http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html
Dos and donts for progressives discussing Syria *Ramah Kudaimi <http://mondoweiss.net/author/ramah-kudaimi> on August 27, 2013 20<http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html#comments> * - Facebook<http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html?share=facebook> - Twitter<http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html?share=twitter> - Reddit<http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html?share=reddit> - Google +1<http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html?share=google-plus-1> - With Syria back in the news due to the horrific chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds and threats from the US to engage in military strikes, below are some do's and don'ts for progressive/radical anti-war organizations/activists in the US as you figure out a proper response. 1. DON'T in any way say or imply both sides are wrong and it's not clear who we would be supporting if we get involved militarily. This is an insult to every Syrian who has and continues to go out in the streets and protest both the regime and those forces who are looking to use this time of war to assert their own power over others. It is a shame how many progressive groups in the US just jump on the both sides are bad wagon so we shouldn't get involved. There are one million children who are refugees and that is the fault of the regime. It is the regime who is bombing cities with jets; it is the regime that has ruled the country with brutal force for decades. Any statement that doesn't acknowledge this is again an insult to those who have sacrificed so much. 2. DON'T over conflate Iraq and Syria. Just as ludicrous those who look to Kosovo as an example of military intervention to support it in Syria are, it is quite pathetic when so many progressives and leftists are just obsessed with supposedly false chemical weapons claims. There are 100,000 Syrians dead, majority killed by conventional weapons. So there are a million and one excuses for the US to intervene and faking chemical weapons attacks is not needed. There is also no basis I believe in claiming al Qaeda has access and uses such weapons. Al Qaeda fought the US for a decade in Iraq and not once deployed such weapons. But all of a sudden they're using them in Syria? And if the rebels had these weapons, the regime would've fallen a long time ago. 3. DON'T obsess over al-Qaeda, Islamist extremists, jihadists, etc. Since 9/11 progressives have rightly shunned the use of all these labels when it comes to the US War on Terror, yet we now use them freely when it comes to Syria and actually believe it. The overwhelming majority of Syrians, both those who have taken arms and those who continue to resist through nonviolent means, have nothing to do with the extremist groups and are rising up against all forces who are destroying their country, whether they be regime or supposed "opposition" groups. It is also important to understand that the Free Syria Army is not a central command army with orders given from the top. It is a loosely affiliated group of different battalions and anyone can claim to be part of it. 4. DO point out all the US failures toward Syria and how dropping bombs on the country is not what is needed. I personally don't believe that US is going to get militarily involved. They promised weapons to the rebels and have yet to deliver. No way is the US getting in because as has been pointed out by Gen. Martin Dempsey<http://news.yahoo.com/dempsey-syrian-rebels-wouldnt-back-us-interests-070802647.html> and in a NYT opinion piece<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0>, it is so much for useful for US "interests" for Syrians to kill each other. I think taking a position of the US should not get involved through a military intervention is fine. DON'T put it as "Hands off Syria" implying this is some kind of American conspiracy. DON'T argue this is about US not having a right to taking sides in a civil war. DON'T make it all about money for home since we do want more humanitarian aid. DO frame it as what will help bring the suffering of Syrians to an end. 5. DO point out US hypocrisy as it judges Russia for sending weapons to the regime. Just last week a story came out that the US is sending $640 million worth of cluster bombs to Saudi<http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/22/us_shipping_thousands_of_cluster_bombs_to_saudi_arabia_despite_international_ban>. Weapons continue to flow to Egypt, Bahrain, and Israel despite massive human rights violations. DO call for an end to all sales of weapons to all regimes in the region. 6. DON'T let genuine concerns with US imperialism, Israel, Saudi, etc make you look at pictures and videos of dead children and think conspiracy. Bashar is an authoritarian dictator and his record of resistance is a bit sketchy. Just remember he collaborated with the US on things such as CIA renditions<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-countries-covert-support>. Just because the CIA is training a few fighters in Jordan or some anonymous rebel leader is quoted in some Israeli paper doesn't mean this isn't a legitimate Syrian uprising against a brutal regime. 7. DO highlight the continued bravery of the Syrian people who take to the streets<http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/12556/the-growing-challenge-to-the-syrian-regime-and-the> and protest against the regime, extremists, and all others looking to destroy their struggle for freedom and dignity. As in with everywhere, coverage of violence trumps coverage of continued nonviolent resistance. 8. DO strongly urge people to donate for humanitarian aid. Between deaths, imprisonments, internal displacement, and refugees, I think 30-40 percent of the Syrian population is in one way or another uprooted. 9. I have no actual solutions to suggest that you encourage people to support. Perhaps pushing for an actual ceasefire might be an option, which would require pressure on Russia to tell Bashar to back down. I know my not having answers about how to resolve anything is a shortcoming, but sometimes the best course of action is to just be in solidarity with folks in their struggle through simply recognizing it. 10. Syrians deserve the same respect for their struggle as all other struggles in the region: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and always Palestine. ----------------------------------- Kerry signals US Intervention in Syria, but to What End?<http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html> Posted on 08/27/2013 by Juan Cole Secretary of State John Kerry strongly suggested in remarks on Monday that President Obama has concluded that the ruling Baath regime in Syria was responsible for poison gas attacks last Wednesday that reportedly left hundreds dead, including non-combatant women and children. He further suggested that the Obama administration intended to respond in some way to this alleged regime atrocity. AFP reports <http://youtu.be/i1fd8pQaAAQ> Kerry instanced the reports of the Doctors without Borders organization that operates in 3 Damascus-area hospitals. This is report from Doctors without Borders to which Secretary Kerry<http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release>was presumably referring: MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack, said Dr. Janssens. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the eventscharacterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workersstrongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons. Note that it is not as conclusive as Kerry suggested, though it is very suggestive. Some have asked why the regime would risk using poison gas when it has been making gains against the rebels. But the regimes advances are minor and tenuous. It only took the small town of Qusayr with Hizbullah help! And advances in Homs were just scorched earth destruction of neighborhoods. They were offset by loss of a major air base near Aleppo, key for resupply of troops up there because roads north are insecure. The regime can only advance here or there, but doesnt have manpower to take back substantial territory. My guess is that rebels in Rif Dimashq in outskirts of the capital were making inroads toward Damascus itself. Defensive troops are off tied down in Homs. Since the capital is the real prize and end game, the regime decided to let them know it wouldnt be allowed. It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry. Although there was a risk in using the gas, the regime may have felt threatened enough to take the risk, confident that it could muddy the waters afterwards with charges that it was actually the rebels who were behind it. *I dont find the false flag narrative about the gas attack put forward by the Russians plausible. Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret. How could they have been sure no one among them would get cold feet and blow the whistle? Killing hundreds of women and children from your own clans would be objectionable to at least some in any group of fighters. The fighters in Rif Dimashq are not the hardened Jabhat al-Nusra types. Besides, capturing and deploying rocket systems tipped with poison gas is not so easy; even just operating them takes training.* It is not clear what an American intervention would achieve. It is likely that Washington will conduct a limited punitive operation, perhaps hitting regime buildings with Tomahawk missiles. The latter would avoid the regimes sophisticated anti-aircraft systems, which might be able to fell an F-18 fighter jet. It should be obvious, however, that any such strike would be a form of retaliation for President al-Assads flouting of international law. It would not actually protect Syrians from their government, and it would be unlikely to alter the course of the civil war. Such a strike would carry with it some dangers for the US. It is not impossible that the Baath would respond by targeting US government facilities or businesses in the region. It is also possible that it would target Israel in revenge. An American strike might bring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards into Syria in greater forces. But it is also possible that the regime will hunker down and concentrate on surviving its domestic challenge. *Either way, the people of Homs and other contested cities will likely go on suffering the regimes indiscriminate assaults, and it is unlikely that a few Tomahawk strikes will affect the course of the war.* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
