Re: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 3/11/17 7:23 PM, Nick Fredman via Marxism wrote:

There seems to be a pattern among those supportive of the Syrian rebels who
have become cool towards or never warmed to the PYD-led movement, to
justify rebel opposition to this movement by grasping at any evidence,
however dubious, of its nefarious, chauvinist, sectarian, pro-Assad and/or
Stalinist nature.


My objection to the PYD is mostly their de facto alliance with Assad. 
You can come up with all the rationales you can think of to defend him, 
but when Salim Muslim issued a statement that Bashar al-Assad was framed 
for using Sarin gas in Ghouta, I can't help lumping him with all the 
shitheads who signed a statement for Rania Khalek.

_
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

Re: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

[Nick Fredman via Marxism]

  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.
*

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Chris Slee via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

>
> To put this in context, since 2012 there has been a 3-way conflict in
> Aleppo between the Assad regime, Turkish backed rebel groups and the
> YPG/YPJ - the latter being based in the predominantly Kurdish district of
> Sheikh Maqsoud.  There is a long history of attacks by reactionary rebel
> groups on Sheikh Maqsoud.  According to the Kurdish Question website, such
> attacks began in 2012 and have continued intermittently since then:
> http://kurdishquestion.com/article/3132-138-civilians-
> killed-912-wounded-in-sheikh-maqsoud-attacks
>
> Amnesty International has condemned the rebel attacks on Sheikh Maqsoud:
> https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/syria-
> armed-opposition-groups-committing-war-crimes-in-aleppo-city/
>
> I am not familiar with all the details of the battle for Aleppo.  But if
> the YPG's efforts to break the siege of Sheikh Maqsoud had the side effect
> of helping the Assad regime defeat the rebels in eastern Aleppo, a large
> part of the responsibility lies with reactionary elements of the rebel
> movement.
>
> Chris Slee
>

The Amnesty report, citing evidence of a starvation siege-like operation by
rebel groups against Sheikh Maqsod and indiscriminate rocket attacks on
civilians including use of chorine gas, is strong evidence of the defensive
nature of the YPG/J and allies operations in Aleppo. Of course we need to
be critical of all the claims about abuses in Syria, but this report,
unlike the previous Amnesty report claiming "ethnic cleansing" by the YPG
uncritically cited by Michael among others, uses eyewitness accounts and
video evidence more than satellite photos and has not been rejected by an
investigation team from the SNC and by the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights.

There seems to be a pattern among those supportive of the Syrian rebels who
have become cool towards or never warmed to the PYD-led movement, to
justify rebel opposition to this movement by grasping at any evidence,
however dubious, of its nefarious, chauvinist, sectarian, pro-Assad and/or
Stalinist nature.

There have been the claims circulating for a couple of years, made by Assad
and various cronies, that they had been arming the YPG/J, and had
"documents" to "prove" it. These claims as reported in the crony Syrian
regime media were happily taken up by the crony Turkish regime media
http://aa.com.tr/en/todays-headlines/syrias-assad-admits-sending-weapons-to-pyd/487871
and were repeated on this list, by Louis if I recall correctly, and no
doubt elsewhere, as "proof" of Assad arming the PYD-led movement. Somehow
the "documents" have never surfaced. I guess running a dictatorship at war
is a busy job and Assad and colleagues might just keep forgetting to click
the "attach" icon on their media release emails, but perhaps we should
entertain the possibility that Assad is capable of lying to suit his ends
and the state media of the increasingly militarist and authoritarian
Turkish state is capable of spreading fake news?

Then there was the smudgy photos and brief smudgy videos on Assadist and
Russian sites claiming to show YPG and regime flags together in the battle
for Aleppo. Possibly these are legitimate; possibly they're the result of a
few minutes work with Photoshop and After Effects. The fact that in this
key example
https://southfront.org/syrian-army-kurdish-ypg-wave-flags-alongside-each-other-in-aleppo-city-continue-joint-actions-photo/
the image of flags together is long shot and smudgily ow res, while there's
also a number of hi-res close-ups of SAA troops, *alone*, suggests the
latter possibility is the correct one. The dubious nature of all this
didn't stop Assadists and pro-rebels alike spreading this "news" across
social media, in a number of cases I saw without apparently bothering to
even look at the "evidence".

Then there are the claims that the deal is in and there's a secret pay-off
for autonomy in Rojava in return for services rendered. If the PYD
leadership was in fact anything like the billionaire gangsters running the
Kurdish statelet in northern Iraq this would be credible, and probably not
at all hard for the PYD to arrange. This narrative was recetly retold by
Joseph Daher
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/eastern-aleppo-syria-assad-war-russia-us-ypg-fsa/
with
the totally illogical claim that the dropping of the Kurdish word Rojava
from the Domocratic Federation of Northern Syria was some kind of proof of
this deal. Of course what's happened since flatly contradicts the
narrative. The regime has continued to reject any idea of autonomy or of
changing the 

Re: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

[Chris Slee via Marxism]

  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.
*

Responding to a couple of points in Michael Karadjis' article:

1. Michael portrays the Turkey-backed rebels as the main fighters against ISIS. 
He says:  "The US (let alone Russia!) has never given air support to rebel 
offensives against ISIS before because these rebels also want to continue 
fighting Assad (ie, being *rebels*), which is a red line for the US. That is 
despite the fact that the rebels drove ISIS permanently out of the whole of 
western Syria in 2014, without the support of any air cover, indeed with 
Assad’s air force bombing them to support ISIS."

A contributing factor to the setback for ISIS in 2014 was the split with Jabhat 
al-Nusra.  ISIS and Nusra were previously part of the same organisation.  They 
split in April 2013.  Large scale fighting between the two groups began in May 
2014.

While ISIS was driven out of western Syria, Nusra remained, and continued to 
impose an oppressive regime on the people it ruled.  For example, it forced the 
Druze to convert to Sunni Islam.  While ISIS was expelled, ISIS-style politics 
remained.

Nusra also attacked secular Free Syrian Army groups.  In July 2014, and again 
in October 2014, Nusra attacked the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, killing many 
SRF members.

The SRF collapsed but some of the survivors fled to Efrin and helped to form 
Jaysh al-Thuwar (Army of Revolutionaries), which later became part of the 
Syrian Democratic Forces.

By contrast, some other rebel groups remained allied to Nusra.  This helped 
give a reactionary flavour to the rebel movement in general.

Referring to the 2016-2017 period, Michael says that "...Turkey/FSA have driven 
ISIS from a great swathe of territory in northern Syria...".  

In the early stages of their move into the area along the border previously 
held by ISIS, Turkey and its allied rebel groups met little resistance, and 
pro-SDF media argued that there was a deal whereby ISIS withdrew from a strip 
along the border allowing Turkey to take over.

However when Turkey wanted to take al-Bab, ISIS did resist successfully for a 
considerable period.  PKK leader Murat Karayilan has claimed that a new deal 
was eventually worked out between Turkey and ISIS, whereby ISIS withdrew in 
return for ammunition and other supplies:
http://anfenglish.com/features/pkk-s-karayilan-the-turkish-state-bluffs-on-manbij-and-raqqa

Karayilan also argued that Turkey's frequent attacks across the border into 
Rojava are aimed at making the YPG keep part of its forces on the Turkish 
border, weakening the SDF offensive against ISIS in Raqqa. 

Turkey collaborated with ISIS for several years to attack Rojava and the 
broader north Syria federation.  But this was a tactical alliance based on 
having a common enemy, and is not necessarily long-lasting.  ISIS has at 
various times fought against other Turkey-backed groups.

What the groups backed by Turkey have in common is that they are all hostile to 
the PYD and the revolutionary process it has led in Rojava, which has begun to 
spread to other parts of northern Syria.

2. Michael accuses the YPG of contributing to Assad's capture of eastern 
Aleppo, by cutting both the road from Aleppo north to the Turkish border, and 
the Castello Road, which linked rebel-held eastern Aleppo to rebel-held areas 
further west.

To put this in context, since 2012 there has been a 3-way conflict in Aleppo 
between the Assad regime, Turkish backed rebel groups and the YPG/YPJ - the 
latter being based in the predominantly Kurdish district of Sheikh Maqsoud.  
There is a long history of attacks by reactionary rebel groups on Sheikh 
Maqsoud.  According to the Kurdish Question website, such attacks began in 2012 
and have continued intermittently since then:
http://kurdishquestion.com/article/3132-138-civilians-killed-912-wounded-in-sheikh-maqsoud-attacks

Amnesty International has condemned the rebel attacks on Sheikh Maqsoud:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/syria-armed-opposition-groups-committing-war-crimes-in-aleppo-city/

I am not familiar with all the details of the battle for Aleppo.  But if the 
YPG's efforts to break the siege of Sheikh Maqsoud had the side effect of 
helping the Assad regime defeat the rebels in eastern Aleppo, a large part of 
the responsibility lies with reactionary elements of the rebel movement.

Chris Slee











From: Michael Karadjis <mkarad...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 9 March 2017 1:42 AM
To: Chris Slee; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

Chris writes, regarding the article

Re: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

[Michael Karadjis via Marxism]

  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.
*

Chris writes, regarding the article from the excellent Eternal Spring site that 
I sent, that:

“The author of this article describes the Syrian Democratic Forces as 
"counter-revolutionary", whereas the Free Syrian Army are the "real" rebels.”

While I sent the article because I strongly agree with its overall political 
line (and always do with Eternal Spring), I disagree with the use of the term 
“counterrevolutionary” as a straight adjective for the SDF/PYD in paragraph II. 
Despite my sharp criticisms of these forces, including times when they have 
played an openly counterrevolutionary role, in the messy situation of the 
Syrian revolution I recognise they have led their own revolutionary process 
(which has both deeply positive aspects alongside some very imperfect aspects, 
like others); and while they collaborate with Assad, Russia and the US, this is 
only for pragmatic reasons as they look out for their own interests, rather 
than because they are solidly tied to the counterrevolutionary aims of these 
powers.

Chris doesn’t like the author calling the FSA “real rebels” by way of contrast. 
But the author does not say “the real revolutionaries” or some such concoction 
that sectarian leftists might use: he explains in his article that by “rebels” 
he means those who actually *rebel* - ie, against the regime in control of 
massively armed state machine in power, the bloody Assad tyranny – and so this 
excludes not only the various microscopic ex-rebel forces the US has co-opted 
to fight ISIS ONLY while quitting the fight against Assad – eg, Division 30 
(the famous 54), the ‘New Syrian Army’ (another flop in the southeast), 
Mutassem Brigade (now co-opted by Turkey) etc – but also the YPG/SDF, which as 
we know likewise does not fight the regime.

Of course, the main point of the article is to explain this US strategy, which 
he calls “Third party counterrevolution” or “regime preservation by proxy.” 
That is, rather than line up directly with the regime like the Russian 
imperialist invasion has done, US strategy does so in a more roundabout way, by 
co-opting former individual rebel fighters and prodding them to stop fighting 
the regime and instead to become a US-backed Sawhat. (Even in the case of the 
genuine FSA units that the US has given some minimal backing to over time, the 
longer term process also resulted in US pressure for them to drop the fight 
against Assad and only fight jihadists, but with mixed results: I intend to 
publish on this issue soon, but Eternal Spring doesn’t go into that here).

In this sense, we can distinguish the YPG/SDF from the tiny US proxy groups, 
because it already exists in its own right as a mass force with its own aims. 
Therefore, US support for it against ISIS cannot be called counterrevolutionary 
as such; the fact that they *only* fight ISIS and not the regime is their own 
sovereign decision for their own pragmatic reasons, however narrow, which 
happens to perfectly correspond to US objectives, unlike the ex-FSA 
micro-groups who quit their entire purpose to become US proxies. 

But what the author is trying to establish is that the reason the YPG/SDF have 
been given the most massive US support of any force in Syria, including 
systematic use of the US air force for 2.5 years, several air bases in Rojava, 
hundreds of US special forces etc, is not due to the revolutionary aspects of 
these forces, but because they stand aside from the main theatre of revolution, 
because they don’t fight Assad, because they are not rebels. However 
rev-perfect it may be inside Rojava (a disputed point in itself), as long as 
that revolution does not spread within Syria or link and become part of the 
bigger one, yes the US can well support it without it being any threat.

Chris complains that:

“He/she [it is a he – MK] does not recognise that some FSA units have been 
co-opted by Turkey and used in its counter-revolutionary military intervention 
in Syria.  Turkey, with the aid of these groups, has seized Syrian territory in 
the north of Aleppo province.”

I’m not sure whether the author “recognises” this or not, since it is not what 
the article is about, although he could well have included this, because in 
fact it does bear some similarity to the rest of the US Sawhat program, and to 
the YPG/SDF itself: the Turkish-led FSA Euphrates Shield (ES) operation also 
*only* fights ISIS and *not* the Assad regime.

However, most of the large rebel formations of the north are at least partly 
represented in Euphrates Shield, both FSA and Islamist (except Nusra/JFS of 
course); and elsewhere in Syria, these very same militia are fighting the 
regime 

Re: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

[Chris Slee via Marxism]

  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 author of this article describes the Syrian Democratic Forces as 
"counter-revolutionary", whereas the Free Syrian Army are the "real" rebels.

He/she does not recognise that some FSA units have been coopted by Turkey and 
used in its counter-revolutionary military intervention in Syria.  Turkey, with 
the aid of these groups, has seized Syrian territory in the north of Aleppo 
province.

Turkey has always been hostile to Rojava, and more recently to the broader 
north Syrian federation. This antagonism is motivated by several factors, 
including hostility to Kurdish self-determination, fear that a Kurdish-led 
movement in Syria will inspire Turkey's Kurds to rebel, and hostility to the 
secular leftist politics of the PYD.

Since the start of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria, Turkey has given weapons 
and other aid to some Syrian rebel groups. But this aid came with strings 
attached, including a requirement to support Turkey's anti-Rojava policy.

The United States initially supported Turkey's policy. Turkey is a NATO member, 
whereas the PYD shares the political ideas of the PKK, which is on the US's 
"terrorism" list.

The US allowed its allies Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to supply modest 
amounts of aid to the Syrian rebels - enough to keep the war going but not 
enough to win. The aim was to apply pressure for a negotiated transition, where 
Assad would be replaced by a new leadership, but the capitalist state would be 
preserved.

The US approach changed after ISIS captured Mosul. This threatened US efforts 
to create a stable pro-US government in Iraq. The growth of ISIS also 
threatened instability in the broader Middle East.

A few months after the fall of Mosul, the siege of Kobane occurred.  After some 
hesitation, the US began to cooperate with the YPG/YPJ against ISIS.

Turkey had different priorities and followed a different policy. It was still 
obsessed with the Kurdish threat, and continued to aid ISIS in its war against 
Rojava.

It is only recently that the Turkey-ISIS alliance broke down, leading to 
fighting in al-Bab (though attempts have been made to patch it up).

For the SDF, Turkey and ISIS are the most immediate threats.  Hence the 
cooperation with the US against ISIS, and the recently reported cooperation 
with Assad forces in the west of Manbij district against the Turkish invasion.

Of course, neither the US nor Assad regime is a reliable ally.

Chris Slee


From: Marxism  on behalf of Michael 
Karadjis via Marxism 
Sent: Saturday, 4 March 2017 5:33:06 PM
To: Chris Slee
Subject: [Marxism] US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution

  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.
*

US Arab Spring policy? Third party counter-revolution
by eternispring

.

The “rebel” factions that the US has directly supported in Syria have
always been those that do not fight Assad – in other words rebels that
don’t rebel. The SDF position on Syria is identical to that of the US –
a “third option” theoretically distinguishable from the regime but which
ultimately involves indirect support to it. This “regime preservation by
proxy” has been US policy in the conflict, helping it to avoid the
criticisms which would otherwise arise from unmediated direct support –
with other “proxy” US-backed allies of the regime include Iraqi army
brigades (who currently form the biggest ground forces of the Assad
regime) and the Egyptian al-Sisi regime.

Another example of what’s talked about here is the famed “US only found
54 moderate rebels to fight ISIS”. Hundreds of outlets (mainstream and
alternative) probably recirculated the original context-less source
piece, in turn reaching millions of people. And in only a tiny minority
will the crucial detail being missing: that there were only 54
signatories because the US stipulated that those who signed up sign a
declaration to use their weapons only to fight ISIS, not Assad. This in
turn provides the source material for “alternative media” outlets to
repeat the upside-down narrative of a US conspiracy against the Assad
regime.The result literally from just one misleading piece failing to
add a line is millions of people understanding the issue upside down.

This isn’t unique to Syria either; for instance you’ll often find
Zionists say “the