Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
Brigade has left the SDF, and claiming that: "The final break came when [RRB leader] Abu Isa and others demanded that Raqqa be liberated by rebels from the city and that residents be allowed to choose their own city council." I would be cautious about accepting Der Spiegel's version of events uncritically. Fighters from Raqqa are amongst the SDF members fighting to liberate the city. Elections for a local administration will occur after fighting in the city comes to an end, mines are cleared, residents who have fled are able to return, and some degree of normality is restored, as is happening elsewhere in the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria: https://anfenglish.com/rojava/people-voted-in-democratic-northern-syria-federation-elections-22286 In the meantime, there is a Raqqa Civilian Assembly that is ready to act as a provisional government for the city once the fighting stops: https://anfenglish.com/features/raqqa-civilian-assembly-co-chair-we-will-govern-ourselves-19593 MK: "Anyway, getting back to the similarly fraught alliance of sorts the other FSA/rebels have with Turkey, labelling the bulk of rebel groups “Turkish-backed” rebels is crude debating device. The aim is to simplify, and hence slander. What Chris forgets is that if we want to play that game, then every time we refer to the YPG or SDF, we should call them “US-backed” fighters, as the western media now does (at least it is more honest than using that term for the FSA, but still incorrect). The SDF alliance with the US is much tighter than that of other rebels with Turkey; in fact it is probably the tightest relationship of any two forces anywhere in Syria. Yet as a rule, I do not use this debating trick, even if I think it somewhat justified.". The SDF has a military alliance with the US, based on a common desire to defeat ISIS. But the US does not support the SDF's political goal of a democratic Syria. It has failed to insist on the SDF's right to attend peace negotiations. This is in contrast to Russia's consistent support of the Assad regime. Turkey's intervention in Syria is not just a matter of giving military support to selected rebel groups. Turkey has had a strong ideological influence on the rebel movement. This has been explained by Loubna Mrie as follows: "The relationship between Syrian Arabs and Kurds deteriorated as a result of transnational and foreign interests and regime tactics in the context of war. "We cannot understand the root causes of such divisions without looking closely at the proxy powers and their funding of Sunni Arab rebel forces. Turkey, which has long backed the FSA, is the chief country through which support has been channelled. Unfortunately, Turkey's suppression of its own Kurds has coloured the way it views Syrian Kurds, and thus has aggravated ethnic divisions in Syria. "Because the Syrian opposition desperately needs Turkey's support, it has been compelled to embrace Ankara's stance - which is sometimes at odds with the greater good of the Syrian people. "One of the Syrian opposition's greatest mistakes was to buckle to Turkish pressure and exclude the Kurdish opposition from the Syrian National Council (SNC). This, in turn, led to the political under-representation of Kurds, even though there was a robust Kurdish political opposition that was eager to join the SNC. "It is very important to note here that Turkey was not only supporting the armed opposition, but was also the only country that offered a safe space for the Syrian political opposition to meet. This dynamic forced the Syrian opposition to give up on a Kurdish role in the political opposition, or rather, to turn a blind eye to the Kurdish struggle because they did not want to risk their relationship with Turkey. "In effect, Turkey played a major role in widening Arab-Kurd divisions." https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/8/22/the-demise-of-arab-kurdish-solidarity-in-syria Of course, the SDF's alliance with the US has dangers. It could lead to cooption. If the democratic revolution in northern Syria remains isolated, it could degenerate. Cooption by the US is one possible form that such degeneration could take. Chris Slee ____________ From: mkaradjis . Sent: Friday, 22 September 2017 1:24 AM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric Now, onto Turkey, SDF etc. Chris: “I would not criticise any rebel group that adopted a similar policy. What I am criticising is the fact that some rebel groups have become instruments of a Turkish intervention that is directed against the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria.” Elsewhere, Chris disputes my statement that rebels were transfer
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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. * Now, onto Turkey, SDF etc. Chris: “I would not criticise any rebel group that adopted a similar policy. What I am criticising is the fact that some rebel groups have become instruments of a Turkish intervention that is directed against the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria.” Elsewhere, Chris disputes my statement that rebels were transferred north to Euphrates Shield to fight ISIS, claiming they went to fight the SDF. He claims that Turkey’s claim that its intervention was directed against both ISIS and the YPG “was a smokescreen,” because, he claims, Turkey had previously collaborated with ISIS against the YPG in the northeast. This seems strange logic. I will leave aside whether or not Turkey “supported ISIS” in the past - Turkey heavily supported anti-ISIS rebels, but at a certain point may have maneuvered with ISIS against the YPG in Kobani, as any self-respecting Machiavellian regime might do to look after its interests. Such tactical preferencing of one enemy over another should not be confused with actually “supporting” ISIS. But regardless, even if in the past Turkey “supported” ISIS, how is that an argument against what it was doing now? As I pointed out in my previous post, which Chris has not really answered, the Turkey/FSA/rebel action under Euphrates Shield cleared ISIS out of a vast swathe of territory, bordered by Azaz, Jarablus and al-Bab. The SDF was not present in any of these areas. The only FSA-SDF clashes were some brief “border” clashes in the region between Manbij and Jarablus, near the outset of the operation, which the US put a stop to. How anyone can describe this as an attack on the SDF while just using “fighting ISIS” as a “smokescreen” I have no idea; it defies reality. Try to remember the Stalinist origins of the PKK, comrades - they may have moved on, but some of their propaganda style reflects old habits. I recommend we be aware of this and try not to repeat it. Of course it is true that one of the motivations of the Turkish regime in helping the FSA drive ISIS from this region was to prevent the YPG from carrying out its potentially catastrophic irredentist plan to “link” Kurdish Afrin with Kurdish Kobani by seizing this 6 thousand square mile stretch of non-Kurdish territory. But in taking part, the FSA/rebels were not carrying out Turkish orders, as they were acting entirely in their own interests in recovering this Arab- and Turkmen-majority territory from ISIS, which had conquered it from these same rebels earlier. It had never before been controlled by the YPG, and the YPG had no special “right” to take it. Finally, Chris rejects my description of the Menagh-Tal Rifaat region as "occupied Arab territory" which "The rebels [by which he means the groups allied to Turkey] have the right to re-take [their territory] from the YPG-SDF". This is the Arab/Turkmen-majority region of northern Aleppo that was violently conquered from the rebels by the YPG in February 2016, with the invading Russian imperialist airforce, when it wasn’t slaughtering the length and breadth of Syria, bloodily softening up these rebel towns for the YPG to seize. On reflection, calling them occupied “Arab” territory, on account of their Arab majority, was a mistake, Just as Kurdish-majority territory is not “Kurdish.” In both cases, it is Syrian territory, and it is up to the locals, of whatever ethnic majority, to decide who runs the place, and how. But apart from the word “Arab”, everything else I wrote about this occupied territory was correct. Chris does not address the bloody conquest, the role of Russian imperialism in this conquest, the resistance of the FSA/rebels in these towns, the expulsion of the populations, the demands of the expelled populations for return, the YPG gloating over FSA corpses in Tal Rifaat during the conquest, etc etc. Rather, he claims: “This ignores the fact that the SDF has a strong Arab component, and that many of its Arab members come from a Free Syrian Army background.” To back this, he notes my discussion in my MLR article of Nusra’s suppression of two large FSA coalitions, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front and Harakat Hazm, and notes that I do not “mention that some of the survivors of Nusra's attacks fled to Afrin, where they helped form a new, predominantly Arab, group called Jaysh al-Thuwar (Revolutionary Army), which later combined with the mainly Kurdish YPG/YPJ to form the Syrian Democratic Forces.” Therefore, he concludes: “Thus the "rebel" groups allied to Turkey cannot be considered the sole representatives of Arab people in northern Syria. Tal Rifaat is not "their territory", which they are entitled to "re-take".” This is
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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: "The US kept sanctions on Iran even after the UN lifted its sanctions. There are exemptions which have allowed some deals. But why have sanctions at all if Iran is such a great ally? I think it has something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah against Israel." My argument was not that the US and Iran were "great allies." It was that they are, *in practice*, in most of the main theatres of conflict in the Mideast *at present*, allies, in sharp contrast to Trumpist rhetoric. The reasons for the long-term war of rhetoric, as well as the mild sanctions that Chris notes, are, as I said, an interesting topic for research. I'm more than open to suggestions. I have no hard and fast opinions. However, Chris' view, probably a common one, that "it has something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah against Israel" only creates more questions, not answers. That would have been a good answer up till Hezbollah's liberation of southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000. Actually, the Iran-Israel "conflict" is, even much more than the US-Iran one, a blatant war of rhetoric, mediated by geographic distance which makes it all the more harmless. It is the Arabic peoples living in between who get slaughtered by Iran and Israel while they shout at each other. However, due to the lucky coincidence that southern Lebanon just happened to be heavily populated by Shia, the Iranian-backed Shia militia Hezbollah took the lead in the national liberation struggle. This enabled Iran to appear to be "fighting Zionism", in an actual hot war, when in fact this was an entirely rational liberation struggle. Hard to imagine how different history may have been if southern Lebanon were populated by Sunni, and the Shia were unaffeced up north somewhere. But once Lebanon was liberated in 2000, Iran and Hezbollah itself were then a a loss as to how to continue to justify the "resistance" ideology that had grown as a result, which for one thing facilitated the mullah regime terrorising its own population via the use of bullshit. The brief and bloody flare-up between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, when Hezbollah kidnapped a few Zionist troops and Israel destroyed half of Lebanon and killed 1500 Lebanese civilians in response, perhaps briefly gave the rhetoric a bit more "meat," however, and ironically, but even Nasrallah had to admit that the punishment meted out on Lebanese civilians was not worth his games. But regardless, since 2006, the Israeli-Lebanese border has been stone-cold quiet (not sure if it was as quiet as the Syria-Israel "border" on occupied Golan for 40 years under Assad, but almost as much). No-one claims Hezbollah did jack "against Israel" over the last 11 years. Instead, since 2011, and especially 2013, Hezbollah has turned itself into a death squad for Assad engaged in mass murder and sectarian cleansing of the Syrian Arab population. I'm sure they shout some "anti-Zionist" slogans while they do this. So, given that Hezbollah does nothing against Israel, it is unclear why Iran's support for Hezbollah "against Israel" would be a reason for any *real*, as opposed to rhetorical, US hostility to Iran - except in as much as historical grievances die hard and slow, with wounded pride and credibility and all that at stake. Therefore, the case is still wide open for me. On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Chris Slee wrote: > > Michael says: > > "But more broadly, what is behind the ongoing “war of rhetoric” between > the US and Iran that has never led to an actual war is a good question > for research. I suggest Obama understood the real long-term interests > of US imperialism much better with his policy of engagement of a major > regional capitalist power, with a large population/market, a > relatively developed economy, plenty of oil and plenty of potential as > a regional killer-cop." > > But it is not JUST a war of rhetoric. The US kept sanctions on Iran even > after the UN lifted its sanctions. > > There are exemptions which have allowed some deals. But why have sanctions > at all if Iran is such a great ally? > > I think it has something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah against > Israel. > > Chris Slee _ 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] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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. * Michael says: "But more broadly, what is behind the ongoing “war of rhetoric” between the US and Iran that has never led to an actual war is a good question for research. I suggest Obama understood the real long-term interests of US imperialism much better with his policy of engagement of a major regional capitalist power, with a large population/market, a relatively developed economy, plenty of oil and plenty of potential as a regional killer-cop." But it is not JUST a war of rhetoric. The US kept sanctions on Iran even after the UN lifted its sanctions. There are exemptions which have allowed some deals. But why have sanctions at all if Iran is such a great ally? I think it has something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah against Israel. Chris Slee _ 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] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
ime] want to fight ISIS > in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then that would be > welcomed". > > However, my ability to read the minds of imperialist leaders has been > confirmed by none other thanMichael Karadjis! In his Marxist Left Review > article, Michael says: > > "Meanwhile, in the south, the US cobbled together the New Syrian Army. In > November 2015, the NSA, backed by US air strikes, expelled ISIS from the > al-Tanf border crossing with Iraq, releasing a video showing copious US > weaponry. Later it launched a failed raid on Abu Kamal, where the going was > tough, because many Deir Ezzor rebels “distrust its American backers”, > especially because the NSA’s introductory video made no mention of fighting > the regime". > > http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no-14-winter-2017/147-us-vs-free-syrian-army-vs-jabhat-al-nusra-and-isis-history-of-a-hidden-three-way-conflict > > Thus the US did indeed try to use a proxy force (the New Syrian Army) to > advance into Deir Ezzor (the province in which Abu Kamal is situated), but > found it was (as I said) "not up to the task". > > Somewhat later, Colonel Dillon "welcomed" the advance of the Assad regime and > its allies into Deir Ezzor. But this was only after the initial (and > presumably preferred) US plan had failed. > > The US and Iran are currently allies in Syria. But there is no guarantee > this will continue. The fact that Colonel Dillon politely "welcomes" > advances by the Assad regime and its allies (including Iranian-led forces) > does not prove he is happy about them. > > Chris Slee > > > > > > > > > From: mkaradjis . > Sent: Wednesday, 13 September 2017 2:43:37 AM > To: Chris Slee > Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition > Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to > Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric > > Response to Chris Slee (first part - re Turkey etc, will post later). > > Chris: > > “The reference to "the complete absence of any military clash between > the US and Assad in the Obama years" could be taken as implying that > the US has always supported Assad, ever since the start of the > uprising in 2011. > > “But in considering the lack of direct military clashes between the US > and Assad during the Obama period, we should not forget that allies of > the US did intervene militarily. Israel bombed Syria on a number of > occasions. Turkey and the Gulf states supplied weapons to rebels > (albeit limited in quantity and quality).” > > “Allies of the US” are not the US. For example, Iraq is a close ally > of the US, in fact essentially a creature of the US invasion and > occupation, the crowning act of US aggression this century, and Iraq > actively supports Assad, in fact, as my article documents (see links), > this involves nothing less than an invasion of Syria by 20,000 troops > of the US/Iran-backed Iraqi regime. Al-Sisi’s bloody Egyptian tyranny > is a US ally, and has sent arms and even military personnel to Syria > to aid the Assad regime. Jordan is a US ally and has used its leverage > over the southern FSA (given geography) to wind down the southern > front against Assad, and when tasked jointly by the US and Russia to > draw up a list of “terrorist” organisations to be excluded from talks, > came up with a list of some 160 rebel groups, about half the > insurgency! A list partly based on an earlier list drawn up by the > UAE, another US ally. Lebanon is a US ally (5th largest recipient of > US arms in the world), and it is quite remarkable how US arms manage > to turn up with Hezbollah in Lebanon. > > The silly trope about “reactionary” or” US-backed” regimes supporting > the Syrian opposition (albeit “for their own reasons”) relies on the > idea that such regimes are limited to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey > (and even that needs to take into account how hostile the first is to > the second two, and hence their “support” was based precisely on their > own rivalries). The majority of “reactionary” and “US-backed” states > in the region either vigorously back the reactionary Assad regime, are > neutral, or are effectively pro-Assad and anti-revolutionary. > > All that aside, these states are not puppets of the US, on either > side, they act on their own interests. If Chris thinks Turkey, for > example, backed the Syrian rebels because it is a “US ally,” then he > presumably thinks the US told Turkey to send the Mavi Mamara to try to > break the siege of Gaza too. Chris should also consider that, to the > extent that the US had any relation to the arming of the Syrian
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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. * Further response to Michael Karadjis (part 2) Michael quotes my statement: "If the 'rebels' are no longer fighting the Assad regime, should they still be called 'rebels'? Some former rebel groups have become instruments of Turkish intervention in Syria". He accuses me of double standards, because I have not criticised the Syrian Democratic Forces, even though the SDF also "does not fight Assad". The SDF has a policy of not initiating armed conflict with the Assad regime forces, but fighting back if attacked. I would not criticise any rebel group that adopted a similar policy. What I am criticising is the fact that some rebel groups have become instruments of a Turkish intervention that is directed against the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Michael quotes my statement that: "There has already been a 'counterrevolutionary agreement' between Turkey, Russia and Assad. Last year some Turkish-backed groups withdrew from Aleppo city and other areas where they had been fighting against Assad's forces. Some of them were transferred to the northern part of Aleppo province in order to fight against the SDF". Michael disputes this, saying: "no, they were transferred to northern Aleppo province to fight ISIS, not the SDF". Turkey said its intervention was directed against both ISIS and the YPG. But this was a smokescreen. Turkey had accepted ISIS controlling a section of the Syria/Turkey border, including the town of Jarablus, for several years. Turkey had collaborated with ISIS in attacking Rojava. It was only after the SDF had liberated Manbij from ISIS, and was advancing on Jarablus, that Turkey invaded. Turkey succeeded in blocking further SDF advances, but was unable to reverse the gains already made. Turkey was warned against trying to capture Manbij by the US, which was worried this would divert SDF resources away from the campaign against ISIS in Raqqa. However Turkey and its allies have continued a campaign of harassment by bombarding SDF-controlled towns (including Tal Rifaat). Michael makes several references to the SDF's capture of Tal Rifaat in February 2016. He claims the Menagh-Tal Rifaat region is "occupied Arab territory", and that "The rebels [by which he means the groups allied to Turkey] have the right to re-take their territory from the YPG-SDF". This ignores the fact that the SDF has a strong Arab component, and that many of its Arab members come from a Free Syrian Army background. In his Marxist Left Review article, Michael mentions the violent suppression of the Syrian Revolutionaries Front and Harakat Hazm (both of which were regarded as part of the FSA) by Jabhat al-Nusra. But he doesn't mention that some of the survivors of Nusra's attacks fled to Afrin, where they helped form a new, predominantly Arab, group called Jaysh al-Thuwar (Revolutionary Army), which later combined with the mainly Kurdish YPG/YPJ to form the Syrian Democratic Forces. Thus the "rebel" groups allied to Turkey can not be considered the sole representatives of Arab people in northern Syria. Tal Rifaat is not "their territory", which they are entitled to "re-take". Chris Slee ________ From: mkaradjis . Sent: Saturday, 16 September 2017 1:13:59 AM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric Part 2 of response to Chris Slee On Turkey's role in Syria, Chris asks: “If the "rebels" are no longer fighting the Assad regime, should they still be called "rebels"? Some former rebel groups have become instruments of Turkish intervention in Syria.” Turkey has held back the rebels in the region it occupies in the north from fighting Assad, just as the SDF does not fight Assad. So we could say they are more or less on the same wavelength. Or does Chris think whatever the SDF does is OK, they don’t have to lift a finger against Assad to be called “rebels”, they can be far-and-away the most totally US-backed force in Syria, which only fights ISIS and never Assad, and still get called “rebels”, but those who went through hell fighting both Assad and ISIS for years are immediately denied rebel status as soon as they are forced into a compromise situation due to the entire international intervention against them. These are all (or mostly) real rebel forces, formed by people whose purpose wa
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
taking over Deir Ezzor, I also had this quote from the Pentagon (along with tons of other quotes, evidence facts etc): "On June 23, US-led Coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon explained that if the Assad regime or its allies “are making a concerted effort to move into ISIS-held areas” then “we absolutely have no problem with that.” Dillon said that "if they [ie, Assad regime] want to fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then that would be welcomed". However, my ability to read the minds of imperialist leaders has been confirmed by none other thanMichael Karadjis! In his Marxist Left Review article, Michael says: "Meanwhile, in the south, the US cobbled together the New Syrian Army. In November 2015, the NSA, backed by US air strikes, expelled ISIS from the al-Tanf border crossing with Iraq, releasing a video showing copious US weaponry. Later it launched a failed raid on Abu Kamal, where the going was tough, because many Deir Ezzor rebels “distrust its American backers”, especially because the NSA’s introductory video made no mention of fighting the regime". http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no-14-winter-2017/147-us-vs-free-syrian-army-vs-jabhat-al-nusra-and-isis-history-of-a-hidden-three-way-conflict Thus the US did indeed try to use a proxy force (the New Syrian Army) to advance into Deir Ezzor (the province in which Abu Kamal is situated), but found it was (as I said) "not up to the task". Somewhat later, Colonel Dillon "welcomed" the advance of the Assad regime and its allies into Deir Ezzor. But this was only after the initial (and presumably preferred) US plan had failed. The US and Iran are currently allies in Syria. But there is no guarantee this will continue. The fact that Colonel Dillon politely "welcomes" advances by the Assad regime and its allies (including Iranian-led forces) does not prove he is happy about them. Chris Slee ____________ From: mkaradjis . Sent: Wednesday, 13 September 2017 2:43:37 AM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric Response to Chris Slee (first part - re Turkey etc, will post later). Chris: “The reference to "the complete absence of any military clash between the US and Assad in the Obama years" could be taken as implying that the US has always supported Assad, ever since the start of the uprising in 2011. “But in considering the lack of direct military clashes between the US and Assad during the Obama period, we should not forget that allies of the US did intervene militarily. Israel bombed Syria on a number of occasions. Turkey and the Gulf states supplied weapons to rebels (albeit limited in quantity and quality).” “Allies of the US” are not the US. For example, Iraq is a close ally of the US, in fact essentially a creature of the US invasion and occupation, the crowning act of US aggression this century, and Iraq actively supports Assad, in fact, as my article documents (see links), this involves nothing less than an invasion of Syria by 20,000 troops of the US/Iran-backed Iraqi regime. Al-Sisi’s bloody Egyptian tyranny is a US ally, and has sent arms and even military personnel to Syria to aid the Assad regime. Jordan is a US ally and has used its leverage over the southern FSA (given geography) to wind down the southern front against Assad, and when tasked jointly by the US and Russia to draw up a list of “terrorist” organisations to be excluded from talks, came up with a list of some 160 rebel groups, about half the insurgency! A list partly based on an earlier list drawn up by the UAE, another US ally. Lebanon is a US ally (5th largest recipient of US arms in the world), and it is quite remarkable how US arms manage to turn up with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The silly trope about “reactionary” or” US-backed” regimes supporting the Syrian opposition (albeit “for their own reasons”) relies on the idea that such regimes are limited to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey (and even that needs to take into account how hostile the first is to the second two, and hence their “support” was based precisely on their own rivalries). The majority of “reactionary” and “US-backed” states in the region either vigorously back the reactionary Assad regime, are neutral, or are effectively pro-Assad and anti-revolutionary. All that aside, these states are not puppets of the US, on either side, they act on their own interests. If Chris thinks Turkey, for example, backed the Syrian rebels because it is a “US ally,” then he presumably thinks the US told Turkey to send the Mavi Mamara to try to break the siege of Gaza too. Chris should also consider that, to the extent that the US had any relation to the arming of the Syrian rebels by these three states, its main role w
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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. * Part 2 of response to Chris Slee On Turkey's role in Syria, Chris asks: “If the "rebels" are no longer fighting the Assad regime, should they still be called "rebels"? Some former rebel groups have become instruments of Turkish intervention in Syria.” Turkey has held back the rebels in the region it occupies in the north from fighting Assad, just as the SDF does not fight Assad. So we could say they are more or less on the same wavelength. Or does Chris think whatever the SDF does is OK, they don’t have to lift a finger against Assad to be called “rebels”, they can be far-and-away the most totally US-backed force in Syria, which only fights ISIS and never Assad, and still get called “rebels”, but those who went through hell fighting both Assad and ISIS for years are immediately denied rebel status as soon as they are forced into a compromise situation due to the entire international intervention against them. These are all (or mostly) real rebel forces, formed by people whose purpose was and is trying to oust the regime. Currently they are in a bind. But that does not make them all puppets, any more than the SDF are US puppets due to their close, long-term, strategic cooperation with the US. The situation remains fluid. There have also been some confrontations with Turkish forces at times. But what Chris ignores here too is the geography: the main reason the rebels in the northern Aleppo countryside region could not fight Assad as he crushed eastern Aleppo city was that their passage south to the city was blocked, by the YPG/SDF in the Arab-majority Tal Rifaat region, which they had seized from the rebels under bloody Russian air cover in early 2016; meanwhile, the only other way through to Aleppo city would have been a-Bab, which was held by ISIS. And of course, neither the SDF nor ISIS fight the Assad regime in that region. This inability of the FSA due to this geography to fight Assad there is what allowed both the US and Russia to back the Turkish-FSA Euphrates Shield operation against ISIS, because there was no danger of this bolstering the FSA against Assad as well. “The Turkish-backed groups are fighting the Syrian Democratic Forces, not ISIS.” Yes Chris, and Assad is fighting US imperialism, the US is supporting ISIS and Nusra, and Trotsky was an agent of the Gestapo. Uncritical SDF supporters need to get over this kind of thing. The Turkey-FSA-rebel alliance (‘Euphrates Shield’) cleared ISIS from a vast swathe of territory, between Azaz and Jarablus and down to al-Bab. The SDF was not present in any of those places. There were brief clashes initially in the region between SDF-occupied Manbij and Euphrates Shield-occupied Jarablus, rapidly brought to an end by US pressure on Turkey to back off. While I opposed the Turkish intervention, and I pointed out that this use of the FSA against ISIS in that region was not the main priority *at that moment* when Free Aleppo needed more defence against the main enemy, things are “complex” - of course I still hail the liberation of these areas from ISIS terror. Now that they are not being bombed every day by Assad (due to the Turkish presence), they have the opportunity to develop some political institutions in peace, and perhaps strengthen their forces if they do intend to renew their struggle with Assad. I would have thought doing deals with Assad to not get bombed - for years on end - was precisely a strategy the YPG/SDF and their supporters approved of. Regarding my discussion of the counterrevolutionary dealing between Russia, Turkey and Assad over Idlib and Afrin, Chris responds: “There has already been a "counterrevolutionary agreement" between Turkey, Russia and Assad. Last year some Turkish-backed groups withdrew from Aleppo city and other areas where they had been fighting against Assad's forces. Some of them were transferred to the northern part of Aleppo province in order to fight against the SDF.” Again, Chris’ Orwellian point at the end: no, they were transferred to northern Aleppo province to fight ISIS, not the SDF. The reason SDF supporters make this odd claim is because they believe the entire Azaz-Jarablus-Al Bab region, despite being majority Arab and Turkmen in composition, and despite having been controlled by the rebels before the ISIS conquest, “rightfully” belongs to the SDF. No-one else knows why. On the rest, if Chris thinks that the transferring of rebel cadre from Aleppo city to the front against ISIS in the north was a counterrevolutionary agreement (as I have written in numerous articles), then presumably he also thinks that the role of the SDF in the Tal Rifaat region north of Aleppo, where it block
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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. * Response to Chris Slee (first part - re Turkey etc, will post later). Chris: “The reference to "the complete absence of any military clash between the US and Assad in the Obama years" could be taken as implying that the US has always supported Assad, ever since the start of the uprising in 2011. “But in considering the lack of direct military clashes between the US and Assad during the Obama period, we should not forget that allies of the US did intervene militarily. Israel bombed Syria on a number of occasions. Turkey and the Gulf states supplied weapons to rebels (albeit limited in quantity and quality).” “Allies of the US” are not the US. For example, Iraq is a close ally of the US, in fact essentially a creature of the US invasion and occupation, the crowning act of US aggression this century, and Iraq actively supports Assad, in fact, as my article documents (see links), this involves nothing less than an invasion of Syria by 20,000 troops of the US/Iran-backed Iraqi regime. Al-Sisi’s bloody Egyptian tyranny is a US ally, and has sent arms and even military personnel to Syria to aid the Assad regime. Jordan is a US ally and has used its leverage over the southern FSA (given geography) to wind down the southern front against Assad, and when tasked jointly by the US and Russia to draw up a list of “terrorist” organisations to be excluded from talks, came up with a list of some 160 rebel groups, about half the insurgency! A list partly based on an earlier list drawn up by the UAE, another US ally. Lebanon is a US ally (5th largest recipient of US arms in the world), and it is quite remarkable how US arms manage to turn up with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The silly trope about “reactionary” or” US-backed” regimes supporting the Syrian opposition (albeit “for their own reasons”) relies on the idea that such regimes are limited to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey (and even that needs to take into account how hostile the first is to the second two, and hence their “support” was based precisely on their own rivalries). The majority of “reactionary” and “US-backed” states in the region either vigorously back the reactionary Assad regime, are neutral, or are effectively pro-Assad and anti-revolutionary. All that aside, these states are not puppets of the US, on either side, they act on their own interests. If Chris thinks Turkey, for example, backed the Syrian rebels because it is a “US ally,” then he presumably thinks the US told Turkey to send the Mavi Mamara to try to break the siege of Gaza too. Chris should also consider that, to the extent that the US had any relation to the arming of the Syrian rebels by these three states, its main role was always to try to limit the quantity and quality of the arms sent, restrict who they could be sent to, act to coopt those who got a few arms to divert them away from the struggle against Assad, and above all to ensure that no anti-aircraft weaponry got to the rebels ever, in an overwhelmingly air war launched by the regime. In the first few years, Israel (US ally, but once again, not puppet) was strongly pro-Assad, but with the greater Iranian involvement on Assad’s side by late 2013, together with the 2013 overthrow of the anti-Assad MB regime in Egypt (which had threatened an Egypt-Hamas-Syrian rebel alliance with heavy MB influence, but this danger was now reduced with Sisi's coup), Israel developed a new policy aimed largely at keeping Hezbollah away from the Golan and hitting warehouses or convoys where it suspected advanced weapons were being delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet it has still never armed any rebel faction, the rebels remain relentlessly in support of regaining the Golan, and no Israeli hits on Hezbollah have ever directly aided rebels while clashing with Hezbollah. However, Chris continues: “I think that initially the US probably wanted Assad to be replaced. While he had collaborated with the US in some ways, he was not totally reliable. Thus I think the US had a perspective of removing Assad, and bringing a section of the opposition into the government, while keeping the regime largely intact.” We are all entitled to think what we want. Evidence is better. Initially the US - Hilary Clinton no less - strongly supported Assad the “reformer”, while telling “US ally” Mubarak to “step down” within a week or so of the beginning of the Egyptian uprising. The equivalent Obama statement asking Assad to “step aside”, by contrast, came some 6 months, and thousands of killings, later. But as Chris says, the aim was only ever replacing the Assad figure, not the regime - the US aimed to keep the regime intact, strengthened by removing the
Re: [Marxism] The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric
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. * A few comments on the article by Michael Karadjis: *** 1. The US and Assad Michael says: "The deepening American intervention in Syria under the administration of president Donald Trump has been both far bloodier than that under Barack Obama, and also more openly on the side of the regime of Bashar Assad, as has been clarified by a number of recent official statements and changes". Michael notes that: "However, within a number of months of Trump’s election, some events began to cast doubt on this trajectory. Above all, in contrast to the complete absence of any military clash between the US and Assad in the Obama years, the first half-year of Trump saw one regime airbase bombed, one regime warplane downed, and three minor hits on pro-Assad Iranian-led Iraqi militia in the southeast desert". But he argues that these are "minor clashes". The "main game" is "a US-Russia alliance, a victory for Assad". I agree that these clashes are small incidents, and that in general the US under Trump is collaborating with Assad. My question is: How long has this pro-Assad policy been in effect? The reference to "the complete absence of any military clash between the US and Assad in the Obama years" could be taken as implying that the US has always supported Assad, ever since the start of the uprising in 2011. But in considering the lack of direct military clashes between the US and Assad during the Obama period, we should not forget that allies of the US did intervene militarily. Israel bombed Syria on a number of occasions. Turkey and the Gulf states supplied weapons to rebels (albeit limited in quantity and quality). I think that initially the US probably wanted Assad to be replaced. While he had collaborated with the US in some ways, he was not totally reliable. On the one hand, he had collaborated with the CIA's rendition program. But on the other hand, he had collaborated with Hezbollah, which had driven Israel out of Lebanon. Thus I think the US had a perspective of removing Assad, and bringing a section of the opposition into the government, while keeping the regime largely intact. However the policy of replacing Assad has been dropped. Russian and Iranian support for Assad made it too difficult to carry out. *** 2. The US and Iran in Syria Michael seems to downplay hostility between the US and Iran as a factor influencing events in Syria: "One reason commonly cited for the US stand in al-Tanf is that the Baghdad-Damascus Highway passes through the town, and the US is thereby blocking a direct Iranian connection, a “land bridge”, to Syria, which would effectively link Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon by land... "While the real reason may be a mixture ... the anti-Iranian reason is undermined by the fact that there remains a great expanse of Syria-Iraq borderland that Iranian, pro-Iranian Iraqi and Assadist forces can seize in order to form the land bridge. If we take out the small area around al-Tanf in the southeast corner, and the northern part of the Iraq-Syria border around Hassakah, controlled by the US-backed SDF, then we are left with the entire ISIS-controlled Deir-Ezzor province". Michael seems to imply that the US would be unconcerned if Iranian-led forces were able to take over a large part of Deir Ezzor province. I think it is more likely that the US rulers have reluctantly accepted that they have no realistic way of preventing it. I suspect that the US might originally have had the aim of trying to seize Deir Ezzor using forces trained at al-Tanf, thereby preventing Iranian-led forces from controlling the various roads through the province, but then realised that their proxy force was not up to the task. The relationship between the US and Iran is complex. They are cooperating against ISIS, especially in Iraq, but the US is still imposing economic sanctions on Iran, which means that the hostility is not just a matter of rhetoric. *** 3. Turkey's role in Syria MK: "In addition, the rebel-held region of northern and eastern Aleppo province where Turkish troops are present as part of the Euphrates Shield operation is effectively a de-escalation zone, as the rebels there only fight ISIS and are not permitted to confront the regime (and, at least in this case, it also means they are free from regime bombing)". If the "rebels" are no longer fighting the Assad regime, should they still be called "rebels"? Some former rebel groups have become instruments of Turkish intervention in Syria. The Turkish-backed groups are fighting the Syrian Democratic Forces, not ISIS. MK: "At present there is much talk of a count
