Re: [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. * 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
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 insti
Re: [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. * 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 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 fro
Re: [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. * 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
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 Palestinians rejected the 1947 UN partition plan which would’ve given a peace