The Civil War in Syria
- This topic has 10 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: The Civil War in Syria.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!There is a lot of good, in depth stuff in this article and credit to the author for that. That said, I take exception to the use of 'civil war'. As with Libya, Syria is anything but a civil war. Using the term obscures and camouflages the actions and direct responsibility of the Western capitalist states and their feudal confederates (Saudi, Qatar) in the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians. This conflict is a construct of their making and not of the people of Syria. The majority of the fighters are from outside Syria – German intelligence reports about 1% Syrians. The so-called 'Syrian National Council' does not represent the Syrian population (check their CVs) and the so-called 'Free Syrian Army' exists in name only or in the imaginations of Western 'leaders'.Countries like Turkey are playing host to some of the worst Salafist jihadis with the likes of Abdelhakin Belhadj, described in the MSM as a 'Libyan politician and military leader', the head of the al-Qa'ida affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group rubbing shoulders with the government in Ankara whilst his thugs carry out murder and mayhem in the cause of 'democracy'.Words are important!Alan Fenn, Turkey
alien1 wrote:Words are important!Agreed that words are important. The title was not the author's but the editors chose "The Civil War in Syria" in preference to some of the other media descriptions of what is going on there such as "popular uprising", "resistance", etc which suggest that one side are the good guys (who deserve support including military intervention) whereas, as you've well pointed out, they are not.
We have to remember all civil wars usually involve outside actors. The Spanish Civil War involved the colonial Moorish troops , Italian regular army volunteers , and German pilots. Who now would be called the foreign fighters would be the members of the International Brigade.We have to be careful walking the line of not taking sides . The SFA probably did have an organic growth from disaffected deserters who decided to snipe and shoot back at police and army which escalated to a guerrilla war. But as always the exiles, as in Iraq, got the guns and money from their Saudi and Qatar sponsors so they assumed direction and control.I question the 1% figure you quote. Most sources i read places it at about 10% but even doubling that figure, the foreign fighters are still in a minority. However because they are the most dedicated, more ruthless and high-profile , they give the impression of numbering more. Perhaps the Kurdish militants should also be counted separately.Your figures also don't include the Syrian government foreign fighters ie Lebanonese Hezbollah and vague numbers of Iranian Guard "advisors"But this is all nit-picking and misses the point. As world socialists we don't care a fig for the nationality of those involved but we do care about what they are fighting for and fighting against and sadly neither side's victory brings socialism a millimetre closer.
35. A cartoon from the Socialist Party of Great Britain "The second best article I have found on Syrian civil war is written by the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I have quoted from it extensively in the above, on the nature of the Assad regime. However, in the conclusion, they see only a capitalist alternative:"For the Syrian working class the best likely outcome in present circumstances from an ending of the civil war is a bourgeois capitalist liberal democracy and at worst an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy. Any group replacing the Assad regime will have to continue to run Syrian capitalism for the benefit of the Syrian capitalist class.""
Whats happening in Syria is truly a tragedy for the working class both urban as well as rural. I like what Alanjjohnstone writes regarding the stance that socialists should take in the conflict and the importance of recognising that the end result of the barbarity will not see the introduction of even a capitalist democracy never mind socialism. Unlike Steve Clayton I don't think there's any chance of a capitalist liberal democracy rather I see the outcome being one of ongoing barbarism of a failed capitalist state where it's increasingly splinters into warring factions which act as a brutal form of mafia state. Pessimistic I know but socialists need to tell the truth no matter how difficult it is to accept.
I wrote "For the Syrian working class the best likely outcome in present circumstances from an ending of the civil war is a bourgeois capitalist liberal democracy and at worst an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy" . Reading my whole article you will conclude that the likeliest result is the barbarism of "an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy". At no point do I ever consider there is a chance of socialism arising out of the debris of this war.But also remember that Assad has the upper hand in any peace conference negotiations should they take place in the future ( " If things continue as they are, the Syrian government will certainly be the party that has the major advantage in any talks, it is clear the Insurgency does not pose an existential threat to the regime'.) and some form of political liberalisation could happen and a modified capitalist liberal democracy develop out of the Baathist dictatorship. The recent events with the chemical weapons, no bombing of Syria happening, Putin as peacemaker and even Assad is seen as reasonable all demonstrate the strong position of the Assad regime.I am also "pessimistic I know but socialists need to tell the truth no matter how difficult it is to accept" and we should laways be aware that whatever state of government results; capitalist political democracy (unlikely at present) or "an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy" capitalism will be run in the interests of the capitalist class and never because it cannot be in the interests of the working class. Capitalism is sharia compliant – in my article I wrote "Aleppo, the industrial and commercial hub of Syria, that the Jabhat Al-Nusra Front controlled the power plant, ran the bakeries and headed a court that applied Islamic Sharia law" which would be the foundation of "an Islamic fundamentalist reactionary theocracy"The article I hope tells "the truth no matter how difficult it is to accept" of what is going on in Syria.
I thought the article was really well done and does not give any false hopes that socialism is around the corner in Syria. It's certainly a lot better than most of what I've read. I don't know if I'm nit picking when I argued that any form of liberal democracy is impossible in Syria at the moment due to the the current climate of a global capitalist crisis which creates such levels of instability that makes the functioning of a capitalist democracy almost impossible especially in countries which have been dominated by various imperialist powers, both west as well as east.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.