Organisation Communiste Libertarie - Syria, the perfect response by Santiago Alba Rico (fr)

A view that seemed interesting to know, even if there are other things to say.
But already the "no war" or the refusal of Western intervention (now more modestly 
Franco-?tatsunienne) that we fully share is not enough to define a policy in this context 
it should also be positioned against the bloody regime of Bashar al-Assad and make some 
general statements about the future of this region, the future of these peoples and people 
of all regimes - and those who would succeed them - and the boundaries imposed by force by 
the imperialist powers, including the Palestinian and Kurdish cases illustrate alone 
tragically disastrous consequences. ---- The stakes in this war and Western intervention, 
beyond the question of the survival of the regime. It tends to redefine the political map 
of the Middle East. It is also at this level that we must try to understand it and lie.
 
August 31, 2013
 
Regarding the military "action" more than likely the Government of the United States to 
Syria, there are two positions equally absurd:
 
That those who claim that Bashar al-Assad has not used chemical weapons. A murderer who 
bombed and launched missiles at its own people, the people who systematically torture and 
slaughter women and children, is probably capable of launching sarin gas or any other 
lethal substance which its citizens.
That those who claim that the United States does not lie on the use of chemical weapons in 
Syria. Power capable of invading Iraq after inventing evidence and falsifying documents, 
which did not close Guantanamo and systematic practice of extrajudicial executions outside 
its borders and from the air, is perfectly capable of lying also in the case of Syria, as 
so many times before.
 
 From the point of view of law and justice, it is imperative to investigate and determine 
whether and used chemical weapons in Syria and try to prosecute and convict the guilty, 
whoever they are. But a serious political analysis, not "ideological" and nonsectarian 
rather must be based on demonstrable facts alone. They are two in number. The first is 
that, regardless of whether or not used chemical weapons against his own people, the 
dictatorship of the Assad dynasty is the first and directly responsible for the 
destruction of Syria, the suffering of its people and all the consequences, human, and 
regional policies that result. Under a painful paradox (at least painful for the author of 
these lines), some of those who now clamor "against the war", as if there had not already 
been two years kept silent about the crimes of the Syrian regime or worse, have practiced 
the most abject denial. Judging by their vehement denunciations, vibrant moral authority, 
the U.S. military would be willing to bomb a peaceful and prosperous country, led by a 
popular government whose only crime is to "resist" the insidious attacks of Israel. This 
"moral outrage" of some anti-imperialist - I must admit - sounds to me as so obnoxiously 
hypocritical invocations of "democracy" and the "humanitarianism" of the imperialists.
 
The second indisputable fact is that regardless whether he lied about the use of chemical 
weapons in Syria, the government of the United States has not the slightest interest in 
democracy and the protection of civilians or to the "moral" issue of chemical weapons. He 
thinks only of his own interests, as always, never interests coincide with those of the 
people he claims to want to help and those who historically have been abandoned, subject 
bombed and murdered. This truism (some desperate Syrians would in turn deny) is fully 
compatible with the previous one, because the truth is that in this world can hold a lot 
of criminal forces and relatively independent of each other, no one can force us to apply 
the principles of logic to ethical and political dilemmas. A declaration of a person who 
supported him that "it is not possible to be in two places at the same time" , Groucho 
Marx responded with joyful strength: "It is not true. New York and Washington are in two 
different places at the same time. " In history, the battle in the revolution, in this 
terrible world, it is perfectly possible that Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons 
and at the same time Obama lied on the use of chemical weapons Bashar al-Assad.
 
Once accepted these facts certified, and facing imminent attack ?tatsunienne, it is 
certainly imperative to "condemn" (as if it was nothing more than a rhetorical exercise 
and save conduit acquire the right to speak and be heard in some circles), but it is 
imperative to understand. We condemn that (condemn, condemn, condemn) the ?tatsunienne 
attack, we can choose one of these two "stories":
 
1. the United States (here, a unit Abominable, as monolithic and ahistorical that can be a 
"Plan") carries with it, since its origins, a plan for world domination designed in illo 
tempore and consistently applied, a providential plan omnipotent and that carries with it 
since the dawn of time, regardless of the balance of forces and changing avatars in the 
region, the overthrow of the nationalist government, strong Socialist Baath Party in Syria 
plan he organized or at least he used a popular pseudo-revolution, after arming the 
so-called "rebels" to the teeth, look for two years as a pretext to justify the attack and 
invasion of the country map blocked by Russia, Iran and China, and now, thanks to a lie 
amplified by the media mercenaries of imperialism, is finally about to be realized.
 
. 2 The United States (a unit direction worked with many contradictions, like everything 
in this world) sometimes do not have a plan, but many and many doubts, Syria is an enemy 
in the context of his clash with Iran and its excessive defense of Israel, but does little 
discomfort and guarantees, to a certain extent, the status quo in the region where the 
wave of so-called "Arab Spring" the Syrian people trying to shake off the yoke of 40 years 
of dictatorship, the Obama administration supports their cause rhetorically, concerned in 
any case by the army in which drift gaining ground (a very Leninist) the most radical 
Islamist groups, and for this it combines formal support to the Syrian revolution with the 
greatest caution when giving arms to rebels from the beginning, he tries by all means not 
to militarily involved in a hornet's nest which he knows not being able to get anything 
and, in addition, can also harm Israel from a certain moment, he opted for a political 
solution to reach an agreement with Russia, feels more threatened by Al-Qaeda by Bashar 
al-Assad, but he talked a lot, set a red line and needed now, because it is low, a 
demonstration of force, as explained in the New York Times Edward Luttwak, Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, combines the need to do something he does not want 
to, and scope "limited and almost propagandist" (which depends not only on them) with its 
true interests, and it is to say no, not the overthrow of Assad and the establishment of 
democracy, but the extension of the Syrian war as long as possible to avoid not win one of 
the two opponents (or Assad or the rebels), both extremely dangerous for the plan 
?tatsunien regional domination (with much cynicism, Luttwak argues that the United States 
should provide arms to the rebels every time they lose ground and close the valve to each 
Once they earn).
 
The first story has a flaw: it is consistent as myth. The second story has a virtue: it is 
uncertain as reality itself. The first story - in addition to the free publicity of the 
omnipotence of U.S. imperialism in its lowest hours and want the military intervention, 
involves despise people who are fighting in the region, to ignore their pain, justify 
their executioners. The second story puts us in a complex bee-eater, full of ethical and 
political dilemmas, where nothing is certain, but which also - now or later - people can 
win something, but not all, and they can all lose, but not dignity.
 
I condemn, condemn, condemn the U.S. military intervention for all the right reasons 
explained by Yassin Swehat in an excellent recent text  : because it would not be legal, 
because it is going to exacerbate the suffering of the population, because it is the 
Syrian people must get rid of the dictator, because international solidarity can be much 
more efficient in other ways, because this procedure does not intend to help the Syrian 
people and because consequences, even if she wanted to and was able to overthrow the 
regime (which is an extravagant assumption), would still be contrary to the revolution 
that he and many other Syrians have argued from the beginning.