalism is seen as new-kid-on-the-block and not even worthy of a comment compared to the *real* foe....

But, guess what -- you're not factoring in the overall paradigm of *civil society*, which brings us back to how *everyone* would be obligated to behave under an Islamic fundamentalist regime vs. that of a *secular* -- admittedly imperialist -- one.

So, to boil it down, you're only looking at *foreign policy* and not *domestic policy* -- where the Western paradigm wins-out by a *long shot*.


Understanding the Left's stance toward Sharia Law

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2859389&postcount=76


---





As a result of WWI we had the Bolshevik Revolution, and as a result of WWII, fascism ended up in the dustbin of history, the Western colonial empires broke down, and you even got actual revolutionary regimes in China, Vietnam and, indirectly, Cuba. You don't think those are benefits? That's because whereas you may formerly have been a revolutionary, now you are something else.


I have no differences with your historical recounting, yet you continue to slander my politics, purporting that they're something that they're not -- which is *not* appreciated.





In capitalist wars, revolutionaries since WWI have advocated military defeatism, i.e. hoping both sides lose so as to discredit the ruling classes and further revolution. This does not mean desiring war, peace would be much better, but capitalism leads inevitably to war. In the particular case of Syria it would be much better if Turkey, Russia and all capitalist foreign powers were to get out and stay out, and likewise for Iraq etc.


Again, no political differences, but there *is no more* intact 'Syria' or intact 'Iraq' -- there's the 'Islamic State' that's been carved out of those countries, and it's a *disservice* to pretend otherwise, as in 'bombing Syria' (meaning the IS part of Syria), and 'bombing Iraq' (meaning the IS part of Iraq).





If this happened, likely ISIS would soon collapse, not because of alleged foreign funding, but because then the Sunni Arab people of Syria and Iraq would not feel forced to line up behind ISIS as their sole defenders.


This is a crock of shit, and exhibits the key political difference that we *do* have -- if, magically, by a snap of the fingers the Western powers no longer paid any attention to the Middle East, there *would* still be ISIS and its ilk, because they're *fucking sectarian opportunists*, and perhaps they only need Saudi Arabia, locally, or whatever, to continue their operations and to expand their territory in the region.





Up until WWI broke out, Benito Mussolini was not just a revolutionary, but the leader of the revolutionary wing of the Italian Socialist Party. But in 1915, he decided that you needed to make a little exception to that, and support Italy joining the war, so as to get Italian national liberation etc. etc., justifications rather parallel to yours. All else followed naturally.

I don't care if you wrote a zillion revolutionary posts in the past, or even if you did great stuff in the real world. Now is now, and you have gone renegade, electronically at any rate. Granted, it's all electrons in motion here, maybe in the real world you are still a revolutionary and your recent postings are just mental masturbation. But you are now at any rate a cyber-renegade from the revolutionary cause.



I'm sure that's what Mussolini said. "Hey, it's just a temporary tactic for the current situation."


Yeah, nice -- enjoy your flight of fantasy, using me as the substrate.

[ckaihatsu]

Syrian Kurds Must Be at the Table for Peace Talks

Just Foreign Policy

Dear Chris,

Urge Pres. Obama & Congress to push for inclusion of Syrian Kurds in peace talks.

Take Action (http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=D7SsRMoijfymMwap3EJCFeNjyUg7PuGU)

As part of the diplomatic process to end the Syrian civil war, Saudi Arabia is hosting a meeting of Syrian opposition groups that is supposed to select representatives for talks with the Syrian government on a transition government. The fact that the meeting is happening is a positive development.

But the main Syrian Kurdish group that has been fighting alongside the U.S. against ISIS has been excluded from the Saudi-hosted meeting, apparently at the insistence of Turkey. [1] That's unacceptable. Not having all the parties at the table risks sabotaging the transition talks and could undermine the ceasefire that is supposed to happen once the transition talks start, by January 1.

Urge President Obama and Congress to speak up for the inclusion of Syrian Kurds who have been fighting against ISIS in the transition talks by signing our petition:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/syrian-kurds-must-be-at-the-table

Thanks for all you do to help prevent, end, and limit wars,

Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns
Just Foreign Policy

Help support our work!
Just Foreign Policy is the only public-facing U.S. non-governmental organization working aggressively to support diplomacy to end the Syrian civil war. If you think this work is important, support us with a donation.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

References:
1. https://www.yahoo.com/news/syrias-fractured-opposition-seeks-elusive-unity-against-assad-140242363.html

Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy

Donate (http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wN%2BI9Fp2laO4v%2B7fK59JL%2BNjyUg7PuGU)

© 2015 Just Foreign Policy
Click here to unsubscribe

empowered by Salsa

[Burzhuin]

With the help of Labour MP's it looks like RAF bombs will join their allies in France, the US in killing thousands of innocents while acting as a recruiter for ISIS. Another example if needed that the Labour Party is aro imperialist party with it without Corbyn.
I think the position of British Labor Party towards ISIS is one of few points leftists should approve.

[Emmett Till]

The Gnat wrote, "With the help of Labour MP's it looks like RAF bombs will join their allies in France, the US in killing thousands of innocents while acting as a recruiter for ISIS."

You answered,


I think the position of British Labor Party towards ISIS is one of few points leftists should approve.

Which is the part you like best? The killing of thousands of innocents, or the acting as a recruiter for ISIS?

[Burzhuin]

Which is the part you like best? The killing of thousands of innocents, or the acting as a recruiter for ISIS?
Why do you not consider the third alternative: elimination of ISIS?

Sometimes I am wondering if people have ANY Historical memory. I wish to see you during WWII. Do you like it or not but many civilians were killed by bombs in Germany. And what would you cry for them or for those who were killed by Germans in occupied countries and extermination camps? The answer for both is not acceptable. You must chose what site you are with.

I do not see any difference between Nazi and ISIS. Do you?

[ckaihatsu]

Syria diplomacy is starting to work - help us tell the story!

Just Foreign Policy

Dear Chris,

Nobody besides Just Foreign Policy is asking Americans to support diplomacy to end the Syrian civil war, even though ending the Syrian civil war through diplomacy is absolutely essential to addressing the problem of ISIS and even though Syria diplomacy is starting to work.

The New York Times reports: [1]

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — An array of Syrian opposition groups agreed here on Thursday to form a new and more inclusive body to guide the diverse and divided opponents of President Bashar al-Assad in a new round of planned talks aimed at ending the Syrian civil war...

The mere participation of armed factions marked a shift, since many have long shunned politics and refused to negotiate with the government.

Secretary of State Kerry has said that if an agreement can be reached a coalition of Americans, Russians and Syrian forces could wipe out the Islamic State “in a matter of literally months.” [2] Maybe that's optimistic, but there's no question that an agreement by the U.S. and Russia to confront ISIS together will be a game changer.

No pro-diplomacy group besides Just Foreign Policy is telling this story to the American people right now: telling Americans that a diplomatic agreement with Russia and Iran can make a huge difference against ISIS, and that such an agreement is a better alternative to Republican calls for sending U.S. ground troops to Syria.

We’re trying to raise $25,000 before the end of the year to fund our campaign for Syrian diplomacy. Will you help us keep telling Americans this story by making a $15 tax-deductible donation?

http://justforeignpolicy.org/donate

If you would like to send a check instead, here's our address:

Just Foreign Policy
4410 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, #290
Washington, DC 20016

And if you haven't signed our petition yet supporting Secretary of State Kerry's efforts to get an agreement with Russia and Iran to confront ISIS together, you can do that here:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/new-year-syria-ceasefire

Thanks for all you do to help prevent, end, and limit wars,

Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns
Just Foreign Policy

References:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-form-bloc-for-new-round-of-peace-talks.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/world/middleeast/to-crush-isis-john-kerry-urges-deft-removal-of-syrias-assad.html

Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy



© 2015 Just Foreign Policy
Click here to unsubscribe

empowered by Salsa

[Emmett Till]

Here's my position on the 'body count' issue, from another thread:

Understanding the Left's stance toward Sharia Law

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2859389&postcount=76

I have no differences with your historical recounting, yet you continue to slander my politics, purporting that they're something that they're not -- which is *not* appreciated.

No, I am exactly talking about what your politics are. You seem not to understand to where you have drifted, which is your misfortune.

You hold up the "western paradigm" as superior to the "Islamic paradigm." That means that, whether you want to admit it or not, you do indeed have the same political stance as Samuel P. Huntington on everything really important. your failure to admit that is either dishonesty or, more likely, deliberate self-blinding.

As for the "paradigm of civil society," just what is that? As you clearly don't know, I will clue you in.

Nineteenth century (and earlier) German thinkers began the contemporary habit of talking about "civil society," which in German is "burgerliche gesellschaft." In Marx's works translated into English, unlike those of say Jurgen Habermas, the big contemporary "civil society" guru, that is translated as "bourgeois society."

Does that give you a clue as to where you have ended up?

The problem with what you write is not your historical recountings. The problem is that you have crossed sides politically from an enemy of "bourgeois society" to a defender, at the moment only against the "Islamic barbarians." So far at least.




Again, no political differences, but there *is no more* intact 'Syria' or intact 'Iraq' -- there's the 'Islamic State' that's been carved out of those countries, and it's a *disservice* to pretend otherwise, as in 'bombing Syria' (meaning the IS part of Syria), and 'bombing Iraq' (meaning the IS part of Iraq).

The disservice is to pretend what bombing the "Islamic State" means. Some 7-8 million people live there, and that by and large is who will die from the Western bombing campaigns for which you are now a laptop bombardier.



This is a crock of shit, and exhibits the key political difference that we *do* have -- if, magically, by a snap of the fingers the Western powers no longer paid any attention to the Middle East, there *would* still be ISIS and its ilk, because they're *fucking sectarian opportunists*, and perhaps they only need Saudi Arabia, locally, or whatever, to continue their operations and to expand their territory in the region.

I don't think so, without the credibility they get as "fighters against Western imperialism" seems to me they would lose most of their appeal, but so what if I'm wrong? ISIS is a symptom in the Middle East, Western imperialism is the problem. Like Al Q'aida, it's the monster, "the West" is Dr. Frankenstein. A "fight against ISIS" is like trying to put a bandaid over a sucking chest wound.


Yeah, nice -- enjoy your flight of fantasy, using me as the substrate.

You're the one fantasizing here, thinking that you are putting forward a "leftist" position.

[Emmett Till]

Why do you not consider the third alternative: elimination of ISIS?

Sometimes I am wondering if people have ANY Historical memory. I wish to see you during WWII. Do you like it or not but many civilians were killed by bombs in Germany. And what would you cry for them or for those who were killed by Germans in occupied countries and extermination camps? The answer for both is not acceptable. You must chose what site you are with.

I do not see any difference between Nazi and ISIS. Do you?

If you can't see any difference between ISIS and Hitler's Third Reich, you are blind. Hitler was a fascist, committed to rid the world of "Judeo-communism" and crush the working class of the world. Fascism arose as a backlash against workers revolution.

ISIS are Islamic fundamentalists, not fascists. ISIS arose as a reactionary backlash, not against workers revolution, but against US imperialist domination of the Middle East, Shi'ite murderous sectarianism in Iraq, and Assad's murderous brutality in Syria. Repulsively brutal, but simply not in the same league as Hitler fascism.

By the way, the main result of the "allied" terror bombing of Germany, which Stalin opportunistically supported but at least had the wisdom not to participate in himself, was to reinforce the loyalty of the German people to the Hitler regime. Militarily, it was a miserable failure. The peak of German military production was in--February 1945! Its logic was essentially genocidal.

Of course, the terror bombing of Dresden, the worst atrocity, had a very particular purpose. This purely nonmilitary city, the home of Dresden china, was bombed because Soviet troops were closing in. The "allies" wanted Stalin to have a good look at what could be done to the Soviet Union if Stalin was uncooperative.

[ckaihatsu]

No, I am exactly talking about what your politics are. You seem not to understand to where you have drifted, which is your misfortune.

You hold up the "western paradigm" as superior to the "Islamic paradigm."


No, I hold up the *secular* paradigm as being more humane than the Islamic-*fundamentalist* one.





That means that, whether you want to admit it or not, you do indeed have the same political stance as Samuel P. Huntington on everything really important. your failure to admit that is either dishonesty or, more likely, deliberate self-blinding.


No, because I don't subscribe to the whole 'clash of civilizations' narrative -- my support of multipolar geopolitical peace is in the interests of averting a worsening of sub-imperialist imperialism (Turkey's adventurism) in the region.





As for the "paradigm of civil society," just what is that? As you clearly don't know, I will clue you in.

Nineteenth century (and earlier) German thinkers began the contemporary habit of talking about "civil society," which in German is "burgerliche gesellschaft." In Marx's works translated into English, unlike those of say Jurgen Habermas, the big contemporary "civil society" guru, that is translated as "bourgeois society."


Okay, thanks for that interesting sidenote, but what *I'm* saying is that bourgeois civil society would be preferable to that of Islamic fundamentalist rule, anywhere.





Does that give you a clue as to where you have ended up?

The problem with what you write is not your historical recountings. The problem is that you have crossed sides politically from an enemy of "bourgeois society" to a defender, at the moment only against the "Islamic barbarians." So far at least.


You're putting words in my mouth with the use of that term -- I'm not going to use that pejorative myself.





The disservice is to pretend what bombing the "Islamic State" means. Some 7-8 million people live there, and that by and large is who will die from the Western bombing campaigns for which you are now a laptop bombardier.


I *know* that bombing campaigns are ultimately ineffectual -- if you'll notice, my support is for *diplomacy*, as at posts #55, 51, and 43.





I don't think so, without the credibility they get as "fighters against Western imperialism" seems to me they would lose most of their appeal, but so what if I'm wrong? ISIS is a symptom in the Middle East, Western imperialism is the problem. Like Al Q'aida, it's the monster, "the West" is Dr. Frankenstein. A "fight against ISIS" is like trying to put a bandaid over a sucking chest wound.


Again, we have to look at the *larger powers* here, to see how geopolitical cooperation can wall-out ISIS, from a common position of consensus. In the short term I don't think anything else will be efficacious.





You're the one fantasizing here, thinking that you are putting forward a "leftist" position.


It *is* more of a nominally 'leftist' (geopolitical) position, rather than a proletarian-minded revolutionary one, admittedly.

I'll invoke the following truism:


Leftism -- Want, Get

http://s6.postimg.org/ck1nuep69/2270260350046342459jii_Kc_V_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/kpjpskdf1/full/)

[Burzhuin]

If you can't see any difference between ISIS and Hitler's Third Reich, you are blind. Hitler was a fascist, committed to rid the world of "Judeo-communism" and crush the working class of the world. Fascism arose as a backlash against workers revolution.

ISIS are Islamic fundamentalists, not fascists. ISIS arose as a reactionary backlash, not against workers revolution, but against US imperialist domination of the Middle East, Shi'ite murderous sectarianism in Iraq, and Assad's murderous brutality in Syria. Repulsively brutal, but simply not in the same league as Hitler fascism.

Strange, but in order, according to you, "...crush the working class of the world." Hitler recruited German workers into his NSDAP (National-Socialist German WORKERS Party) a lot of German workers. As a matter of fact more than 50% of NSDAP members WERE WORKERS. One thing is for sure - Jews were not allowed to become NSDAP members AFTER 1934. Actually it is shameful to admit but many former members of KPD (Communist party of Germany) and SDPD (Social-Democrats) switch sides and become Nazi. I am talking about what NSDAP WAS. We all know what this so called Workers party brought to the world.

I do not see any difference between Nazi Germany and ISIS because they BOTH have the same goal: to enslave the rest of the World (for Nazi everybody outside Germany and some inner enemies of the State) for ISIS all those who does not belong to the same Islamic sect. Do you believe it or not but ISIS already reinstate Slavery in area they control.

I do not know about current Syria state, but when I was in Syria in the middle of 80-s I saw no any so called oppressive Hafez Assad regime. In that time I was concern about the state of Communist party of Syria. But as I found out Syrian communists were not oppressed and put into underground but working legally. I am against any Church but I saw many Christian Churches working and open for Christians.

[Gnat60]

Latest failing of the left messiah Corbyn is to instruct Labour led councils not to set budgets which would be regarded as being illegal if it did not contain further cuts. Why wait until 2020 when you can promote austerity now?

[blake 3:17]

Latest failing of the left messiah Corbyn is to instruct Labour led councils not to set budgets which would be regarded as being illegal if it did not contain further cuts. Why wait until 2020 when you can promote austerity now?

18 DECEMBER 2015
Jeremy Corbyn warns Labour councils not to set "no cuts" budgets
Leader says that local authorities must comply with legal requirement for balanced finances.

BY
GEORGE EATON





Print HTML
In 1985, after the Thatcher government capped councils' spending, 15 Labour-led authorities responded by refusing to set budgets. Their hope was that ministers would concede, rather than take direct responsibility for providing local services. The strategy failed but the memory of the tactic endured. Among its supporters was John McDonnell, then the finance chair of the GLC under Ken Livingstone.

Following Jeremy Corbyn's election on an anti-austerity platform, some of his supporters have been calling for councils to emulate this stance. Last month, the Lewisham Momentum group urged activists to petition the local authority to set a "no cuts budget".

But in a letter to Labour council leaders, Corbyn, McDonnell and Jon Trickett, the shadow communities and local government secretary, have warned against defying the law. They write: "A number of colleagues have requested clarity about Labour Party policy concerning the setting of legal budgets.

"The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell MP, said in September, '...the situation councils are now in is if they don't set a budget, a council officer will do it for them. There is no choice for them anymore.' As you know, councils must set a balanced budget under the Local Government Act 1992. If this does not happen, i.e. if a council fails to set a legal budget, then the council's Section 151 Officer is required to issue the council with a notice under Section 114 of the 1988 Local Government Act. Councillors are then required to take all the necessary action in order to bring the budget back into balance.

"Failing to do so can lead to complaints against councillors under the Code of Conduct, judicial review of the council and, most significantly, government intervention by the Secretary of State. It would mean either council officers or, worse still, Tory ministers deciding council spending priorities. Their priorities would certainly not meet the needs of the communities which elected us."

Though many, including Corbyn supporters, will agree that the stance is only the sensible one, the Labour leader's position will antagonise some on the left. It is often said that "lawmakers cannot be law breakers" but when I recently interviewed McDonnell, he told me that trade unions would be justified in breaking the law to resist the government's new legislation. "It’s inevitable, I think it’s inevitable. If the bill is introduced in its existing form and is used against any particular trade unionist or trade union, I think it’s inevitable that people will resist. We established our rights by campaigning against unjust laws and taking the risk if necessary. I think that’s inevitable and I’ll support them."

But when I spoke to Tom Watson after his speech this morning on liberty, he told me that he didn't agree with McDonnell and Len McCluskey that unions should go beyond the law if necessary. "I think you should always adhere to the law," he said.

In the case of council cuts, Corbyn's contention is that it would be unwise and impractical, rather than merely illegal, not to set a balanced budget. But that is not an argument his most radical supporters will accept.


George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/12/jeremy-corbyn-warns-labour-councils-not-set-no-cuts-budgets

[reviscom1]

It's a toughie, all right.

I would terminate ISIS quicksmart if I could. I can totally understand the instinct to try and beat the living crap out of them. For God's sake they locked a defenceless man in a cage and burned him alive and filmed it. The slowly beheaded an aid worker with a knife. Someone put a still of it on my Facebook feed uninvited and the look of terror on the guy's face is not something I will ever forget. This was a guy who had volunteered to come to Syria to distribute supplies to the needy.

I do not think the left has any business apologising for or making any common ground with ISIS whatsoever, not do I think they are primarily motivated by "Western interference/oppression". As people, they are at least as bad as the Nazis.

Nevertheless to try and beat them militarily on their home ground is a fool's errand. They are a guerrilla force, highly motivated, hungry, fanatical and well led. We could kill tens of thousands of them and ten thousand more would take their place. Then they would send a couple of suicidal men with guns into a Western city and deal the West a crushing blow.

The Allies have flown 10,000 sorties against them this year. Evidently it has not diminished their capacity one bit.

And yes, military intervention will give ISIS and similar movements new recruits and lead to accidental and deliberate atrocities against civilians.

And, really, are ISIS' atrocities any worse than the torture chambers of the corrupt regimes they are trying to replace?

[ckaihatsu]

It's a toughie, all right.


It's not a 'toughie' at *all* -- what's missing from this thread is the news update that I posted to the other one -- it clearly shows that the U.S. is playing *both sides* around the Islamic State, meaning that the U.S. / NATO wants to both be 'anti-Assad' *and* 'anti-ISIS' at the same time, which is an inherent contradiction.

This geopolitical policy contradiction is the *biggest* problem to the entire situation, and I would look to seeing it *politicized* by world popular opinion as quickly as possible, for any chance at a resolution to the Syria issue.


---


turkey shoots down russian fighter jet...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2862433&postcount=59


http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

http://russia-insider.com/en/terrorists-supply-line-about-break-washington-alarmed/ri11750


Washington Is Panicking That Putin Is Breaking the ISIS Supply Line

ISIS is intergral to the West's strategy for toppling Assad

Michael Lehner Subscribe to Michael Lehner(Neo Presse) Subscribe to Neo PresseMon, Dec 14 | 18,819 59

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/s400/public/burningtruck.jpg?itok=BpVE873t
Originally Appeared at NEOPresse. Translated from the German by Susan Neumann

For years, the US-directed NATO alliance has made sure that convoys full of food, weapons, and other goods have gotten to the terrorist groups IS and al-Qaida via the Syrian-Turkish border. Russian air strikes have massively impeded this service, if not brought it to a standstill.

Russian airstrikes hit one of these convoys in the northwest Syrian town of Azaz, and the Turkish-based newspaper Daily Sabah is reporting the following:

At least seven people died, 10 got injured after an apparent airstrike, reportedly by Russian jets, targeted an aid convoy in northwestern Syrian town of Azaz near a border crossing with Turkey on Wednesday.

Strangely enough, this incident wasn’t picked up by the Western high-performance press. This is rather atypical considering both sides are currently engaged in a propaganda war. It almost seems like the USA/NATO either (a), don’t want to draw attention to the location of this remaining supply line, or (b), it’s not an aid convoy, but a supply truck for IS.

The Daily Sabah report continues:

Speaking to Daily Sabah, Serkan Nergis from the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said that the targeted area is located some 5 kilometers southwest of the Öncüpınar Border Crossing. Nergis said that IHH has a civil defense unit in Azaz and they helped locals to extinguish the trucks. Trucks were probably carrying aid supplies or commercial materials, Nergis added.

Regardless of what kind of goods were transported, this confirms that the terrorists in the area near the Oncupinar Border Crossing are in charge. This is where the supply line from Turkey to IS can be found. Already in November of 2014, the Oncupinar Border Crossing was mentioned in an article by Deutsche Welle (DW), that described a scene of hundreds of trucks waiting at the border to get into IS territory. Probably with Ankara’s approval. The DW article from 2014 reads as follows:

Like this article? Donate to keep us alive! (https://goo.gl/VmmitY)

Every day, trucks laden with food, clothing, and other supplies cross the border from Turkey to Syria. It is unclear who is picking up the goods. The haulers believe most of the cargo is going to the “Islamic State” militia. Oil, weapons, and soldiers are also being smuggled over the border, and Kurdish volunteers are now patrolling the area in a bid to stem the supplies.

[DW Video, Turkey: IS supply channels / Focus on Europe] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbfplUcjLU)

Already last year one would have had to ask the legitimate question: if the plan was to destroy IS, why didn’t the US just bomb the supply route instead of leading operations inside Syria? (because it was, de facto, never the plan to destroy IS.) Especially if (a), these attacks were considered to be less dangerous and (b), logistics for the attacks were right there in the area (Turkish airbase).

Asking the more obvious questions would be enough to place a crown on the lying politics of the West:

Why weren’t these convoys stopped while they were still in Turkish territory?
Why wasn’t the driver arrested and detained in Turkey, and "the sources for these supplies" traced back to their origins?
Because they just didn’t want to?

When answering these questions, it has to be obvious to everyone – even to those who don't give it much thought – that there’s real intent behind this, and that USA/NATO purposefully provided IS with supplies. Period.

Here’s where Russia comes in. Every country that wants to fight IS will do so on the supply lines. This has been an employed military strategy for centuries. Russia’s bombing of supply trucks near the border (so that the fewest possible goods can be unloaded and redistributed through other means) is therefore logical, because if the supplies make it over one of the controlled border crossings, they will end up in the hands of terrorists (whichever target area that may be).

This development doesn’t please the strategists in Washington one bit and is probably the reason for the shoot-down of the Russian fighter jet. While Syrian and Kurdish forces control the border east of the Euphrates, the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor is the last remaining pathway for supplies to the IS. The Syrian army has also begun a campaign (starting from Aleppo) and has advanced eastwards. Eventually they will start to swing towards the Syrian-Turkish border at Jarabulus. More or less at the same time the Syrian army began their campaign, Russia began bombing in the area around Afrin, Ad Dana, and Azaz to cut off the supply route.

The interaction between Russian air raids and the Syrian army offensive on the ground have the potential to get rid of IS. This is an unparalleled nightmare for the planners in Washington. Closing this supply corridor would mean the complete defeat of the terrorists from IS, al-Nusra and Co. and it would mean the restoration of Syrian sovereignty and the government structures in this area. This could explain the sudden "activity" of the West in sending special forces to Syria, and as already mentioned, the reason for the shoot-down of the fighter jet.

In summing it all up, it also becomes evident that the Syrian "civil war" never really was one. Rather, the terrorists were supported by the West from the very beginning, for the purpose of overthrowing Assad’s government (as I’ve written in previous articles). When faced with a terrorist defeat, the sponsors will throw all their political weight behind the terrorists, no matter what it costs.

Ultimately, this is proof that the hegemonic ambitions of the US / the West in this region were the reason behind the creation of IS. It was never a fight against IS. It was the targeted, planned, intentional creation of Islamic extremism, in the form of the Islamic State.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What is needed is militants in both workplaces as well in communities who will argue for workers councils forms of organisation to both overthrow the capitalist state but also to be the basis for a new form of non exploitative society not only in Britain but also globally.

You say this as though nobody has been doing this and nobody is doing this. Why do you think attempts hitherto have not been a success in building 'the revolution'? Mainly because people like you sit at home saying 'we need this and we need that' and then criticise any attempts to bring into practice socialist democracy or political content that opposes capital and aims to end austerity.

The idea of spreading socialist ideas is that you actually need to engage with people of other creeds and of other viewpoints to yourself. If you want a circle jerk of people who agree with you then hire a town hall and have a 20 person meeting where you decide that yes, workers councils would be fucking brilliant and the world needs a revolution. If you want to actually make progress in building a socialist system then perhaps think about the practical opportunities for doing so; Jeremy Corbyn ain't no messiah and he won't become Prime Minister nor lead Britain to glorious socialism, but his election has for the first time in my lifetime at least given those who oppose capital control of a political institution that has:

a) a national profile;
b) formal links to 6 million unionised workers;
c) a membership in excess of 400,000 and growing.

You don't have to love, like, or even agree greatly with Corbyn's own political policies to engage in the process that he is trying to start. You just have to engage in the process. If you bothered to listen to what he and others around him have said, it is that they are not seeking a Labour Party of top-down policies and 'big state' ideas, but rather a party moves more towards become a pluralistic, grassroots democratic socialist movement.

Of course if you choose to boycott this process because it's not draped in Marx, Lenin, and a red flag then that's you choice, but I think it would show you to be short-sighted, narrow-minded, and incapable of taking part in any sort of positive process of radical change.

[Daxim]

Although Jeremy Corbyn's policies are a breath of fresh air in the modern political scene, as an Anarchist i can't really look upon the Labour Party very positively. That being said, as no shift towards a new system is in sight, i think that right now the Labour Party is the best option. Hopefully in the future party politics will become redundant as the people organise to govern themselves.

[PikSmeet]

The labour party works within the capitalist system and you cannot run capitalism without the problems of capitalism. That is what is shameful about the labour party, as for Corbyn he supports capitalism, though he might want the state to play a greater role in running capitalism. Even if he nationalises the railways or the Post Office, so what? That just means the state will be exploiting the workers.