******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Critics of the Syrian revolution on the left claim that the US has a fundamentally different attitude to the Syrian revolt than it had to the uprising against the Egyptian and Tunisian regimes – both US allies – in 2011. There is a grain of truth in this. The fact that it was close partners of the US under the gun at the start of the Arab revolt coloured the tactical approach the US took. But on a fundamental level, the approach is the same. The US relationship with the Assad regime was not as close as the alliance with Mubarak, but the Syrian regime was a stable element in the region with which the US could deal – and did on numerous occasions. The Assad dynasty – both father and son – kept the peace on the Israeli border for over 40 years, and put down attempts by Palestinians and the left to take on Israel or install radical or genuinely pro-Palestinian governments on its border. The more important unique feature about Syria that dictated the US approach was the impossibility of disentangling the Syrian state from the hated dictator at its top. This meant that the US, if it was going to make a real choice, had either to back Assad as in Bahrain, but without a Saudi-style reserve army to come in and save the day, or to come out and help the rebellion to bring down the whole regime. The US did not consider either option to be palatable; the former because it would discredit the US and entrench Russian influence in the Middle East, the latter because it would require either a major US military operation, or the handing over of substantial numbers of arms to rebels who it knew were in no way pro-US or pro-Israeli. Unwilling to make a pro-active choice, the US vacillated, offering verbal support to the rebels, but nothing in the way of real weaponry or logistical support. In doing so it sent a message to the regime that while the US might make statements against it, there was little or no chance it would ever act decisively to oppose the status quo. Contrast this vacillating US approach with that of Russia, which has been unwavering in its backing of the Assad regime.
full: http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no8-winter-2015/118-us-imperialism-and-the-war-for-the-middle-east
_________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
