Syria: will the West attack?

[Sympo]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I hope you did read those three links, crucial to understanding the evolution of the Syrian Civil War

The articles that you link say that "tens of thousands of people" were taking part in "the uprising against Bashar al-Assad’s regime".This implies that you (like me) believe that there was a good chunk of discontent in Syria.What do you believe would have happened if Western countries had not given aid to rebels? (Take note that when I say "Western countries", I'm referring to the United States, Britain etc, not Qatar or Saudi Arabia.)Here is another quote: "violent resistance and militarising of it entails even larger casualties and has even less prospects of success"Does this mean that the WSM is a pacifist organisation, even when it comes to a dictatorship that shoots protesters?

[jondwhite]

I thought others may find this good satirehttps://politics.theonion.com/u-s-won-t-rule-out-escalating-defense-sector-profits-f-1825304781

[alanjjohnstone]

Sympo, i think i made it clear that the origins of the Syrian War were in the widespread unrest called the Arab Spring, which affected various North African and Middle East countries to various degrees over the course of some months. So yes we can say that there was deep discontent with the Assad regime but it is quite a different matter determining how many were prepared to take part in an armed rising.The areas that were more prepared to resist Assad's violent repression with armed struggle i think were the regions that had previously rebelled against the Ba-athists like Hama but i would not suggest that the majority of those who sought democratic reforms were intent upon any civil war.I know your opinion is as equally as valid as my own view but my interpretation was that only when the protests became militarised and the formation of the Syrian Free Army presented the opening for foreign powers to intervene. If it hadn't been US/UK/France then it would have been the Saudis and the Gulf States who financed, supplied and provided the mercenaries – the Jihadists – would simply upped their game. Turkey was permitting the free movement of the Jihadists.But without this direct aid to the rebels, i think Assad would have militarily defeated the SFA without the assistance of the Russians, the Iranians or Hezbullah. On the other hand, he may have temporarily contained the mass demonstrations and peaceful civil disobedience but he would have further alienated his own support which i said were also seeking change. And the set-backs the protestors would have inevitably faced could have been overcome with unity. The polarisation caused by the armed conflict such as the increased power of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jihadists drove many of the diverse communities to embrace Assad, whereas the Arab Spring was bringing them together in opposition to him.But this is my speculation, Sympo, and you perhaps differ on how you saw the scenarios panning out.Worth a readhttps://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-non-violent-approach-to-class-war.htmlhttps://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/07/violence-and-non-violence-1.htmlhttps://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/07/violence-and-non-violence-2.htmlhttps://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/10/rohingya-resistance.htmlA lot of reading on the desirability of non-violence but as one of my previous links pointed out in 2012

Quote:

“Peaceful resistance is a must; if we use weapons we will not be able to succeed as we do not have enough weapons or soldiers,” said Khalaf Ali Al-Khalaf, a Syrian activist from Aleppo. “The military option will increase people’s pain. Providing people with arms will only increase death. The opposition must convince those requesting arms that there is a different method of resistance. We are facing an unusual regime so we have to use unusual methods.” The SNC claims to be representative of the Syrian people. That’s just not true," says Ms. Nseir, a SNC's spokesperson in Lebanon but nevertheless a critic of it. "They talk only about arming the rebels. They never talk about nonviolent resistance and they certainly do not speak for the ramadieen, or grey people, the silent majority who support neither the regime nor the armed rebels.”says activist Alloush. "The Free Syrian Army is a reality and we have to accept it. But that does not mean that we have to accept them as the leaders of this revolution. I know these people, and I know that many of them want to turn Syria into an Islamic republic if they get the chance.”A singer who uses the pseudonym ‘Safinas’ because she still lives in Damascus explains. "Our revolution has been stolen from us…We are fighting two regimes and two armies now."

No-one needed to be a crystal ball reader to predict what happened in Syria but we were outside looking in with no influence other than the ineffectual blog posts we made

[alanjjohnstone]

Sympo another source, linked to by my blog, the journalist Patrick Cockburn, from 2014 on how the Syrian Arab Spring was defeated and became transformed into a brutal civil war.https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/how-syrias-secular-uprising-was-hijacked-by-jihadists/

Quote:

The degenerate state of the Syrian revolution stems from the country’s deep political, religious and economic divisions before 2011 and the way in which these have since been exploited and exacerbated by foreign intervention. The first protests happened when they did because of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain. They spread so rapidly because of over-reaction by state security forces firing on peaceful demonstrators, thereby enraging whole communities and provoking armed resistance. The government insists that protests were not as peaceful as they looked and from an early stage their forces came under armed attack. There is some truth in this, but if the opposition’s aim was to trap the government into a counter-productive punitive response, it succeeded beyond its dreams.

Quote:

In July 2011, International Crisis Group (ICG) conceded that there was “an Islamist undercurrent to the uprising” but it was not the main motivation for the peaceful protests that were mutating into military conflict…The impression given is of a movement wholly controlled by Arab and Western intelligence agencies.

As you can see, our blogs have fully reported the evolution of the Syrian War maintaining a historical analysis and hopefully a class one rather than the shifting media reporting.

[alanjjohnstone]

Sorry for the number of posts but it is a big subject.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/18/us-syria-arab-force-replace-american-troops-saudi-arabia-egypt-uaeThe Trump administration is renewing an effort to replace US troops in Syria with an Arab force. The Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said his government was talking to Washington about raising such a force, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal that said the new US national security adviser, John Bolton, had called the Egyptian intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, to ask Cairo to play a part in building one.Middle East experts said it was feasible Arab states could fund an army run by private contractors and possibly help recruit soldiers from developing countries such as Sudan. Erik Prince, a Trump ally who founded the military contractor Blackwater USA and now advises the UAE, is lobbying to play a role, according to the Wall Street Journal.So there we have it…mercenaries to be used, paid by Suadi cash. Any Saudi troops deployed to Syria would find themselves directly confronting Iranian fighters and their allies, which could prompt a dangerous escalation in the conflict. Randa Slim, who directs the back-channel Track II diplomacy programme at MEI said: “It is one thing for the Saudis to pay for other ‘Islamic forces’ to do the job, and a totally different thing to send their men to a conflict theatre where they are bound to enter into direct confrontation with an entrenched Iranian-Hezbollah force.Perhaps we now have a reason for the air attacks…a trial or an example for the air support necessary for a new intervention?

[Sympo]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"So yes we can say that there was deep discontent with the Assad regime but it is quite a different matter determining how many were prepared to take part in an armed rising."I don't believe that most people were willing to take part in an armed uprising against the Syrian dictatorship."I know your opinion is as equally as valid as my own view"The same to you"my interpretation was that only when the protests became militarised and the formation of the Syrian Free Army presented the opening for foreign powers to intervene."Well I don't know if that's an intepretation that I disagree with. It's more the idea that the Free Syrian Army would not have come to existence had it not been for the West (I'm not saying that you necessarily believe this to be true)."If it hadn't been US/UK/France then it would have been the Saudis and the Gulf States who financed, supplied and provided the mercenaries – the Jihadists – would simply upped their game. Turkey was permitting the free movement of the Jihadists."If I've understood you correctly, you are saying that the Syrian Civil War would still have happened even if no Western states gave financial aid to rebels?Also, how much does Saudi Arabia and Qatar give in aid to the rebel side compared with the West?I haven't found any statistics but wouldn't it be reasonable to think that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two incredibly rich islamist arabic states, would give more money to jihadist and islamist groups than the West would?

[Anonymous]

Sympo wrote:

Marcos wrote:

"Wars are not done the way that you have presented here"I am not trying to be a jerk but where have I written anything about what I believe the causes of war are? Please quote me where I have stated that wars aren't caused by the system of Capitalism.As far as I know, you will unable to find such a quote written by me. "It doesn't make any difference if the laboratories were located in the backyard of Assad, or in the desert, the Western Powers cannot take the liberty of bombarding others countries and destroy their infrastructure and kill peoples"I haven't argued that Western powers should be able to invade or bomb countries.

Every written message shows its purpose. Your message tries to indicate that wars are produced by the impulse of an individual or a capitalist power, even more, wars are not produced by capitalism per se either, they are produced by the capitalist market, and peace among the capitalist is war too because the struggle for market will continueThe Leninists say that capitalism is the cause of war, but they support the market system and the concept that a leader can stop wars. The problem of our world is not the presidents (including Donald Trump, Putin, or Assad,) or any other,  government, or any specific country, the problem is the market system

[Sympo]

Marcos wrote:

Every written message shows its purpose. Your message tries to indicate that wars are produced by the impulse of an individual or a capitalist power

So do you have any quote by me which implies that I believe this?If I have implied this then it should be very easy for you to prove. Just quote any sentence written by me which implies this."wars are not produced by capitalism per se either, they are produced by the capitalist market"I don't see the big difference but okay

[Anonymous]

Sympo wrote:

Marcos wrote:

Every written message shows its purpose. Your message tries to indicate that wars are produced by the impulse of an individual or a capitalist power

So do you have any quote by me which implies that I believe this?If I have implied this then it should be very easy for you to prove. Just quote any sentence written by me which implies this."wars are not produced by capitalism per se either, they are produced by the capitalist market"I don't see the big difference but okay

It would be like saying that Neo-liberalism and private property is the main problem of our world, and it is not because the main feature of capitalism is not private property, it is wage slavery. The soviet union did not have any private property, but they had wage slavery and capitalist market, it looks like a socialist society for the leftitst, but in essence, it was a capitalist societyThere is no need to find quotes, every message on its essence shows the main idea. It is like reading literature or legal facts it is always possible to find the issues without looking for quotes.I do not want to go into intellectual arguments. I only deal with principles. The main principles is that wars are produced by the capitalist market

[Anonymous]

I think the world is coming back to a bipolar superpower system and a new type of cold war where two armed atomic ", it has also shown the decline of the US as world hegemonic power, LIke Robbin wrote in this forum: It is the century of Chinese capitalism"The last attack on Syria has shown that the old days of kicking ass to any other country has gone when others capitalist countries are also armed to the teeth like in the case of North Korea, now  they are willing to negotiate with them, in the old days they would have beaten the hell out of any small country with their military powerWith old missiles artefacts manufactured by the Soviet Union during the cold war period the Syrian army was able to destroy around 71 missiles launched against abandoned buildings and dismantled chemical laboratories,  it was just a spectacle of firepower launched by the western powers and the USA. I don't think  that any other country is going to buy France, or UK missiles from the armament markets, probably they will buy it from Russia, especially the S 400 or the new S500 proven to be totally more  effective compared with the TomahawksMany years ago the USA would never give pre-advise to any other country when they were going to launch an invasion, but this time they told to the Russian that they were going to attack Syria, it is just a sign of their weakness. Russia and the USA do not want to have  a military confrontation because they know that would be the end of both of them, they will continue using secretaries

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

If I've understood you correctly, you are saying that the Syrian Civil War would still have happened even if no Western states gave financial aid to rebels?

I know i provided lots of links for you to read so perhaps you missed this bit of info from the Cockburn article

Quote:

The degree to which the armed opposition at the end of 2013 was under the thumb of foreign backers is well illustrated by the confessions of Saddam al-Jamal, a brigade leader in the Ahfad al-Rasoul Brigade and the former FSA commander in eastern Syria. A fascinating interview with Jamal, conducted by Isis and translated by the Brown Moses blog, was recorded after he had defected to Isis and appears to be reliable, ignoring his self-serving denunciations of the un-Islamic actions of his former FSA associates. He speaks as if it was matter of course that his own group, al-Ahfad, was funded by one or other of the Gulf monarchies: “At the beginning of the Syrian revolution, the file was handled by Qatar. After a while, they switched to Saudi Arabia.” Jamal says meetings of the FSA military council were invariably attended by representatives of the Saudi, UAE, Jordanian and Qatari intelligence services, as well as intelligence officers from the US, Britain and France. At one such meeting, apparently in Ankara, Jamal says the Saudi Deputy Defence Minister, Prince Salman bin Sultan, the brother of Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan, addressed them all and asked Syrian leaders of the armed opposition “who have plans to attack Assad positions to present their needs for arms, ammo and money”. The impression given is of a movement wholly controlled by Arab and Western intelligence agencies.

I also recall that Gaddafi's weapons and ammo were re-directed from an anarchal Libya to Syria with the connivance of the West.Remember the famous "we will support the moderate jihadists" Obama…$500 million spent to gain a dozen or so so-called moderate resistance fighters and not the hoped 5000 fighting force. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/us-military-syrian-isis-fightersI think and i have no figures for this but Wahhabi/Sunni Saudi money had more success in recruiting and retaining the Islamist mercenaries to do their bidding

[alanjjohnstone]

My time scale, Sympo, is that in 2011 there was hope for a democratic political revolution in SyriaBy 2012 these hopes are fadingBy 2013, all hope has been extinguished.If they had prevailed in 2012, we perhaps would have seen the Muslim Brotherhood acquire control of Syria as they did in Egypt and they would then also have squashed democracy and repressed the secularists and minorities.Who knows because it didn't happen. Assad's repression backfired into full-blown civil war and an internal matter became internationalised.Political democracy can only succeed when it is accompanied by social and economic democracy, imho.Sadly,  i am not a sooth-sayer but a socialist.

[Young Master Smeet]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/after-syria-raid-what-nextGreat article from paul Rogers. 

Quote:

Furthermore, any talk of the attack severely curtailing Syria’s CWcapabilities is nonsense. The main CW agent used has been chlorine, a gas widely used in industry and readily available on the open market. If Assad has seen his chlorine stocks depleted by the attack he can simply go to his iPad and order some more.

Note his view on chemical attacks as a terror weapon to drain the swamp to get at fighters.A useful website he quotes:https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity

[Sympo]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"I know i provided lots of links for you to read so perhaps you missed this bit of info from the Cockburn article"I've read the quote now but what does it mean? Do you believe that Saudi Arabia and Qatar has a bigger role than the West in financing Salafi groups?

[Sympo]

Marcos wrote:

"It would be like saying that Neo-liberalism and private property is the main problem of our world"No it wouldn't.How can Capitalism exist without a market? Even state capitalist countries like the USSR had a market.To say "it is not Capitalism that causes war, it's the capitalist market" is like saying "it wasn't John Wilkes Booth that killed Lincoln, it was the bullet that was in the gun he carried""There is no need to find quotes, every message on its essence shows the main idea."You can't just answer the question "where is this implied?" with "I don't need to quote you because I know I'm right"

[Author]

Posts