[Marxism] What just happened?

Clay Claiborne clayclai at gmail.com
Fri Sep 13 12:45:16 MDT 2013


hear, hear!

The argument that the anti-war movement stopped the intervention rest upon
the fiction that Obama wanted to intervene in the first place. Where is the
proof in action? He's had 2.5 years and a hundred thousand good reasons to
intervene before CW, 2 million if you count the refugees and neighbourhood
destabilization.

If the imperialists ever wanted to build a righteous war fever to take down
Assad, all they would have to do is play a small percentage of the Assad
atrocity, rape, massacre and torture videos I have posted to my blog in the
past year on the network news.
<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-ho-chi-minh-collaborated-with-us.html>


05/15/2013*From the Revolting Syrian: Does This Not Outrage
You?*<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/from-revolting-syrian-does-this-not.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
2<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-2.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
3<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-3.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
4<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-4.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
5<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-5.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
6<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-6.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
7<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-7.html>

05/15/2013Do These Videos Not Outrage You? Volume
8<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/05/do-these-videos-not-outrage-you-volume-8.html>
Instead we get a single video of a rebel soldier biting a man's heart and
now an 18 month old video pasted off (by the NYT no less) as current news
about the FSA when those in the video weren't even FSA.

And we also get some on the Left talking about the "imperialist drive for
war" and beating their chests on how they thwarted it!

I suspect this whole thing has been just another episode of "Good Cop - Bad
Cop" from letting parliament vote to putting it to congress to the Russian
proposal. Not that it was all scripted in advance, I believe much is ad
lib, but all designed, on both sides, to defeat the revolution and preserve
the Assad regime if not the man himself.

I think we should also be talking about not just how these new CW
negotiations don't just leave the revolution out of it but imply the
preservation of the current Syria state for the 3-5 years it would take to
dis-arm.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust <http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com>
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach <http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/>
<http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track>


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM, mtomas3 <mtomas3 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>
>
> Is it possible to gain any real insight from speculating on the
> motivations of Obama and his henchmen or, even less so, of Assad? The
> material questions seem much more important; that Assad was/is emboldened
> by inter-imperialist geopoliticial positioning and the resulting U.S.
> impotence to mount an intervention.
>
>
> Several people here have commented about the supposed impact of the
> earlier British (and perhaps European) anti-war movement that then gave the
> British parliament pause to support an intervention and that this event
> subsequently gave Obama's adviser's pause, which was also influenced by a
> "war weary" U.S. public. All this history is deemed to explain Obama's
> "defeat" (as Black Agenda Report puts it). This sort of analysis seems like
> a reach, a "boot strapping" of events that serve as a link to a previous
> mass movement (I suppose one could add the previous "Vietnam Syndrome" to
> such perspective).
>
> While it is important not to adopt an ahistorical view where there is no
> connection to previous history, I think that making this kind of argument
> seems to give credence to the "anti-war" view of politics where building a
> strong anti-war movement that focuses on "anti-imperialism" is somehow
> vindicated.
>
>
> Now, I am sure that most of the contributors here do not actually share
> such a view--the "vindication" of the anti-imperialist left's utter
> betrayal of the Syrian revolution. However, it seems to me that the earlier
> article posted here from Jadaliyya (from a Turkish activist, I think?)
>  that points to the inadequacy of the "anti-war" view as sufficient in this
> period of emerging revolts and upheavals is much more useful in
> understanding what is actually happening.
>
> The U.S. administration seems always to have been reluctant to give any
> real support to the Syrian people's revolt; they, the U.S./NATO, were
> burned by what happened in Libya and it seems clear that any substantial
> intervention to oust Assad, even to usurp the opposition, would yield
> "undesirable" results. While the imperiaists, with the U.S. leading them,
> couldn't ignore the chemical attacks--I believe they were dead set on those
> (limited) strikes--I also believe they were thwarted, not by a previous
> anti-war movement, but by the existing anti-war sentiment in Europe and
> here in context of truly revolutonary process unfolding in Syria and
> throughout the region.
>
>
> For example, that Galloway could give such an influential call against
> British involvement in Parliament is a result of his having been able to be
> in Parliament because of a previous anti-war movement, it is more likely
> that current anti-war sentiment made it possible that his and others'
> intevention would make the substantive hearing needed to prevent British
> participation. The same goes for Obama being stymied by "a walk with an
> advisor who made him seek congressional approval" and then subsequent
> setting of the stage for Russia to "step in" and create a space for
> negotiation.
>
> Notice that the outcome of not intervening created a more positive result
> for the  imperialists; a parlay of the imperialist powers to "negotiate" a
> settlement that leaves the Syrian people and their revolt completely out of
> the equation. Such an event may not have been either Obama's or Putin's
> intention, but the existence of the material social factors--anti-war
> sentiment, Assad's inability to win decisively without significant Russian,
> Chinese, Iranian, and regional religious support, and most importantly, the
> Syrian people's valiant defense by any means necessary--these are the
> material basis for what seems to be happening. I do not think it useful to
> turn those social factors aside for a speculation about what is/was on the
> minds of Obama, Assad, or Putin.
>
> I also believe that the Syrian revolution is the engine that generate a
> much more significant truly anti-war/anti-imperialist movement, in the
> Middle East and North Africa and in the imperialist centers. Such a
> movement MUST be forged in solidarity with the revolutionary struggles of
> the Syrian, Egyptian, Palestinian, and every other emerging struggle--Latin
> America?--that comes along. In previous anti-war movements--Vietnam and,
> even, the Russian Revolution--such movements were built in context of
> relatively more isolated revolutionary struggles and almost non-existent
> working class movements in the imperialist "west". It seems to me that
> while there remain similarities from history, our current period is
> substantially different with the potential for several revolutionary
> currents developing out of the emerging revolutions. Perhaps our new
> "RSDLP" will emerge out of that "practical internationalism" our Turkish
> comrade spoke about?
>
>
>
> Clay: "Does anyone else think that Dempsey's statement the day before may
> have
> influenced Assad's decision to use chemical weapons?"
>
> M. Karadjis: "Why would the US want to get involved in Syria, when the
> very day before the chemical attacks, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of
> Staff, Martin Dempsey, said the Obama regime oposes "even limited" US
> military intervention in Syria because there is *no* side (ie,
> including "moderates", whatever that means) that represents US interests.
> And just one wek earlier, CIA deputy director Michael Morrell said the
> overthrow of Assad by ASl-Qaida "is the largest threat to US national
> security" in the world today."
> ________________________________________________
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/clayclai%40gmail.com
>



More information about the Marxism mailing list