Dad, I can't believe you just said that!

My daughter and I have been Whatsapping* like mad about the possibility of US-led strikes against the Syrian regime in the next few days or weeks. As is often the case, she finds me infuriatingly prone to realpolitik, whereas I find her positions theoretical and divorced from the messiness of the real world. In this case what makes her jaw drop is my apparent willingness to countenance a US strike against the Assad regime. From her point of view that position contradicts even the thrust of my own statements on this blog.

She sent me a link to an article in Jacobin Magazine (here it is, for those who might be interested: http://jacobinmag.com/2013/09/good-wars-real-or-imagined/), which provoked a furious session of Whatsapp that lasted well past my bedtime. The article makes a broad anti-interventionist case, in a rather smarmy tone. So broad, in fact, that it reminded me of anti-interventionist writing before World War II, which is not company I'd be comfortable keeping.

Making the case for intervention in Syria or anywhere else is a tricky task. As my daughter was quick to point out, history is littered with failed interventions, bogus interventions, imperialist and colonialist forays disguised as humanitarian interventions, and the like.

Nevertheless, there are some things to be said in favor. I'd list them as follows:

1. Anything that contributes to the erosion of the idea that crimes can be committed under the cover of 'sovereignty' is a positive development.
2. The concept of a universal code of human rights and protections is historically new and slowly taking root in a messy, contradictory world. Nevertheless, it needs to be nurtured, as it is one of the most important developments in the history of human ethics.
3. No universal code will ever succeed without some enforcement mechanism. Therefore, in principle, there can be no freedom from intervention, and no prevention of the kind of violations we're seeing in Syria is possible without action from the outside.

What drives me crazy about these political arguments with my daughter is that somehow, while my attention was elsewhere, she's gone from a little kid to a formidable and ferocious interlocutor. I give her an example; she counters with six. I state a principle; she pokes a dozen holes in it, complete with historical footnotes. Oh well, at least she's keeping me on my toes....

At about the same time, she forwarded me a link to something I found much more to my liking. So much so that I decided to include it here. It's a statement on the situation in Syria and the looming Western intervention by a coalition of Arab left, socialist and communist groups. While the tone is more Marxist than I would personally adopt, the basic analysis is very strong. What I particularly like is the effort to include all aspects of the crisis in the analysis, rather than just firing angry rhetoric at the West for either doing too little or too much (or both).

I've edited the statement somewhat, partly for length and partly due to some repetitiveness in the argumentation. I've used parenthetical ellipses, (...), to indicate my cuts. For anyone interested in the entire thing, here's a link: http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/we-stand-behind-the-syrian-peoples-revolution-no-to-foreign-intervention/

________________________________

We Stand Behind the Syrian People’s Revolution – No to Foreign Intervention

Statement by: Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt) – Revolutionary Left Current (Syria) – Union of Communists (Iraq) – Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco) – Socialist Forum (Lebanon) – League of Worker’s Left (Tunisia)
Published on Saturday 31 August 2013

Over 150 thousand were killed, hundreds of thousands injured and disabled, millions of people displaced inside and outside Syria. Cities, villages, and neighborhoods were destroyed fully or partially, using all sorts of weapons, including warplanes, scud missiles, bombs, and tanks, all paid for by the sweat and blood of the Syrian people (...)

Yet, despite the enormous losses mentioned above, befalling all Syrians, and the calamity inflicted on them, no international organization or major country – or a lesser one – felt the need to provide practical solidarity or support the Syrians in their struggle for their most basic rights, human dignity, and social justice.

The only exception was some Gulf countries, more specifically Qatar and Saudi Arabia. However, their aim was to control the nature of the conflict and steer it in a sectarian direction, distorting the Syrian revolution and aiming to abort it, as a reflection of their deepest fear that the revolutionary flame will reach their shores. So they backed obscurantist takfiri** groups, coming, for the most part, from the four corners of the world, to impose a grotesque vision for rule based on Islamic sharia. These groups were engaged, time and time again, in terrifying massacres against Syrian citizens who opposed their repressive measures and aggressions inside areas under their control or under attack, such as the recent example of villages in the Latakia countryside.

A large block of hostile forces, from around the world, is conspiring against the Syrian people’s revolution (...)

The people’s uprisings aimed to put an end to a history of brutality, injustice, and exploitation and attain the rights to freedom, dignity, and social justice.

However, this did not only provoke local brutal dictatorships, but also most of the imperialist forces seeking to perpetuate the theft of the wealth of our people, in addition to the various reactionary classes and forces throughout those areas and in surrounding countries.

As for Syria, the alliance fighting against the people’s revolution comprises a host of reactionary sectarian forces, spearheaded by Iran and confessional militias in Iraq, and, to much regret, Hezbollah’s strike force, which is drowning in the quagmire of defending a profoundly corrupt and criminal dictatorial regime.

This unfortunate situation has also struck a major section of the traditional Arab left with Stalinist roots, whether in Syria itself or in Lebanon, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab region – and worldwide – which is clearly biased towards the wretched alliance surrounding the Assad regime. (...)

The United Nations and the Security Council, in particular, was unable to condemn the crimes of a regime, which the Syrian people rejected continuously and peacefully for more than seven months, while the bullets of the snipers and shabbiha took demonstrators one by one and day after day and while the most influential activists were being detained and subjected to the worst kinds of torture and elimination in the prisons and detention centers. All the while, the world remained completely silent and in a state of total negativity.(...)

Russian imperialism, the most important ally of the Baathist regime in Damascus, which provides it with all sorts of support, remains on the lookout to block any attempt to condemn those crimes in the Security Council. The United States, on the other hand, does not find a real problem in the continuation of the status quo, with all the apparent repercussions and destruction of the country. (...)

It is clear that Obama, who gives the impression that he will go ahead with his threats, would have felt great embarrassment if he did not do so, since it will not only impact negatively on the president, but also on the image of the mighty and arrogant state that he leads in the eyes of subservient Arab countries and the entire world.

The imminent strike against the Syrian armed forces is led by the US in essence. However, it occurs with the understanding and cooperation of allied imperialist countries, even without rationalizing it through the usual farce, known as international legitimacy (namely the decisions of the UN, (...)

In all cases, we agree on the following:

• The western imperialist alliance will strike several positions and vital parts of the military and civilian infrastructure in Syria (with several casualties, as usual). However, as it was keen to announce, the strikes will not be meant to topple the regime. They are merely intended to punish, in Obama’s words, the current Syrian leadership and save face for the US administration, after all the threats concerning the use of chemical weapons.
• The US president’s intentions to punish the Syrian leadership does not stem, in any way or form, from Washington’s solidarity with the suffering of children who fell in the Ghouta massacres, but from its commitment to what Obama calls the vital interests of the US and its homeland security, in addition to Israel’s interests and security.
• The Syrian army and its regional allies, led by the Iranian regime, will not have enough courage, most probably, to fulfil what seemed to be threats by their senior officials that any western attack on Syria will ignite the entire region. But this option remains on the table, as a final option with catastrophic results.
• The imminent western imperialist assault does not intend to support the Syrian revolution in any way. It will aim to push Damascus into the bargaining table and allow Bashar al-Assad to retreat from the foreground, but keeping the regime in place, while greatly improving conditions to strengthen the position of US imperialism in the future Syria against Russian imperialism.
• The more those participating in the continuing popular mobilization – who are more aware, principled, and dedicated to the future of Syria and its people – realize these facts, their consequences, results, and act accordingly, the more this will contribute to aiding the Syrian people to successfully pick a true revolutionary leadership. In the process of a committed struggle based on the current and future interests of their people, this would produce a radical program consistent with those interests, which could be promoted and put into practice on the road to victory.

_________________________________

* For those who aren't familiar with Whatsapp, it's a convenient texting channel that avoids getting dinged by your phone provider everytime you send a message. At current Lebanese prices, it's probably saved me several hundred dollars, so far.

** takfiri: This term comes from the same root as kuffar, meaning unbeliever. In the form takfir it has the sense of 'label someone an unbeliever'. Extreme jihadi groups 'prounounce' takfir on others, after which they feel entitled, under shariah,  to take whatever measures they wish, including murder.