A propagandist-in-chief's war on intellectual imperialism and pursuit of a resistance episteme

Posts Tagged: NATO

The Syrian Army is the key to Syria’s future

Text
5 months ago    |   Tags: Syria Syrian army Syrian opposition FSA NATO GCC United States nasrallah   |   Notes: 13

It has become increasingly clear that the proxy war on Syria is not merely intended to unseat the Assad “regime” with the sole aim of weakening the Resistance axis. The ultimate goal of the US-NATO-GCC-Israeli axis is, as Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah has repeatedly warned, to destroy the only strong army in the region, besides Israel’s, and in so doing, to dismantle the Syrian state as was the case in Iraq and Libya.

This objective is all the more apparent when one considers how the Syrian Arab Forces’ rank and file is predominantly Sunni (see this BBC report here if you need mainstream media confirmation of this) and consists of all sects. As such, the Syrian army represents all Syrians, not merely Alawites. This objective is also evidenced by the fact that this army is not fighting merely to protect the Assad leadership as the opposition and its backers would have us believe, nor is it reducible to an armed militia of the regime’s.   

Irrespective of whatever atrocities may or may not have been committed by individual soldiers, as an institution, the Syrian army is fighting both Syrian and foreign rebels who have collectively instituted a reign of terror in areas under their control, far more brutal and repressive than that practiced by the regime in the past. In confronting groups who harbor sinister and divisive ambitions, the army seeks to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity, national sovereignty and communal coexistence.  

No army fights an internationally-waged war like this one, for two years straight, simply to preserve a regime. No army fights to the death with minimal defections [compared to other Arab countries] for anything less than a national cause, and that cause is Syria.

It is no coincidence then that Iran, Hizbullah and Russia, as well as nationalist opposition figures like Haytham Manaa and regime insiders like Farouk al-Sharaa, have called for the preservation of the Syrian Arab Forces. All those who want to see the army defeated and who reject the dialogue initiative proposed by Iran and others before it—an initiative which could very well result in the opposition winning the presidency and making significant gains in parliamentary elections— are effectively advocating the wholesale destruction of Syria as a state and not merely the overthrow of the Assad regime. The irony is that in such a non-state, they will achieve neither power nor victory, only division and bloodshed. Such is the nihilistic character of the Syrian opposition.

 

 

 

div>

The nature of the Syrian war

Text
9 months ago    |   Tags: Syria Assad imperialism Free Syria Army Israel NATO military intervention   |   Notes: 10

I don’t understand the logic of those who see the Syrian government’s war against proxy forces as a bid to “hold on to power”. Yes, the stamping out of protests at the beginning of the uprising  was precisely that but how can the conflict still be seen through the lens of regime survival and not the survival of Syria as a nation-state?  How can anyone not understand that even if this was the most brutal and corrupt regime on earth which is only pursuing its survival, those fighting and dying on behalf of it are resisting the most blatant form of NATO/GCC military intervention? I am not denying there is also a sectarian civil war which has assumed its own dynamic, and which Alawites have been dragged into, but the  Syrian Army’s war is to some extent a war of liberation from these agents of the Empire and Israel— a war that seeks to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity and regain its sovereignty from the colonizers’  grip. The fact that the larger part of the rebels are Syrian, and that some of these groups have their own agendas which merely “intersect” with NATO/GCC/Israel’s agendas, doesn’t detract from the liberationist thrust of this war. Whether wittingly or not, these armed groups are doing NATO’s and Israel’s dirty work and sparing them a messy invasion.

To all intents and purposes, this is an Empire-Israel backed insurrection and hence a NATO proxy war on Syria,  regardless of the nationality of the proxies. Even Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon have referred to the war in Syria as an international “proxy war”.  As such, there are no “defectors” in this war, only traitors.

 Even siding with the homegrown opposition has become practically useless and in some cases, morally problematic as it has renounced dialogue with the government and rejects any power-sharing formula, while some of its once respected members like Michel Kilo have called for securing Syria’s borders with Israel.

None of this is to say that the military solution is the only solution. It isn’t and can never be. But it appears that an end to this war will require a comprehensive regional agreement between the great powers which will either come about as a result of a wider regional war involving Syria, Israel, Iran and Hizbullah, or as a result of a crushing defeat of the rebels. The latter will be impossible to achieve in the context of a sectarian civil war that also features the irrepressible force of salafist jihadis.   Any agreement that is brokered will have to include the same groups the government is currently fighting—Hizbullah’s coexistence with March 14 collaborators who urged Israel to continue bombing Lebanon is a case in point. And this is the best case scenario.

div>

When justifying imperialist intervention “goes wrong”

Text
10 months ago    |   Tags: Syria Libya Socialism Lenin Marxism imperialism intervention NATO   |   Notes: 1

An excellent piece by Mazda Majidi. Indeed since when were “popular” and progressive/revolutionary synonymous? 
When analyzing an opposition movement anywhere in the world, this is the first question that needs to be asked. Just because part of the population of a given country comes to the streets or takes up arms does not mean that they are revolutionary or progressive. This is so even if they are responding to real social and political problems. Right-wing forces routinely mobilize parts of the population —predominantly disaffected elements of the somewhat privileged “middle class” and others—to promote right-wing agendas….
Revolutionaries and progressives must stand on principles, and make a political assessment of movements in question. Even if the majority of the population were swept up by a reactionary movement, that movement is not revolutionary. Even if the majority of Libyans supported imperialist intervention—which is highly unlikely—that would not justify support by progressives for imperialist intervention…
In the imperialist era, the right to self-determination has been bound together with the “national-colonial question,” that is the specific global division of power between imperialist oppressor and oppressed nations. This has long been a cardinal question for revolutionaries inside the imperialist countries: what attitude they will take towards their own ruling class’s imperialist plans, and towards the independence movements among the oppressed nations. Lenin, the Russian Revolution and the early Communist International recognized that these independence movements weakened imperialism and could hasten its downfall. They offered a united front, although not necessarily political support, to independence movements in the struggle against imperialism. This is the specific meaning of self-determination in the era of imperialism.”

Full article here

div>

Third-Wayers and the Turkish plane

Text
11 months ago    |   Tags: Syria Turkey Assad Third-Wayism NATO imperialism military intervention   |   Notes: 1

Ok so how does a Third Wayer process the shooting down of the Turkish (i.e. symbol of NATO) warplane? However they view this, there must be some complex mental acrobatics at play. I mean I know they staunchly oppose military intervention and would doubtless want this plane shot down by someone. But how do they rationalize the fact that it was shot down by the Syrian Army, in other words the regime? Do they silently cheer on the shooting? Or banish such enthusiasm from their minds/hearts? Or do they wish it was the mythical, Utopian Third Way force in Syria shooting it down and hence reject both the Army and the Turkish plane while supporting the anti-aircraft missile that shot it down?

div>

Erdogan’s BDS-washing

Text
11 months ago    |   Tags: Syria Assad FSA Turkey imperialism Israel normalization BDS NATO  

Now this what I call classic”BDS-washing”. The drama king himself (still full of himself after his public walkout on Peres at Davos 2009), is now laying out conditions for resuming normalization of ties with Israel, ironically, by talking to an Israeli newspaper: 

“We do not need Israeli tourists. We have succeeded to fill their places, and, in the past year, 31 million tourists visited Turkey,” he told the Maariv daily, during the regional World Economic Forum summit in Istanbul. 

Erdoğan added: “The crisis over the matter of the occupation and relations with Israel is not harming the Turkish economy.” 

During a reception in the gardens of the Dolmabahçe Palace during the WEP conference, Erdoğan told Maariv that normalizing relations between Turkey and Israel is conditional on three steps: “First and foremost, Israel must apologize for the raid by Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara ship two years ago. Also, Israel must pay reparations to the families of the victims. The third condition is that Israel end the naval blockade on the import of goods into the Gaza Strip.” His country would not compromise on those conditions, the Turkish prime minister clarified, even if the crisis between the two nations deepens.”

Puh-lease, spare us the self-serving, pseudo-anti-zionist theatrics, more despicable still coming from a warmonger and neo-Ottoman wannabe imperialist. Yes, BDS is a necessary complement to any military and political resistance strategy, but it can never be a substitute for a genuine anti-imperialist / anti-Zionist foreign policy, let alone a tool for legitimizing imperialism and NATO invasions of resisting countries. In the grander strategic scheme of things, and if one had to make a choice between the two evils, he would be doing Palestine a much greater service if the Israeli tourists remained but he kept his blood-soaked hands off Syria.

div>

The UN Human Rights Council’s pseudo-investigation into the Houla massacre and the regime’s much more convincing narrative of events

Text
11 months ago    |   Tags: Houla massacre Syria Assad united nations war crimes ICC humanitarian intervention imperialism NATO   |   Notes: 1

If the UN investigation into the Houla massacre had any credibility to start with, given how the UN Human Rights Council is little more than a rubber stamp for the Security Council, it is now down to zero. The Council has now adopted a resolution which calls for a “special inquiry” into the massacre and echoes calls by U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay for the U.N. Security Council to consider referring Syria to the International Criminal Court.

Pillay had declared that the massacre could constitute a “crime against humanity”, and as such, warranted ICC referral. While no moral label for this barbaric crime is too extreme, it is the politic-legal implications of the concept of “crimes against humanity” which are problematic. As Pillay herself asserts:

“These acts may amount to crimes against humanity and other international crimes, and may be indicative of a pattern of widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations that have been perpetrated with impunity,” she said.

The key word here is “systematic” which represents the main distinction between crimes against humanity and regular war crimes, the latter being “isolated inhumane acts”. One should be careful to note here the governmental connotations of the term “systematic” as elaborated by the The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum which defines crimes against humanity as: “particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.”

By suggesting the crime falls under a more general pattern of a systematic government policy of atrocities, the UN Human Rights Council has clearly already decided who the culprits are before a full scale investigation has even been launched. This should come as no surprise though to anyone who has read the Council Spokesperson, Rupert Colville’s, responses to peace activist Marinella Corregia who interviewed him for Russia Today. Coleville admitted to Corregia that the investigation relies on interviews with “witnesses” that are conducted by telephone. More provocative still, was his response to her question about how they recognized the killers as shabeeha:”Our local contacts in Syria say they were Shabbiya. Try to be less cynical.”

For its part, the Syrian government has also announced the preliminary findings of its own investigation into the massacre. While it is an accused party and its history of repression hardly makes it a reliable source of information, it is just as entitled to be heard as the UN, which is hardly a neutral outsider. As in other geopolitical contexts, the UN Council is essentially synonymous with NATO countries who represent another party to the conflict and hence, a side implicated in the violence.

Moreover, the Syrian government’s findings were much more convincing than the blanket accusation against the regime. According to this as yet unverifiable narrative, between 600-800 gunmen from neighbouring areas joined the Houla rebels after Friday prayers . The wide scale nature of the massacre appears to have been the result of a criminal plan gone awry. The violence initially “targeted the relatives of the People’s Assembly member Abdul-Moa’ti Mashlab” but then “the events ran contrary to the plan and the massacre extended to slaughter other families.” This version of events fits into the now widespread counter -mainstream media-narrative which suggests that although the majority of those killed were Sunni, they were government loyalists, or at minimum, people who refused to take sides. 

Spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ministry, Dr. Jihad Makdissi, acknowledged the investigation was running into difficulties “due to the presence of gunmen in the area.” This latter fact is now undeniable when one takes account of this recent AP report which cites activists who claim that the regime was still shelling Houla, indicating it remains under rebel control. This latter story also begs the question how regimes forces or shabeeha could have entered such a firmly entrenched rebel base that remained under opposition control despite all the allegations about the regime’s heavy-handed activities there.

Unfortunately no matter how persuasive the evidence produced by the regime’s investigation or how flimsy that presented by the UN investigation, the overwhelming majority of the world public, not to mention leaders, have already decided who is responsible for this game-changing massacre. Russia has very rightly denounced the UN Human Right’s Council resolution. Perhaps it should now propose the creation of a more impartial investigative team—even one under UN auspices— which would be comprised of neutral countries who abstained from voting for the Resolution, like Uganda and Ecuador.


div>