[Marxism] Angry Arab interviews expert Thomas Pierret on Syria: Must Read

Michael Karadjis mkaradjis at gmail.com
Sat Feb 15 17:54:44 MST 2014


While this interview is old, I just discovered it and I think it's worth 
posting, because really if anyone is an expert on Syria, and especially 
on Islamist movements in Syria, it is this guy Thomas Pierret. There is 
just so much useful analysis here for so many who remain confused about 
even some of the basics on Syria. In particular it is interesting that 
he is interviewed here by As'ad AbuKhalil the 'Angry Arab', who 
disagrees with him strongly. Not that Angry is an Assad apologist - he 
hates all sides equally - but has gradually drifted towards the 
left-conspiracist theories that see Assad's opposition as the worse 
alternative, without actually formulating it that way (when you're just 
an angry ranter, you don't have to formulate a position).

Angry, to his credit, ahs interviewed a lot of people he disagrees with. 
A knowledgeable and logical Pierret does a very good job of putting an 
angry Angry in his place when the later asks his loaded questions, 
questions full of silly assumptions that are unrelated to reality. I 
recommend anyone interested in the issue read it in full.
MK

Angry Arab interviews Thomas Pierret on Syria

Thursday, April 25, 2013

http://angryarab.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/angry-arab-interviews-thomas-pierret-on.html

Thomas Pierret (of the University of Edinburgh) and I have disagreed on 
Syria, privately and publicly (on an academic email list) but I regard 
him as a knowledgeable expert on Syria with a command of Arabic, 
although he can be quite uncritical in his reading of claims by Syrian 
exile opposition--but that is his business.  I chose to post the answers 
of interviewees (this is part of a series) without editing or comment 
from me so as not to be unfair to the answers.  I may interview myself 
at the end of the series and respond to many points that appeared in the 
interviews.    My questions precedes his answers in bold:

"1) You and I have disagreed on Syria, do you think that Syria experts 
have been wrong in the last years especially with the regular and 
constant predictions of the imminent fall of the regime?

The generalisation is problematic. Such predictions were rather made by 
journalists, who have the good excuse of not being Syria experts, and 
Western officials, who often did so for a bad reason, i.e. in order to 
justify their inaction: if Asad is about to fall, then there is no need 
to do anything to stop him.

"Experts" did not collectively agree upon the imminent fall of the 
regime. In early April 2011, I published an op-ed in the French 
newspaper Le Monde. The last sentence said this: "Nothing guarantees the 
success of the Syrian revolution, and if it happens at all, it will 
certainly be long, and painful" . I was not the only one to think that 
way. I clearly remember a conversation I had at the same time with 
Steven Heydemann, who was even more pessimistic than I was: he predicted 
that the regime would use its full military might against the 
opposition, and that none would act to stop it.

I must admit that later developments made me over-optimistic at times, 
but overall, I do not think I have seriously under-estimated the 
solidity of the regime.

2) What accounts for the resilience of the admittedly repressive regime? 
Has it been difficult for the supporters of the opposition to 
acknowledge this resilience?

I do not speak in the name of the "supporters of the opposition". As far 
as I am concerned, it has not been difficult for me to acknowledge 
something I had anticipated from day one.

The only independent variable you need to understand the resilience of 
the Syrian regime is the kin-based and sectarian (Alawite) nature of its 
military. All other purported factors are in fact dependent variables.

The kin-based/sectarian nature of the military is what allows the regime 
to be not merely "repressive", but to be able to wage a full-fledged war 
against its own population. Not against a neighboring state, an occupied 
people or a separatist minority, but against the majority of the 
population, including the inhabitants of the metropolitan area (i.e. 
Damascus and its suburbs). There are very few of such cases in modern 
history. Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi are the closest examples in the 
region, but the West proved much less tolerant with them.

The regime's resilience is in no way a reflection of its legitimacy: on 
the contrary, the legitimacy of this regime is inversely proportional to 
the level of violence it needs to use to ensure its survival; in other 
words, this is a highly illegitimate regime in the eyes of most Syrians.

Kinship has been key to securing the loyalty of the upper echelons of 
the military in order to avoid the fate of Ben Ali and Mubarak. The 
latter did not have the chance to have a large number of relatives among 
the top military/security hierarchy, contrary to Bashar al-Asad, whose 
own brother Maher is the actual no. 1 in the military (other relatives 
in top military/security positions include Hafez Makhluf, Dhu al-Himma 
Shalish, Atef Najib and Asef Shawkat, among many others). In such a 
situation, generals cannot seriously think about sacrificing the 
president in order to save the system: contrary to their Egyptian or 
Tunisian counterparts, they are not in a position to claim that they are 
in fact good guys who have nothing to do with the awful incumbent 
dictator. They stay with Asad, or they fall with him. Beyond kin ties, 
the loyalty of the military hierarchy has been secured through 
sectarianism, since it is likely that a majority of the officers belong 
to the Alawite community.

Sectarianism is a powerful instrument to make sure that you can use the 
army's full military might against the population. No military that is 
reasonably representative of the population could do what the Syrian 
army did over the last two years, i.e. destroying most of the country's 
major cities, including large parts of the capital. You need a sectarian 
or ethnic divide that separates the core of the military from the target 
population. Algeria went through a nasty civil war in the 1990s, and 
Algerian generals are ruthless people, but I do not think that the 
Algerian military ever used heavy artillery against one of the country's 
large cities. The fact that the best units in the Syrian military are 
largely manned with Alawite soldiers (in addition to members of some 
loyal Bedouin clans) has been key to explaining the level of violence we 
have seen over the last two years. Of course, the majority of Syrian 
soldiers are Sunnis, but it is striking that Asad did only use a 
minority of the army's available units: according to some observers, 
only one third of the army was entrusted with combat missions since the 
start uprising. Seen from that angle, the purported "cohesion" of the 
Syrian army becomes much less puzzling: the risk of defections 
significantly decreases when two-third of the soldiers are in fact 
locked up in their barracks, or at least kept away from the battlefield.

Once the military hierachy is loyal, and once you can use a significant 
proportion of the army to unleash unlimited violence upon the 
population, the rest follows. The regime keeps control of major 
population centers thanks to its much superior firepower and ability to 
use it, thus it keeps the families of many of its soldiers as de facto 
hostages. For instance, a friend of mine just defected from the army 
after his family (which had moved from one of Damascus' suburbs to 
downtown in order to escape the regime's air raids) eventually managed 
to leave for Egypt.

The regime's military force also keeps much of the businessmen and 
middle-class loyal because although they often hate the regime, they 
know that changing it means civil war, and they do not have enough to 
loose to take that risk. And actually, even when businessmen cease to 
actively support the regime (an enormous proportion of them have moved 
with their assets to Turkey and Egypt over the last year), the regime is 
still standing, because it still controls the military. Then you have 
the diplomats who also remain loyal, often because they know that the 
regime is firmly in control of Damascus, which means that it can kill 
their relatives and burn their house if they defect. On the contrary, 
massive defections of Libyan diplomats occurred in 2011 because they had 
calculated that the regime would fall quickly, not because they had 
become liberal democrats overnight. It is all about calculation, not 
about some belief in the legitimacy of the regime.

Support from religious minorities has also been frequently mentioned as 
a cause for the resilience of the regime. But except for the very 
peculiar case of the Alawites, minorities do in fact weigh very little 
in the balance: even if all Christians were supporting Asad (which of 
course is not the case, neither for Christians nor for any other sect), 
we would still be speaking of a mere 5% of the population with very 
little influence over the state and the military. Other religious 
minorities are much, much smaller, they do not make a difference.

In fact, many of the factors that have been frequently invoked to 
account for the resilience of the Syrian regime where also present in 
Mubarak's Egypt: crony businessmen and a wealthy middle-class that has 
benefitted from economic liberalization (in fact much more so in Egypt 
than in Syria); a non-Muslim population that is anxious at the possible 
rise of the Islamists after the revolution; a sizeable bureaucracy and a 
hegemonic party with considerable patronage capacities (in 2011 
Mubarak's NDP was probably stronger than the long-neglected Ba'th 
party). Yet, none of these factors had any positive impact upon the 
resilience of Mubarak, which means that the cause for Asad's resilience 
should be looked for elsewhere: it is the kin-based/sectarian character 
of the military.

Then you have external, i.e. Iranian and Russian, support. It has been 
important, but it only came because the Syrian regime first demonstrated 
that it was solid enough to be worth spending a few billion dollars on 
financial and military aid.

There is one last factor that has been commonly evoked among the left in 
the Arab world and the west, i.e. Asad's purported "nationalist 
legitimacy". My aim here is not to assess Asad's nationalist 
credentials, a debate which I find only moderately interesting. My point 
is that none in Syria decided to side with or against the regime on the 
basis of its foreign policy, or on the basis of some "nationalist" 
sentiment. Making a decision based upon foreign policy issues is a 
luxury none can afford when a revolutionary process puts your own 
individual fate at stake: what people have in mind in such circumstances 
are issues like freedom, dignity, equality, fear, sectarianism, and 
interest, not "resistance" or "sympathy/antipathy for the west". People 
chose their side, then they rationalised it ex post by making Asad a 
beacon of nationalism, or on the contrary, a traitor. Otherwise, it 
would be hard to explain why formerly pro-Western bourgeois suddently 
discovered that they were staunch anti-imperialists, whereas hardline 
Islamists who had volunteered to fight US troops in Iraq a few years 
before claimed that they would not mind if NATO was providing them with 
air support.

3) Regarding your study of Syrian `Ulama’, is it fair to say that the 
`ulama’ who joined the revolt tend to be more reactionary and more 
conservative than those like Buti and Hassun who stuck with the regime? 
(I am not merely talking about reformism in terms of rituals following 
Qaradawi but in terms of views of women and minorities and role of 
religion in society and body politic?

First of all, I cannot think of a more reactionary stance than 
supporting Asad's fascistic and homicidal regime. This is what really 
matters if we speak of "conservatism" and "reformism".

For the rest, no, it is not fair to say such a thing. There is no 
general pattern here. First of all, al-Buti and Hassun are hardly 
comparable figures. Supporting the regime is probably the only thing 
they ever agreed upon. Hassun holds fairly non-conformist views, he has 
spoken positively of secularism and inter-faith dialogue. An 
arch-conservative, al-Buti despised all of this. His alliance with the 
regime was not based on any kind of sympathy for the regime's ideology, 
which he execrated, but instead on pragmatism and on a medieval, 
quietist approach to Sunni political theology. Al-Buti simply never 
expressed a single reformist opinion during his life. By comparison with 
him, Mouaz al-Khatib is a very liberal and open-minded figure. On women, 
for instance, there is a very telling anecdote that happened in 2007: 
al-Buti lobbied for months in order to obtain that two feminist 
associations be banned by the authorities, which eventually happened; 
the only religious figure who openly criticised that initiative was 
Mouaz al-Khatib, who argued that "Islamists should never think in terms 
of repression". On minorities, regardless of the text on Sunni-Shiite 
relations he published in early 2007 (which in my view was 
misinterpreted and not properly contextualised), al-Khatib has made very 
clear public statements about inter-faith unity. I think in particular 
of his April 2011 speech at a funeral in Duma, in which he said the 
following:

All of us are one same body. I say to you: the Alawites are much closer 
to me than many people. I know their villages, their impoverished 
villages where they live under oppression and toil. We speak for the 
freedom of every human being in this country, for every Sunni, every 
Alawite, every Ismailite, every Christian, every Arab and every member 
of the great Kurdish nation.

All his further statements on minorities and in particular on the 
Alawites have been absolutely unambiguous.

Much of that could also be said of Imad al-Din al-Rashid, the former 
vice-dean of the faculty of sharia, who was one of the first Muslim 
scholars to go into exile in 2011. For years, al-Rashid has talked and 
written much about the compatibility between Islam and the concept of 
citizenship.

You can add Muhammad Habash, a former ally of the regime, whose very 
liberal positions on interfaith relations where branded as "heretic" by 
al-Buti.

Of course, most of the oppositional ulama are more conservative. They 
share many of the ideas of al-Buti, except (and it is not a detail) that 
they have refused to legitimise Asad's regime.

4) what kind of islam is likel to prevail following the fall of the 
regime?

This will be contested. Salafi interpretations of Islam (there are 
several of them) are on the rise for various reasons, but a backlash is 
not to be excluded if some Salafi groups show too forceful in imposing 
their views upon the population. Some people may turn (back) to 
proponents of more flexible approaches like the Muslim Brothers and the 
traditional ulama. Reformist approaches are likely to remain in the 
backseat, but they were not in good shape before the revolution either. 
Under the Asads, proponents of Islamic reform were either silenced, or 
delegitimized through cooptation.

> 5) Are you pleased with the state of Western academic consensus on 
> Syria, where few are comfortable to speak out against the opposition? 
> I know that because I often receive private communications from 
> colleagues (in our academic email list) who don’t feel comfortable in 
> publicly criticizing the opposition?

I do not think that there is a clear "consensus" among Western academics 
about Syria, but if a majority of Western scholars support the 
revolution, I am totally pleased with that. As for academics being 
afraid of publicly criticizing the opposition, well, I can tell you 
that, conversely I received private communications from colleagues in 
our academic email list who did not feel comfortable in publicly 
supporting the opposition. The fact is simply that many of our 
colleagues do not like to speak up in general.
> 6) Why was the news and reality of Islamist involvement in the early 
> uprising and revolt in Syria covered up—in my opinion—in Western media 
> and even academic narrative? Looking back, was the story of Suhayr 
> Al-Atasi leading the uprising one of many lies spread by the Muslim 
> Brotherhood and their supporters to camouflage their involvement?

I do not understand what you are talking about. The Muslim Brothers were 
involved in early attempts at organizing the opposition abroad, but they 
played no major role on the ground during the early, peaceful phase of 
the revolution, neither did any other Islamist movement. The peaceful 
phase of the revolution was a spontaneous, grassroots movement that 
involved various components of the Syrian society. It happens that this 
society comprises a large number of conservative, religious-minded 
people, but that does not make the uprising an Islamist one. I never 
heard the claim that Suhayr Al-Atasi was leading the uprising. Her 
stance was courageous and she certainly was an important symbol, but no 
particular group or figure was leading that largely de-centralized 
uprising.

Islamist involvement on the ground started to become significant with 
the militarisation of the revolution from late 2011 on (I distinguish 
between the emergence of the first armed organizations during the 
summer, and the militarisation of the revolution as a whole at the end 
of the year). It was hardly covered up by the Western media, who have 
probably released more reports on Jabhat al-Nusra than on any other 
aspect of the Syrian revolution.

>
> 7) Do you think that conditions of women in Syria will not deteriorate 
> no matter what?

Conditions of women can only improve because they cannot be worse than 
under a regime that has displaced, shelled, killed, injured, raped, 
arrested, tortured, widowed, and orphaned millions of Syrian women.
> 8) Is it possible that justice in the future can be meted without 
> sectarian revenge?

Do you mean "will Sunnis kill Alawites once they are in power?" I cannot 
care about it at this stage. My present concern is that Asad's sectarian 
army is committing mass atrocities against the Sunni population. It is 
not a risk for the future, it is something that is happening right now. 
The problem is that many people do not even recognize the sectarian 
character of these atrocities, claiming that repression targets 
opponents from all sects, including Alawites. In fact ordinary 
repression does target opponents from all sects, but collective 
punishments (large-scale massacres, destruction of entire cities) are 
reserved for Sunnis, just like they were reserved for Iraqi Shiites and 
Kurds under Saddam Hussein.

I do not deny the fact that some groups among the armed opposition have 
been involved in sectarian crimes, but differences in means, scale and 
political responsibility simply make any comparison irrelevant.

To sum up: let's stop the regime's mass crimes against the Sunnis, then 
we can speak of the risk of sectarian revenge.
> 9) If a growing number of Syrians feel disenchanted from the regime 
> and from the opposition, what will that mean?

The regime and the opposition are essentially different realities, so I 
do not think that you can feel disenchanted from both in the same way. 
The regime has an address, a leader, it is unified and it has a clear 
pattern of action, that is, mass killing and destruction. The opposition 
is a very diverse reality that ranges from exiled proponents of 
non-violence to local civilian committees and councils on the ground, 
mainstream Islamists like the Muslim Brothers, mainstream armed groups 
like the "FSA" (whatever that means), and radical Salafi Jihadis. Many 
Syrians certainly dislike one or several of these components, but at 
least the "opposition" offers them a broad spectrum of political 
options. The regime does not.
> 10) was it embarrassing for Western supporters of the Syrian armed 
> opposition that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were the early and 
> later sponsors?

Not at all. The question is not whether or not the Syrian opposition 
should accept Saudi and Qatari support (Turkey does not provide any 
tangible aid, it merely facilitates), it is whether the Syrian 
opposition wants to keep on fighting, or surrender (I do not believe in 
a third way, i.e. peaceful revolution and/or negotiations; it cannot 
work with that regime). If the opposition wants to keep on fighting, it 
cannot survive without external logistical support, and none is willing 
to provide it except for Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

My only concern is the half-heartedness and inefficiency of these 
countries' military support. For various reasons, these states want to 
weaken Asad, but they are not eager to see him replaced, hence the 
limits of their support. The outdated Croatian weapons provided to the 
rebels over the last months are better than nothing, but these states 
could do much more. Arms deliveries they have paid for compare very 
poorly, for instance, with the top-notch weaponry provided to Hezbollah 
by Iran and Syria."
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 8:37 AM 





More information about the Marxism mailing list