Syria: no-win for us or the ruling class … or the Syrian people

August 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm (conspiracy theories, hell, Human rights, Jim D, Middle East, murder, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Syria, terror, UN, United States, USSR, war)

Ben Jennings 27.08.2013

Cartoon from the Guardian

The international ruling classes are clearly in a quandary over Syria. But so is the serious left (the word “serious” meaning discounting Assad-supporters and hypocritical fake-Westphalians who’ve been looking forward to western intervention for the past two years and more, just so’s they can have something to protest about).

Shiraz Socialist does not oppose foreign intervention in principle, especially when a country is descending into sectarian mass-murder. Also, the use of chemical weapons should be recognised as a “red line” and, if possible, the perpetrators punished.

The problem with regard to Syria is not any “principled” objection to “outside” intervention, but the fact that the opposition seems to be a bunch of sectarian Islamists who are already attacking Kurds, Allowites, Christians, Shias and others.

The best result  now would be a cease-fire arrived at by a conference brokered and enforced on the ground by the UN, Arab League or, indeed, NATO. Frankly, that’s not very likely.

It looks like Labour are going to opposes unilateral military action

The left in general, perhapd due to the bank holiday, has yet to react. There are a few voices though – Owen jones opposes military action but, against all the evidence, appears to doubt that  the Assad regieme launched the chemical attack. He calls on the international court to bring charges and for UN peace talks: “There’s no question that those who use chemical weapons must be  arraigned in an international court. But a UN-brokered peace process  involving all the local and regional players remains the only solution.”

The wretched Lindsey German and ‘Stop the War’ are entirely predictable. They call it a proxy war but conveniently only mention the Western and Saudi arming of the rebels, not Russia or Iran who have been sending arms and troops to aid Assad.  They call for peace talks, but really they’re in support of Assad:

Others (eg: Galloway) are spreading conspiracy theories about who did the gassing: Mossad, Al Quida, the FSA, Turkish intelligence, Saudi Intelligence-  take your pick.
Assad supporter John Wight at the Socialist Unity blog thinks it’s all of them conspiring to take out Assad because he is part of the “Axis of Resistance”:
A few voices of sanity, solidarity and common decency:
* Coatsey
* Louis Proyect
* The AWL


  1. Riley Frost said,

    Interesting post, you make a few intreaguing points. Baring what you’ve written in mind, you may be interested in something I wrote a while ago:

  2. jimmy glesga said,

    The Yanks, Brits and Frogs have been desperate to intervene for the past two years. Haig has been at the forefront for Britain. They will lie to the teeth and make any excuse. They do not give a fuck for the dead in Syria. They lied about Iraq and are about to do it again. They know Assad is winning inspite of the arms they have fed via Saudi, Turkey and others.

  3. comradeNosaj said,

    Christ…how much does Owen Jones get paid? Seriously. I want his job. My job sucks and pays waaaay less then his does. I could do his job. Probably better too. How the fuck does this:

    “But a UN-brokered peace process involving all the local and regional players remains the only solution.”

    even motherfucking happen, like in the real world? How? You know, cuz like, the U.N and the U.S and Britain and the Arab League have all kinda tried that over nearly 3 years and got…oh, yeah I just checked….nowhere with it!

    Seriously, how does anyone go about thinking this shit? Is he (and all the fucking scum who follow this line of “reason”) trolling everyone? Has he actually been paying attention or just done a cursory flick over the web before filling copy? Like, how does a U.N peace work? The rebels and their backers want Assad gone; Russia and China (like all mafia gangsters) want him to stay so the money and connections between them all keeps flowing…so you go…where from here? What next? An angrily worded letter to Assad like Kofi Anan did saying he’s bad, naughty and made everyone cry and we don’t like him any more?

    Since when have China, Russia, Iran and Syria ever listened to the U.N. you utter, utter CUNTS

    At least there is one bright side: when the murders and gassings and torture and bombings continue (cuz, you know, the vote on intervention on Thurs is going to fail) at least we can be content and happy in the knowledge that this website and Owen Jones can get a few more important blog posts out of other people’s deaths.

    • Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

      correct in all say here comradeNosaj.

  4. Going to War in Syria | David's Commonplace Book said,

    […] Syria: no-win in for us, them…or the Syrian people ( […]

  5. R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

    The problem with regard to Syria is not any “principled” objection to “outside” intervention, but the fact that the opposition seems to be a bunch of sectarian Islamists

    This is the key question – replacing a secular fascist regime with an Islamofascist one (even if the majority of Syrians were like the majority of Egyptians to want exactly that) would indeed not be an outcome worth risking a single cruise missile or drone over.

    But how can we be so certain that the opposition are in fact all or even predominantly Sunni Islamists?

    From what I can see ‘the opposition’ are in fact a divided and inchoate variety of groups some of which are indeed Islamists but others of which seem to be drawn from dissident elements of the regime itself and some of which may even be genuinely liberal or leftist.

    At least formally the two largest opposition alliances do also include (or claim to include) Kurds, Shi’ites and Christians.

    An intervention therefore does not necessarily hand over Syria to fanatical Islamists and if the US are in fact contemplating one they are presumably working on the assumption that once the military balance changes Assad will be deserted by many of his followers just as Gaddafi was and that some sort of post-Assad coalition can be cobbled together in which the most militant Sunni Islamists will not be a dominating force.

    While this seems a meagre and depressing payoff for intervention, as outcomes go it has to be preferable to civil war continuing indefinitely.

    As for cause of humanitarian intervention in general by far our greatest error over Iraq was to imagine that what Alan Pryce Jones called the closed circle in which the Arab world is locked could in fact be broken and functioning democracies created in such literally misbegotten states.

    Now we know that the only progress possible in the Middle East is to replace one evil regime with another which one hopes will be somewhat less murderous in the long term.

    • jimmy glesga said,

      The English (British) and Yank civil wars lasted a few years more.
      No one came in with bombers and killed the people they were supposed to save. Let them get on with it until they get fed up killing and get rid of the Islamic religious shite.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: