If one tries to read
most of the more serious material dealing with the Syrian crisis, one cannot
but notice that the discussion has polarized around two major approaches. And
after the polarization, it seems that the participants in this debate are
merely scouring the area for another fact, thesis, bit of information which is
supposed to add strength and depth to their own major thesis.
There those on the left
who see the rebellion against the Assad regime as a genuine, democratic and
progressive struggle. This being the essence of the matter, it is the duty of
the left to give broad principled support to the popular forces fighting for a
new Syria. It is in the nature of an authentic and genuine people's movement to
outgrow the reactionary influences which hope to mobilize it to the
pro-imperialist cause.
There are those on the
left who argue that the rebellion, whatever its origins, has become an
important ally of US imperialism. As such, the rebellion has allied itself with
Syria's reactionary neighbors and is building its main hope on major
intervention by the forces of imperialism active in the region. The forces
active in the opposition and running it have determined the reactionary nature
of its goals.
It is a commonplace that
when major interests are involved, there will be a surfeit of analyses and arguments
for each set of interests. There is a natural tendency to spend one's time
analyzing the ongoing analyses. This is interesting and may in some cases serve
as a temporary, intermediary position. However, as far as I can understand the
broad outlines of the struggle in Syria, they are quite clear.
I dare, even at this
stage, to add another consideration for us here in Israel who may find
ourselves in the eye of the storm quite soon.
The forces fighting for regime change in Syria hope to use a
"new" Syria to isolate Iran in preparation for the threatened
military strike against that country.
The imperial game is clear and unequivocal. One would hope that this threat, in and of
itself, would be enough to help people decide against any support for a rebellion
that could serve as a launching pad for another major war by the US-Israeli
axis of aggression.
Richard Seymore's
Hasty Conclusions
Richard Seymore, http://www.leninology.com/who posts rather modestly under the
link lenin is reputed to be one of the sharper minds in the Trotskyist left in
England.
On July 24, 2012, just
two-three days ago, Seymore gave us this
"precise" message:
As Bashar al-Assad flees the
capital, the armed segments of the revolution appear to beinflicting blows on sections of the security apparatus and taking over major cities: the revolution is
turning a corner. Robert Fisk reports that a crucial dynamic now is the fracturing of an alliance
between the Sunni middle class and the Alawite regime, signalled by the spread
of the revolt to Aleppo. And defections from the state-capitalist power bloc continue. Indeed,
Juan Cole has suggested that such divisions must run deep in the Syrian state for
the opposition to be capable of planting a bomb that can kill a senior
minister."
Seymore states without
qualification : Assad has fled the capital. This was not and is not true. This
is obviously a bit of rebel propaganda. Why did Seymore promote it as pure
fact?"
Seymore states: "Armed
segments of the revolutionaries are inflicting blows against the security
apparatus." This effective bomb planting can be seen as a success of mass struggle, but it is in
essence an act of an individual or a terror cell. Seymore presents this as an act of "armed
segments of the revolution," but this is a guess and not a fact. It might be the work of Al-Qaida or another
similar group. Seymore is quite celebratory over this bit of individual terror,
which he converts into an act by the armed segments of the revolution. This may be true, and it may not be true. Killing
or shooting the main "bad guys" is popular but always problematic on
a deeper level. But Seymore will approve of anything "his side" does
on the basis of the claim that the circumstances are dictated by the regime.
Seymore relates further:
the armed segments are …"taking
over major cities: the revolution is turning a corner." This pious wish is
presented as a fact. Now, simply stated, this event, reported by Seymore, never
happened. The subject of Seymore's imagination regarding events that did not
happen is (not the rebels) but "the revolution." The revolution
according to Seymore is "taking over cities and is turning a
corner." But what could be the
source of such a set of totally fanciful assertions?
Was it pure chance that
the rebel activity and propaganda intensified in order to influence the
proceedings of the Security Council? Why knowing the need to be cautious about all
news from the various fronts, did Seymore allow himself to go ecstatic over the
unconfirmed facts and allegations?
Moreover, the attempt to
build a certain picture of events on the basis of opinions of Fisk and Cole is
purely arbitrary. (And if my memory does not betray me, both these gentleman
supported US sponsored intervention in Libya).
Similar evaluations and assertions as well as counter evaluations on the
same subjects flood the media. At any rate, we have heard endless accounts
about Assad's fracturing coalition and his disintegrating military. As a matter
of fact, we started out with Barack, many a month ago, eliminating" Assad
in a week or so," plus mass defection by tens of thousands of soldiers. Nowadays
we have to make do with a general here and a diplomat there.
There is a major
disconnect between Seymore's long and detailed analysis and the real
developments on the ground. In fact, Seymore's analysis is really a recycling
of a long list of major arguments that occurred over the last year and a half. Quite
clearly, his analysis was preparing him for a very certain set of events, or
better non-events, and he rushed, without caution and responsibility, to report
"successes" and "victories" that never occurred.
Two More Comments for My
Faithful Readers.
Anti-Intervention as a
Principal or a Tactic
I personally know some
very committed leftists who demand to depose Assad but also reject imperial
intervention. I respect their position knowing that their opposition to foreign
intervention in Syria is sincere and steadfast. However, I fear that it might
be increasingly difficult to maintain their position. In the event of critical and
decisive battles in which the rebellion hovers between total loss or victory –
there will be growing pressures for the justification of intervention. Indeed,
if the rebel cause is that just, it will be increasingly hard for many
"anti-interventionists" to argue against intervention. This kind of retreat from principle has
already begun. Defections from the
anti-intervention camp in the left are being noted.
Really Revolution?
A few months back I
participated in an academic discussion on the Arab Spring. Everyone there, left
right and center, was talking about the revolution in Egypt and Tunisia. A
young woman sociologist suggested that we might all be a bit hasty in defining
the events as a revolution, as important and as significant as they were. She
was, of course, absolutely right. The categorization of events in the region as
revolutions, up to this point, is totally unhelpful. Both the limited and
rather conservative goals of the revolts and the relative weakness, if not the
total absence of any organized revolutionary forces within them, suggest that
we are discussing, at the very best, pre-revolutionary developments.
The revolution has not yet come. The region
needs one. The present situation is unsustainable.
Posts
