Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds ? Once Again
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. * Once again: The public comments of different politicians as well as the editorials of the major newspapers in the US can be seen as an indication of the views of the US capitalist class. From the liberals in the Democratic Party to Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell to the Pentagon and former top diplomats (e.g. Brent McGurk), Trump's move is unanimously condemned. His previous announcement of a withdrawal did not lead to that step, but it did lead to the "withdrawal" if the last two of his generals in his administration. The neocons? John Bolton opposes his step. The issue is similar to the Ukraine crisis. Let's remember that some months ago, when Trump held up the US aid to Ukraine, Republican senators/supporters of Trump such as Ron Johnson went to Trump and started to question him about that, whereupon Trump released the aid money. In that case, too, Trump was using foreign policy/foreign aid to benefit his own individual political interests vs. furthering the interests of US imperialism. I did find one opinion piece ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-syria-kurdish-fighters-prepare-to-battle-turkey-and-residents-fret-11570559654?mod=cx_picks_navSource=cx_picks_tag=contextual_artPos=6#cxrecs_s) in the WSJ that came close to supporting Trump's decision. This column advocates closer ties with Erdogan and implies that US imperialism should dump the YPG, although it doesn't come right out and say it. It is co-authored by somebody from the Hudson Institute, which is the "think" tank founded by Herman Kahn, who was a real outlier by any measure during the Cold War. So I hardly think that it's even accurate to say that the US capitalist class is divided over the issue. What the above cited WSJ column does show, however, is how completely unreliable US imperialism is. It shows that at any time, US imperialism (just like any other capitalist state) will dump an ally if it concludes that it's to its interests. The fact is, though, that US imperialism does not believe that it's to their interests to dump the YPG at this time. I think they are right. (Which doesn't mean that I support whatever is in the interests of US imperialism; it just means that I'm trying to see what's in their interests in order to understand the balance of forces.) John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds … Once Again
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. * The alliance between the US and the precursors of the Syrian Democratic Forces began after ISIS captured Mosul in 2014, which threw the US into a panic. When ISIS also tried to capture Kobane, the US and the Rojava forces formed a tactical alliance to defeat them. The debate now in the US ruling class is whether they still need this alliance. Most seem to think they do. ISIS is still waging a low level war in both Iraq and Syria, and might become a bigger threat if thousands of ISIS prisoners held by the SDF were to escape. The problem for the US ruling class is that Turkey wants to suppress the revolutionary process in northeastern Syria. Following the invasion of Afrin, Erdogan threatened to invade other SDF-controlled areas. But the US opposed this because it would divert the SDF away from the fight against ISIS. US troops were put on the border to discourage a Turkish invasion. But this damaged US-Turkish relations, causing Erdogan to turn towards Russia. Trump thinks that restoring US-Turkish relations is more important than preventing a revival of ISIS. Hence the withdrawal of US troops from a section of the border to permit a Turkish invasion. An alliance with an imperialist power is very problematic for any revolutionary government or movement, for a range of reasons. But sometimes they don't have much choice. Venezuela faces a similar situation, except that in that case the imperialist ally is Russia, and the aim is to deter a US invasion. Chris Slee From: Marxism on behalf of mkaradjis . via Marxism Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2019 11:57:40 PM To: Chris Slee Subject: Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds … Once Again 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. * Of course I agree with the main messages in this statement: that US imperialism never cared less about the Kurds, that its support for the SDF was just due to a convergence of interests at a particular point, that the illusions expressed by the SDF leadership in the US and its dealings with Assad should be heavily criticised (although I don't think it is possible to condemn anyone for accepting protection, and that's a bigger issue), that betrayal was always going to occur eventually, and of course that the Kurds need to be defended against Turkish invasion. However, I'm not sure that "US imperialism" is keen on betraying the SDF just now. The timing and character of betrayal, of withdrawal, are important to the credibility of US imperialism. Like the last "withdrawal" announcement, this announcement was made by Trump after a phone call with Erdogan. Meanwhile, virtually every other representative of US imperialism that has spoken out, countless leading Republican party figures, including close Trump allies, and the Pentagon, have condemned this move and assert that it is against "US interests." That doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's own view and decision doesn't represent one possible imperialist policy, supported by some faction of the ruling class. The idea that leftist Kurds have outlived their usefulness and that now the US can mend things with a NATO ally by allowing it to have its way with the SDF might well appeal to some sections of US imperialism; and the reality that the more likely outcome is that most of Rojava won't go to Turkey, but to Assad, in a position to force the SDF into subservience in order to "protect" it, is also no long-term problem for US imperialism. And since Russia, Turkey and Iran have been dealing over Syria the last 2 years in the Astana process, somewhat sidelining the US, well, why not buy in via patching things up with Erdogan. But at the moment, that view, that Trump's whim agrees with, is the minority view. Most are expressing views along the lines Pompeo expressed last time, "we can't let the Turks slaughter the Kurds". Lindsay Graham has stated he'll push for sanctions on Turkey "if they step one foot in northeastern Syria" . Even Trump felt compelled to announce that if Turkey does anything wrong he will "totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey", not that this should be taken seriously, but then is this Trump's "progressive" voice? There are a number of reasons for this. The credibility of US imperialism,
Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds ? Once Again
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. * Yeh, except I didn't exactly say that. I completely agree that "we should not equate the policies of Trump with those of US imperialism." But not that it can be entirely explained by Trump acting on whim. Yes, that does seem to be the nature of the snap decision itself, but seems to me it reflects the views of some parts of the US ruling class, and even has its own logic from a certain imperialist point of view. But I agree, it is very much the minority view at this moment. What strikes me is that last time Trump suddenly announced “withdrawal from Syria”, nearly everyone said that this was just his personal whim, there will be no withdrawal, the ruling class disagrees and will have its way etc, whereas this time, nearly everyone is saying “US imperialism” has given the green light to Erdogan etc. Unless what I’ve read is just coincidental in that way. The ruling class (civilian and military, Republican and Democrat) in both cases is more or less identical, about 9:1 against Trump. Remains to be seen how this plays out in practice. It is somewhat similar in the Gulf “crisis”. Again, the overwhelming majority of the ruling class, civilian and military, Republican and Democrat, was against the Trump/Bolton line, ie, about 9:1. But of course, even Trump never actually had the same line as Bolton (who had the same line as exactly no-one), so once he outlived his usefulness as attack-dog for pressure, he was gone. Trump’s actual position is the one in place now (ie, begging Rouhani for a meeting). Given the stack-up within the US ruling class, it is not surprising that the “state of crisis” continually led to nothing. Meanwhile, there remains a major imperialist war going on in the region: Russian imperialism’s war on Syria. Now with Putin’s ally Erdogan marching into northeast Syria with Trump’s blessing, even if it doesn’t come to much in the end (which of course it may), it takes thousands of ex-FSA fighters, now Turkey-loyalists, away from the fight in Idlib, so Assad and Putin can complete the reconquest. On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:51 AM John Reimann via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > > I agree with what seems to be the implication of what Michael Karadjis > wrote in reply to the above-entitled article: That we should not equate the > policies of Trump with those of US imperialism. This is clear in the fact > that even his most wild supporters, such as US Senators Lindsay Graham and > Mitch McConnell, have strongly opposed Trump's call for a troop withdrawal > from the border region between NE Syria and Turkey. > > > _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds ? Once Again
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.
*
I would shy away from your final statement about "strong man dictators" and
instead argue that you can easily understand what drives Trump's behavior
by logging onto the Antiwar.com Blog <https://www.antiwar.com/blog/>
It's a cross-section of the group-think of his base, including the
motivations for their support of his policies.
Yes, their analysis is shit in some instances.
But it also is a major artery of ideology to the Trumpkins
--
Best regards,
Andrew Stewart
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 07:50:15 -0700
From: John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com>
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds ? Once
Again
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I agree with what seems to be the implication of what Michael Karadjis
wrote in reply to the above-entitled article: That we should not equate the
policies of Trump with those of US imperialism. This is clear in the fact
that even his most wild supporters, such as US Senators Lindsay Graham and
Mitch McConnell, have strongly opposed Trump's call for a troop withdrawal
from the border region between NE Syria and Turkey.
As with so much else about Trump, especially in his foreign policy, his
action in this case is based on a couple of things that have little to do
with the interests or the strategy of US imperialism. They are based on how
he sees his own personal interests, which in this case means appeasing and
shoring up his base. If he were to drop a nuclear bomb on the region - or
anywhere else - his base would be fine with that. At least if it did not
immediately cause a large increase in gas prices. But the involvement of US
troops is another question.
Trump made the call shortly after having had a telephone conversation with
Erdogan. None of us knows whether Erdogan directly communicated the wishes
of Trump's semi-sponsor and Erdogan ally, Putin, but both must have known
that Putin would approve. That would have figured heavily in Trump's
calculations.
Finally, Trump has an instinctive affinity for strong-man dictators like
Erdogan. That would have also figured into his announcement. Sound
ridiculous that the US president's actions would be based on personal,
unthought-out feelings? Yes, it is. That is exactly a major part of the
reason why so much of US capitalism opposes him and why even the editors of
the Wall St. Journal criticize him. The president with self-described
"great and unmatched wisdom" has all the consciousness of a six year-old.
John Reimann
--
*?In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.? *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds ? Once Again
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. * I agree with what seems to be the implication of what Michael Karadjis wrote in reply to the above-entitled article: That we should not equate the policies of Trump with those of US imperialism. This is clear in the fact that even his most wild supporters, such as US Senators Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell, have strongly opposed Trump's call for a troop withdrawal from the border region between NE Syria and Turkey. As with so much else about Trump, especially in his foreign policy, his action in this case is based on a couple of things that have little to do with the interests or the strategy of US imperialism. They are based on how he sees his own personal interests, which in this case means appeasing and shoring up his base. If he were to drop a nuclear bomb on the region - or anywhere else - his base would be fine with that. At least if it did not immediately cause a large increase in gas prices. But the involvement of US troops is another question. Trump made the call shortly after having had a telephone conversation with Erdogan. None of us knows whether Erdogan directly communicated the wishes of Trump's semi-sponsor and Erdogan ally, Putin, but both must have known that Putin would approve. That would have figured heavily in Trump's calculations. Finally, Trump has an instinctive affinity for strong-man dictators like Erdogan. That would have also figured into his announcement. Sound ridiculous that the US president's actions would be based on personal, unthought-out feelings? Yes, it is. That is exactly a major part of the reason why so much of US capitalism opposes him and why even the editors of the Wall St. Journal criticize him. The president with self-described "great and unmatched wisdom" has all the consciousness of a six year-old. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds … Once Again
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. * Of course I agree with the main messages in this statement: that US imperialism never cared less about the Kurds, that its support for the SDF was just due to a convergence of interests at a particular point, that the illusions expressed by the SDF leadership in the US and its dealings with Assad should be heavily criticised (although I don't think it is possible to condemn anyone for accepting protection, and that's a bigger issue), that betrayal was always going to occur eventually, and of course that the Kurds need to be defended against Turkish invasion. However, I'm not sure that "US imperialism" is keen on betraying the SDF just now. The timing and character of betrayal, of withdrawal, are important to the credibility of US imperialism. Like the last "withdrawal" announcement, this announcement was made by Trump after a phone call with Erdogan. Meanwhile, virtually every other representative of US imperialism that has spoken out, countless leading Republican party figures, including close Trump allies, and the Pentagon, have condemned this move and assert that it is against "US interests." That doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's own view and decision doesn't represent one possible imperialist policy, supported by some faction of the ruling class. The idea that leftist Kurds have outlived their usefulness and that now the US can mend things with a NATO ally by allowing it to have its way with the SDF might well appeal to some sections of US imperialism; and the reality that the more likely outcome is that most of Rojava won't go to Turkey, but to Assad, in a position to force the SDF into subservience in order to "protect" it, is also no long-term problem for US imperialism. And since Russia, Turkey and Iran have been dealing over Syria the last 2 years in the Astana process, somewhat sidelining the US, well, why not buy in via patching things up with Erdogan. But at the moment, that view, that Trump's whim agrees with, is the minority view. Most are expressing views along the lines Pompeo expressed last time, "we can't let the Turks slaughter the Kurds". Lindsay Graham has stated he'll push for sanctions on Turkey "if they step one foot in northeastern Syria" . Even Trump felt compelled to announce that if Turkey does anything wrong he will "totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey", not that this should be taken seriously, but then is this Trump's "progressive" voice? There are a number of reasons for this. The credibility of US imperialism, the perception that ti does not defend its allies, the use of Rojava as the US's bargaining chip in the Syrian negotiated outcome, the use of a US-backed Rojava as a block to Iran in Syria etc. Most likely the immediate outcome will be some kind of compromise between the two positions, as what occurred last time. So far the concrete announcement is that 50 US special forces will be moved away from the border region. Turkey will likely be allowed to enter some of the relatively non-Kurdish parts of the border region at the outset to test the waters. There have already been reports of the Turkish airforce bombing SDF positions near the Syria-Iraq border, but invading major Kurdish population centres would be a different matter. Erdogan may decide on a broader attack on the Kurds, but would face large-scale resistance and it would explode the entire region. It's not certain that the US would be able to just sit back and allow that to happen. On another matter, RCIT’s last paragraph is interesting: “The new turn in Trump policy is also a message to Israel: “You are alone in a war with Iran”. This message also comes with the new approach of the USA and Saudi Arabia to Iran. Behind it is the expected role of Iran to repress the new wave of the Arab revolution that seems as possible in the near future.” Quite perceptive, but then I’ve been arguing that the Gulf ‘crisis” has been theatre for 6 months and have never been stirred up about “defend Iran” for a moment for this very reason (obviously the economic blockade should be condemned). The only problem I have with the paragraph is the implication in the first line that Iran represents any kind of “threat” to Israel; that’s just a 25-year theatre, on both sides, mediated by geographic distance. On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM RKOB via Marxism wrote: > 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. >
[Marxism] Syria: US Imperialism Deserts the Kurds … Once Again
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. * https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/syria-us-imperialism-deserts-the-kurds-once-again/ -- Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG (Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net) www.rkob.net ak...@rkob.net Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314 -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
