******************** 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. *****************************************************************
Of course I agree with the main messages in this statement: that US imperialism never cared less about the Kurds, that its support for the SDF was just due to a convergence of interests at a particular point, that the illusions expressed by the SDF leadership in the US and its dealings with Assad should be heavily criticised (although I don't think it is possible to condemn anyone for accepting protection, and that's a bigger issue), that betrayal was always going to occur eventually, and of course that the Kurds need to be defended against Turkish invasion. However, I'm not sure that "US imperialism" is keen on betraying the SDF just now. The timing and character of betrayal, of withdrawal, are important to the credibility of US imperialism. Like the last "withdrawal" announcement, this announcement was made by Trump after a phone call with Erdogan. Meanwhile, virtually every other representative of US imperialism that has spoken out, countless leading Republican party figures, including close Trump allies, and the Pentagon, have condemned this move and assert that it is against "US interests." That doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's own view and decision doesn't represent one possible imperialist policy, supported by some faction of the ruling class. The idea that leftist Kurds have outlived their usefulness and that now the US can mend things with a NATO ally by allowing it to have its way with the SDF might well appeal to some sections of US imperialism; and the reality that the more likely outcome is that most of Rojava won't go to Turkey, but to Assad, in a position to force the SDF into subservience in order to "protect" it, is also no long-term problem for US imperialism. And since Russia, Turkey and Iran have been dealing over Syria the last 2 years in the Astana process, somewhat sidelining the US, well, why not buy in via patching things up with Erdogan. But at the moment, that view, that Trump's whim agrees with, is the minority view. Most are expressing views along the lines Pompeo expressed last time, "we can't let the Turks slaughter the Kurds". Lindsay Graham has stated he'll push for sanctions on Turkey "if they step one foot in northeastern Syria" . Even Trump felt compelled to announce that if Turkey does anything wrong he will "totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey", not that this should be taken seriously, but then is this Trump's "progressive" voice? There are a number of reasons for this. The credibility of US imperialism, the perception that ti does not defend its allies, the use of Rojava as the US's bargaining chip in the Syrian negotiated outcome, the use of a US-backed Rojava as a block to Iran in Syria etc. Most likely the immediate outcome will be some kind of compromise between the two positions, as what occurred last time. So far the concrete announcement is that 50 US special forces will be moved away from the border region. Turkey will likely be allowed to enter some of the relatively non-Kurdish parts of the border region at the outset to test the waters. There have already been reports of the Turkish airforce bombing SDF positions near the Syria-Iraq border, but invading major Kurdish population centres would be a different matter. Erdogan may decide on a broader attack on the Kurds, but would face large-scale resistance and it would explode the entire region. It's not certain that the US would be able to just sit back and allow that to happen. On another matter, RCIT’s last paragraph is interesting: “The new turn in Trump policy is also a message to Israel: “You are alone in a war with Iran”. This message also comes with the new approach of the USA and Saudi Arabia to Iran. Behind it is the expected role of Iran to repress the new wave of the Arab revolution that seems as possible in the near future.” Quite perceptive, but then I’ve been arguing that the Gulf ‘crisis” has been theatre for 6 months and have never been stirred up about “defend Iran” for a moment for this very reason (obviously the economic blockade should be condemned). The only problem I have with the paragraph is the implication in the first line that Iran represents any kind of “threat” to Israel; that’s just a 25-year theatre, on both sides, mediated by geographic distance. On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM RKOB via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** 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. > ***************************************************************** > > > https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/syria-us-imperialism-deserts-the-kurds-once-again/ > > > -- > Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG > (Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net) > www.rkob.net > ak...@rkob.net > Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314 > > > -- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mkaradjis%40gmail.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
