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

Iraqi Security Update Ending March 30 2017

English: Market in Mosul. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Reprinted brief synopsis via ISHM

Key Takeaways:

Hundreds of Civilian Casualties in Western Mosul Blamed on Coalition Airstrikes - On March 17, U.S.-led international coalition warplanes carried out airstrikes on a suspected ISIS location in the al-Jadida neighborhood of western Mosul. The airstrikes leveled multiple buildings, and likely caused the deaths of an estimated 101 to 263 civilians. Both Iraq’s Defense Minister Irfan Hiyali and U.S. Central Command have ordered inquiries into the incident. On March 28, Lt. General Stephen Townsend, commander of Operation Inherent Resolve, told reporters that “if we did it - and there is a fair chance that we did - it was an unintentional accident of war, and we will transparently report it to you when we’re ready.” A sharp rise in civilian casualties in Mosul has outraged several Iraqi politicians and members of the public - most of whom do not accept an alternative narrative circulating in…

Is Amnesty International Report on Assad Government Hangings, Propaganda?

There has been lots of suspicion lately about FakeNews, with much of the commentary from establishment types, saying it's from the Alternate News Media. I'm not so sure that's right, as lately, well, as of the 2nd Iraq War, it has been increasingly the western Main Street Media, our Corporate Media titans that have been leading that charge. In my opinion of course - and that of many others.
In terms of this post, I'm posting a rebuttal to the report from two individuals, both Syrians. The translated, formated document is linked to my Google Drive. All I have done is format it in a way that's easier to read, rather than one sold block of single spaced text. Since this is a translation from Arabic to English and not done by a professional translation service, there are some mistakes in language. Not enough to obscure any meaning, in my opinion. I didn't want to correct those, as I wanted to keep it as close to virgin as possible.

It's a worthwhile read (below…

Events in Iraq for the Week September 23-29 2016

As listed on the ISHM (Iraqi Security & Humanitarian Monitor) web siteKirkuk Reported to be Forcing Returns of IDPs without Explanation as Conditions in Hawija Worsen  According to the UNHCR, officials in Kirkuk have pressed nearly 8,000 IDPs to depart the province since the beginning of September--allegations that the Kirkuk Provincial Council denies. At least 30 of these expelled families are living on the outskirts of farming villages north of Baquba in Diyala Province without access to adequate food, water, or medical care. The reason for the expulsions is under investigation after an agreement was reached between a Parliamentary Delegation and the Governor of Kirkuk, Najmaddin Karim, to allow the continued presence of IDPs in Kirkuk until the end of the year. Meanwhile, Iraqi Security Forces remain hesitant to clear Hawija (a city of about 100 thousand in Kirkuk Province) of ISIS militants despite deteriorating humanitarian conditions.
ISIS Increases Restrictions in Mosul as …