======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
On 11/7/13 6:52 PM, Eli Stephens wrote:
Well, that cinches it. I mean, how could it NOT be a "revolution" if
it's
the child of the progressive Saudi Arabian state?
Michael Karadjis took apart this Saudi project that attempts to do an
end-run around the FSA:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.politics.marxism.marxmail/172159/
So, for several months now, Saudi Arabia has been involved in trying
to
build a “national Syrian army” from Baathist defector military
officers
in Jordan. The project is backed by the US, with the difference that
to
date, the Saudis have actually tried to get arms to the regular FSA
inside Syria in the south (and in the last couple of months have been
more successful), in order for this puppet force building in Jordan to
try to gain some credibility, whereas the US has tried its utmost to
block any weapons at all getting across to the FSA if it can, and
bugger the need for cred, the US only intends its tools to come to
power either in a palace coup, or, if the US does attack, from the
top.
I agree that someone like Eli Stephens should be able to do better than
a pointless one-liner like that. However, this new “Islamic Army” the
Saudis are now backing is not the same thing as the “Syrian National
Army” the Saudis were trying to build which Louis refers to here;
rather, this is a new Saudi strategy, in tandem with their current very
public spat with the US.
Let’s first see what’s wrong with Eli’s “response” to the article “Saudi
Arabia to spend millions to train new rebel force.”
“How could it NOT be a "revolution" if it's the child of the progressive
Saudi Arabian state?” he asks.
1. So is this the first time you ever heard that Saudi Arabia (and its
rival Qatar) has been backing elements of the Syrian uprising? Most
observers have known that, after the initial Saudi, Qatari and Turkish
robust backing of Assad in the first few months of the uprising in 2011,
that by about July-August they had turned against Assad and the first
two soon became known as the states arming sections of the uprising (and
Turkey facilitating it). So if that is the issue, then, based on your
logic (your magnificent analysis), then it has not been a revolution
since July 2011, nothing new here at all.
2. We need to note that according to this logic, every time a state that
is in any way reactionary (ie, most states in the world are capitalist)
sends any military aid to any movement (which they often do for their
own reasons in order to try to subvert it and try to bend it in their
direction, without this meaning they are successful), no matter how else
you judge that movement, that such a movement ceases to be a revolution,
a liberation movement, or anything progressive whatsoever. I won’t give
you a list, you can do your own research and cross out all the movements
you previously had any sympathy for.
3. What is “it” in your statement? The article talks about Saudi backing
of one particular formation, the new “Islamic Army,” heavily dominated
by one largish mainstream Islamist militia (Liwa al-Islam) and lots of
tiny satellites militias already around Liwa. Liwa al-Islam is a major
group in the Damascus/south Syria region, where it has worked well with
the secular FSA forces which are strong in the south. It is one of four
the major components of the moderate-Islamist/semi-Islamist Syrian
Islamic Liberation Front (SILF, consisting of these 4 and about 20 minor
groups), which itself is one of the four major blocs of Syrian
resistance, the other three being the secular/FSA/Supreme Military
Command bloc, the hard-line, national-jihadist Syrian Islamic Front
(SIF) and the global-jihadist groups, Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS. Thus,
since your criteria is Saudi support, this only proves that one
component of one main bloc is not part of a revolution.
4. Since the new Saudi strategy is part of its angry conflict with the
US over the latter’s abandonment of its imaginary war threat, its
coddling of Tehran and its deal with Russia and Assad over the chemical
issue, as well as months of Saudi frustration over the US attempting to
block the Saudis from even aiding the *secular* SMC/FSA, we can at least
understand that now that Eli has suddenly discovered Saudi backing of
some Syrian rebels, we can abandon all the outright bullshit and lies
that so many leftists have casually made over the last 2 years about US
arming of the rebels. OK, now finally we understand the US (and UK,
France etc) never sent even a bullet. Good, that’s progress.
5. Maybe we can take that one step further. Since the Saudis are doing
this in the context of anger with the US, and indeed they turned down
the UN role protesting both US abandonment of the anti-Assad struggle
*and* unconditional US support fro Israel, perhaps, based on the BS
“anti-imperialist” line, we can now welcome Saudi Arabia as part of the
“anti-imperialist” agenda? Oh, hell, that makes things too complicated
for the “anti-imperialists,” let’s leave that one for a while.
6. Since the article makes clear that a very major concern of the Saudis
is the growth of influence of their arch-enemy within the Islamist
terrain, Al-Qaida, and that part of their swing to backing a major
mainstream Islamist movement (after trying for a year to adopt what they
thought was the US line of support for the SMC, only to find out the US
was only joking, see below), is precisely to try to reduce support for
Al-Qaida, or if necessary confront it, can we now abandon the all the
bullshit that so many leftists have casually dropped over the last 2
years about Saudi backing for Al-Qaida (including the witless repetition
of the fantasy that the Saudis not only armed Al-Qaida with small arms
but with chemical weapons, via some clumsy unknowing FSAers in tunnels)?
7. Oh bit on that, since all the left has continually told us that
Al-Qaida is the worst enemy of humanity (well, in Syria at least, if not
anywhere else), does this Saudi strategy mean that the Saudis are now
progressive? Oh, hang on, but Al-Qaida is a lot more consistently
anti-imperialist than even the Saudis in the current rage, or than the
Assad regime at any time, doesn’t that make them the most progressive
thing in Syria? Oh, fuck it becomes complicated to have an
“anti-imperialist” line, doesn’t it?
Here's some other things.
The article states: "I don't see it producing any dramatic change yet.
It's a political step. These new rebel formations seem to be relabelling
themselves and creating new leadership structures. It's part of a quite
parochial political game - and above all a competition for resources."
A competition for resources, precisely. You see, the fact that the West,
with its alleged preference for secular rebels, or "moderates," whatever
the US may mean by that, has never sent them a gun, and even in terms of
other supplies, it has sent a few flak jaks, binoculars, some
ready-meals, some ancient radios etc, does kind of mean the rebels,
outgunned by a regime with a massive array of heavy weaponry which is
continually supplied and refurbished by "peaceful" Russia and Iran, do
need to look around.
Now when the rebels get too close to Al-Qaida, or a least try not to
confront them, since Al-Qaida has constant supplies via its Iraqi
Al-Qaida parent, then the VERY, VERY secular and VERY, VERY principled
western left can denounce the FSA as "jihadists" and have an excuse to
not support them and denounce them as the same as the regime (or worse).
But then when the FSA is forced to confront Al-Qaida all over Syria, as
it has been for about 6 months, not because it wanted to, and not
because they listened to the Americans who demanded that they do so, but
rather because Al-Qaida attacked the FSA from behind while they were
busy fighting the regime, or because the FSA simply stuck up for local
people resisting religious repression, and so therefore some of these
outgunned FSAers, fighting on 2 fronts, expressed some naïve but
understandable sympathy for a western intervention, or even those who
didn't but merely demanded western arms, well then the VERY VERY
anti-imperialist and VERY VERY principled western left can denounce the
FSA as "tools for imperialism" (while still not even mentioning their
fight against the jihadists - indeed, the "left" can even denounce them
as tools of both imperialism and the jihadists at the same time, because
it is so much easier to be a leftists in the west with a computer than
someone fighting an extremely murderous dictatorship and a murderous
group of Islamists at the same time).
But so then, since the West gives them nothing at all, and the jihadists
open another front against them, the secular SMC/FSA got arms from Saudi
Arabia. Not much, but a little better than nothing. So then the VERY
VERY etc etc leftists can denounce them as tools of the Saudi monarchy.
And now that a mainstream Islamist movement, cooperative with the
secular FSA, and hostile to Al-Qaida, is getting Saudi backing, well
that's all you need to know about them, isn't it? Obviously they are
just tools of the theocracy.
Never mind that when the US was briefly jiving about "punishment
strikes" after Assad's chemical apocalypse, Saudi Arabia was strongly
supporting the proposed attack, while Liwa al-Islam, like all the
Islamist and lots of the secular fighters, opposed it, even though they
are fighters in the very suburbs that were attacked by chemicals:
"What matters to us is the question of: Who will America target its
strike against? And why choose this particular time?" the statement
asked. "The Assad regime has used chemical weapons dozens of times and
the U.S. did not move a finger. Have they experienced a sudden awakening
of conscience or do they feel that the jihadists are on the cusp of
achieving a final victory, which will allow them to seize control over
the country? This has driven the U.S. to act in the last 15 minutes to
deliver the final blow to this tottering regime so it can present itself
as a key player and impose its crew which it has been preparing for
months to govern Syria"
(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/05/waiting_for_the_tomahawks_syrian_rebels_us_strikes).
I wonder who they meant by "its crew" the US has been preparing for
months"? Probably some of the people in the US/Saudi centre of
operations in Jordan. The Saudis were helping train them. Liwa al-Islam
denounces them as puppets out to steal the revolution from them. That's
because they are a genuine part of the Syrian revolution, a genuine part
of the Syrian people, whose non-jihadist "Islam" represents the more
traditionalist nature of much of the peasant and working class
population of the vast Damascus suburbs, the base of the revolution,
those left outside the "secular" bourgeois-nationalist program.
But to "the left", I guess all this just makes this formation an
imperialist/Saudi/al-Qaida tool. Whatever.
Incidentally, how did the Saudis arrive here? The Saudis are Sunni
Islamists, yes, but the problem is they hate the more moderate Muslim
Brotherhood, which in any case is tied to their rival Qatar, and on the
other hand they hate the global-jihadists, because both are
revolutionary in a certain sense and their doctrines threaten the
overthrow of the "apostate" monarchy. When the Saudis tried backing
"national-jihadists" they found the problem that the latter had no
qualms about working closely with the "global-jihadists" as long as they
confronted the regime.
So around August 2012, the Saudis did a well-known turn towards
supporting the secular SMC leadership, trying to bring on board other
ex-Baathist defected officers in exile, trying to get some arms to the
southern secular FSA rebels inside Syria from Jordan to establish
credibility, not out of love for the SMC/FSA secular politics, but
because that is what existed, and thus out of a desire to mould the
ex-Baathist officers, "power secularists" if you like, into something
that could block both the Qatari-backed Brotherhood on one side, and
Al-Qaida on the other, while defeating the pro-Iranian regime, and
hoping to have enough sway over the movement and via the ex-Baathist
officers to prevent democratic revolution. All of that is a big ask: it
is difficult when you are the Saudis and you are against nearly
everyone. But the stability of the Jordanian monarchy, threatened by
both the Brotherhood (its main opposition) and jihadists, became
paramount.
The quest to establish a "Syrian National Army" that I refer to above
was part of this: to try to replace the SMC, which had little control
over the FSA and other rebels on the ground, with a more disciplined
unit incorporating other ex-Baathist officers not currently inn the SMC.
The idea was to be able to both control the democratic forces at the
base better, while establishing a force that could eventually confront
Al-Qaida as a "Sawha" movement.
The US was also in favour of a "Sawha" movement, but with several
differences. First, the US has been demanding for a long time that the
FSA launch a preemptive war on Al-Qaida, open a second front (the US
aim, I believe, goes beyond a "Sawha": the US aims for the democratic
and jihadist forces to destroy each other). Thus they refused to supply
any arms to the SMC/FSA in the meantime. The Saudis believed you need a
force with enough crfedibility in fighting the regime to then be a
useful "sawha"; the US believes contrawise that they have to establish
their credibility with the US first by first fighting a-Qaida before the
US will give them a bone.
What this meant, remarkably, was that while the Saudis had turned
"secularist" as they thought the US wanted, they found the US was only
joking; despite conventional wisdom, the Saudis were supplying the
secular FSA and the US was trying to block them:
As reporter Joanna Paraszczuk explained in June:
"The US and the Saudis are involved in a multilateral effort to support
the insurgency from Jordanian bases. But, according to the sources,
Washington had not only failed to supply "a single rifle or bullet to
the FSA in Daraa" but had actively prevented deliveries, apparently
because of concerns over which factions would receive the weapons. The
situation also appears to be complicated by Jordan's fears that arms
might find their way back into the Kingdom and contribute to instability
there. The sources said the Saudi-backed weapons and ammunition are in
warehouses in Jordan, and insurgents in Daraa and Damascus could be
supplied "within hours" with anti-tank rockets and ammunition. The
Saudis also have more weapons ready for airlift into Jordan, but US
representatives are preventing this at the moment"
(http://eaworldview.com/2013/06/23/syria-special-the-us-saudi-conflict-over-arms-to-insurgents/).
This is the background to the current US-Saudi spat, which intensified
when the US formed its current alliance with Russia to basically keep
Assad in power another year while he cooperates to get rid of his
chemicals, in the meantime free to use all other conventional weapons of
mass destruction, including the unconventional one, starving people to
death in Gaza-style sieges.
The declaration by 11 rebel groups (which cut right across the main
divides outlined above, even including some seculars) that they are not
represented by the exile-based Syrian National Coalition (SNC),
including rejection of the SNC's acceptance of the US-Russia strategy
for the Geneva peace talks, and the fact that the "soft" wing of
Al-Qaida (Ai-Nusra) was part of that declaration (which was also
directed against the more violent wing of Al-Qaida, ISIS), set off alarm
bells to the Saudis, that the Islamist forces in Syria are tempted to
align with their arch enemy due to the flagrantly obvious betrayal of
the US and the imperialist states.
Even though Al-Nusra hastened to declare that there was no new alliance
at all, and that it was only a joint declaration against the SNC exile
political leadership and its strategy, it was still too much for the
Saudis.
Thus, together with the sheer frustration of the US attempting to block
arms even to the secular forces, the Saudis have now swung into support
for an important mainstream Islamist bloc (although even the article
notes that the Saudis still want to convince Liwa al-Islam to remain
under the official authority of the SMC, and to return to official
support for the SNC (Liwa al-Islam had been one of the 11 groups that
signed the anti-SNC declaration that got the Saudis so mad; the fact
that its new Islamic Army refuses membership to both ISIS and also
Al-Nusra indicates the Saudi influence).
It is somewhat difficult to see where al this will lead. One thing for
sure however is that, while some of what I write may be wrong, and some
may disagree with various details, the best way to deal with complex
issues is to actually do some research, write something substantial,
rather than trying to reduce incredibly complex situations to the absurd
"certainties" of the "anti-imperialist" left. A version of this will
shortly go up on my blog; and a longer, very detailed analysis is under
preparation. Meantime, for background on some of these issues there are
many articles there at http://mkaradjis.wordpress.com
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
