Skip to main content

The Syrian Revolution That Really Wasn't

Stephen Gowan's Wordpress blog, recently penned this extremely interesting and well thought out position on how the Syrian "Revolution" came to be. Some of you may find this surprising, others of us came to this conclusion some time ago. It's difficult to follow these events in the Middle East and not come to this same conclusion, if one is unbiased at the start.
Apparently, the US Left has yet to figure out that Washington doesn’t try to overthrow neoliberals. If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were a devotee of the Washington Consensus–as Counterpunch’s Eric Draitser seems to believe–the United States government wouldn’t have been calling since 2003 for Assad to step down. Nor would it be overseeing the Islamist guerilla war against his government; it would be protecting him.
By Stephen Gowans
There is a shibboleth in some circles that, as Eric Draitser put it in a recent Counterpunch article, the uprising in Syria “began as a response to the Syrian government’s neoliberal policies and brutality,” and that “the revolutionary content of the rebel side in Syria has been sidelined by a hodgepodge of Saudi and Qatari-financed jihadists.” This theory appears, as far as I can tell, to be based on argument by assertion, not evidence.
A review of press reports in the weeks immediately preceding and following the mid-March 2011 outbreak of riots in Daraa—usually recognized as the beginning of the uprising—offers no indication that Syria was in the grips of a revolutionary distemper, whether anti-neo-liberal or otherwise. On the contrary, reporters representing Time magazine and the New York Times referred to the government as having broad support, of critics conceding that Assad was popular, and of Syrians exhibiting little interest in protest. At the same time, they described the unrest as a series of riots involving hundreds, and not thousands or tens of thousands of people, guided by a largely Islamist agenda and exhibiting a violent character.
Time magazine reported that two jihadist groups that would later play lead roles in the insurgency, Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, were already in operation on the eve of the riots, while a mere three months earlier, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood voiced “their hope for a civil revolt in Syria.” The Muslim Brothers, who had decades earlier declared a blood feud with Syria’s ruling Ba’athist Party, objecting violently to the party’s secularism, had been embroiled in a life and death struggle with secular Arab nationalists since the 1960s, and had engaged in street battles with Ba’athist partisans from the late 1940s. (In one such battle, Hafez al-Assad, the current president’s father, who himself would serve as president from 1970 to 2000, was knifed by a Muslim Brother adversary.) The Brotherhood’s leaders, beginning in 2007, met frequently with the US State Department and the US National Security Council, as well as with the US government-funded Middle East Partnership Initiative, which had taken on the overt role of funding overseas overthrow organizations—a task the CIA had previously done covertly.
Washington had conspired to purge Arab nationalist influence from Syria as early as the mid-1950s, when Kermit Roosevelt, who engineered the overthrow of Iran’s prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh for nationalizing his country’s oil industry, plotted with British intelligence to stir up the Muslim Brothers to overthrow a triumvirate of Arab nationalist and communist leaders in Damascus who Washington and London perceived as threatening Western economic interests in the Middle East.
Washington funnelled arms to Brotherhood mujahedeen in the 1980s to wage urban guerrilla warfare against Hafez al-Assad, who hardliners in Washington called an “Arab communist.” His son, Bashar, continued the Arab nationalists’ commitment to unity (of the Arab nation), independence, and (Arab) socialism. These goals guided the Syrian state—as they had done the Arab nationalist states of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi and Iraq under Saddam. All three states were targeted by Washington for the same reason: their Arab nationalist commitments clashed fundamentally with the US imperialist agenda of US global leadership.
Bashar al-Assad’s refusal to renounce Arab nationalist ideology dismayed Washington, which complained about his socialism, the third part of the Ba’athists’ holy trinity of values. Plans to oust Assad—based in part on his failure to embrace Washington’s neo-liberalism—were already in preparation in Washington by 2003, if not earlier. If Assad was championing neo-liberalism, as Draitser and others contend, it somehow escaped the notice of Washington and Wall Street, which complained about “socialist” Syria and the country’s decidedly anti-neoliberal economic policies.
A Death Feud Heats Up With US Assistance
Read entire story

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Christopher Hitchens: Answers Why He Preached Against the Theocracy Belief System

Brilliant! Mr. Hitchens just gave voice to what I sincerely believe, but couldn't verbalize.

I was raised in one of those Plymouth Brethren Christian homes, where belief in the End of Times, especially the book of Revelations in the Bible was preached daily. One can't be saved by good deeds, but by being a Born Again Christian for the coming Rapture and End of Times.


As far as I'm concerned, that belief system is no different than the WahabiMuslim belief system. They both can go to hell! Evil is right!


Related articlesJehovah's Witness agrees not to show son religious cartoons because of risk of 'emotional damage'Federal court allows Mississippi to let businesses and government employees cite religious beliefs to refuse service to LGBT peopleWithout the Christian Right, There'd Be No President Trump: What Do They Want in Exchange?That Time I Tried to Lose My Virginity to a Christian Who Liked to Get Off to the Bible4 Reasons the Christian Right's Claims…

EFF is Suing to Get List of Best Buy's Geek Squad Informants

A Best Buy Geek Squad Volkswagen New Beetle. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) I had previously covered this here in a post earlier this past January. Now the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has announced that they are suing the FBI for the list of informants they used at Geek Squad.
The EFF also posted to their members blog the reasons why they wish to uncover these informants.

The reasoning from EFF's post:

"Sending your computer to Best Buy for repairs shouldn’t require you to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights. But that’s apparently what’s been happening when customers send their computers to a Geek Squad repair facility in Kentucky.

We think the FBI’s use of Best Buy Geek Squad employees to search people’s computers without a warrant threatens to circumvent people’s constitutional rights. That’s why we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today against the FBI seeking records about the extent to which it directs and trains Best Buy employees to conduct warr…

Brave Yazidi Fighter Soldiers On Looking for his Lost Family in Iraq

A Yazidi fighter who for almost 3 years has been without his family recounts the terror of ISIS on August the 3rd 2014 on his village and his current mission to fight ISIS until his last breath to liberate his wife and see his child. We are all PMU in this war and we are all fighting to rescue our families. We are all hoping we find his wife and his children safe and alive. No kidding! I hope it ends well for this man - Cannot imagine the pain he must be going through. Please watch the video below.


Related articlesFreed ISIS child soldier recounts horrors of brutal training, years of tortureYazidi activist weary after years of anti-ISIS campaigningNearly 10,000 Yazidis killed, kidnapped by Islamic State in 2014, study findsWorld Silent about ISIS Massacre of Afghans'ISIL... can't take away our faith': Yazidis defy Islamic State with prayer and pilgrimageSurvivor Of ISIS Terror Reveals The Horror Of Living Under Islamic Tyranny: "My Mother Saw Them Killing My Brothers …