All outside military involvement in Syria - be it the US, Russia or Iran, in support of/against any side of the conflict, needs to stop.
that would be nice, but this is a false equivalence. if the Syria government is recognized under international law--and it is--they have the legal right to invite or ally with whomever they choose. and given that they're fighting to restore their territorial sovereignty, they certainly have the right to ask for help.
regardless what anyone thinks of Assad, Russia, Iran, or the US, SA, or Turkey, there are parties allowed to be there and other, not.
We simply cannot forget this simple fact: this war ends the day the invasion ends. And that can't be pinned on Russia, Syria, or Iran. The jihadis withdraw, war over. And that's the fastest and most just course among several unpleasant ones.
oBama's destruction of Libya was no more legal than iTrumpet's tantrum directed at Syria.
Commendable, but nothing will come of it, because all political power will be used to turn down the heat. The war actions in Syria are no doubt " illegal and unconstitutional" but that also goes for so many other countries, IN THE PAST, like: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
To paraphrase Nixon: WHEN THE MILITARY DOES IT; IT IS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
You assert, without specifically saying so, that there is no Syrian national
resistance to Assad. The existence of such a national resistance, and it does exist, does not render US bombing appropriate.
And when has this demented despot (DJT) been taken to task for any and all illegal, unconstitutional, and outright criminal actions? Not since January 20, 2017 (or scores of years before). His so-called budget is a crime against humanity, our environment, and all life. The watchdogs on this demon better be snarling, snapping, blood-thirsty "Cujos" because that is what it will take to hamstring him.
and someone is saying it's okay? i thought that was your job.
nevermind. i understand your context now. you're referring to the moments when the US forces ostensibly attack the jihadis (as opposed to forces supporting the Syrian government, which they also attack, which makes blanket statements like yours problematic).
answer's the same either way. it's not okay for the US to do anything there. They weren't invited.
Do you support any résistance efforts against dictators? Assad is no friend of the left or progress. Right now, he is as bad as they come, and without outside help (and this outside help has included the US) the leftist forces against Assad would have prevailed against him back in 2012.
There are also progressive leftist forces resisting Assad - although, admittedly, most of them (except the Kurds) are in exile right now due to the savage repression. I think this is what BWillianson was referring to.
Check this out:
and this older piece...
yes, I do. I simply disagree strongly with this description of what's going on,
if this were truly a domestic uprising against a hereditary rulership, I'd obviously be on the side of the people.
But it's not. I mean, who dresses up their civil war as a Saudi-supported jihad anyway?
Big difference between the Libya action and Syria. See the big picture first before forming an opinion.
Assad is NOT Qaddafi. And we (The USA) cannot be self-appointed policemen of the world and justify invasions by saying Saddam, Assad are horrible dictators who kill their own people and the world will be better off without them. And while we criticize them for killing people, we kill many more. Time to wake up and realize that WE ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS. That's the lie upon which the US Govt relies to hoodwink the public inot allowing foreign interventions.
I don't know, who does dress it up as such? Assad?
And, btw, the great majority of US airstrikes that are killing Syrian civilians are against Assad's enemies. The US is largely supportive of Assad in this conflict save for that one stage-managed event (Syria didn't report a single casualty or lost aircraft). and Assad, btw, has imposed all kinds of neoliberal economic repression on the Syrna people too - that is what largely fueled the 2011 uprising against him. Do you require US support of a savage dictator in order to call them a savage dictator? Well guess what, the US supports him, so now you can!
I noticed that you have not read Yassin-al Haj Saleh's essay yet. Are you really prepared to call a fellow Syrian leftist who has more courage than every US keyboard-leftist put together, wrong about his own country?
True, but as international leftists, we can call Assad a horrible dictator and support fellow Syrian leftists in their resistance against him. Had the international left done so in 2011-12, Assad would have been gone by now, and the Islamists would never have gained a foothold there.
We are simply operating with different sets of information on what constitutes the reality in Syria. It's an unfortunate feature of things that virtually any narrative has some "support" out there somewhere that people can go to and have their opinions reinforced or not. That goes for me, too. As a result, without being able to agree to basic facts of the case, there's simply no room to clash properly.
As far as what I am or am not prepared to call a single source is irrelevant. I'm not even sure what "wrong about his country" even means. If you're suggesting that one source is sufficient for you to form an unmoveable opinion, I suppose there's little to be done about that. I never rely on any single source for anything. By-product of grad school.
Assad's status as "dictator" is irrelevant to my point. Sovereignty was the center of my point, and it has yet to be addressed. I categorically reject R2P as a valid reason for engaging in military adventure that slaughters civilians.
What are your sources on the history of the Syrian conflict? Are any of them Syrian? Besides the cited articles I am acquainted with two Syrian refugees in Toronto - including one who was tortured in prison. You do acknowledge that a popular uprising occurred in Syria in 2011-12 and it was violently repressed with more than 1000 killed. Right?
Wikipedia uses multiple sources and multiple authors:
In particular, please go to the "Timeline" section...
And here some more information from a leftist and Syrian about Syria - In Jacobin Magazine - does that have enough left-cred for you?
What is of greater interest is where people with your frame on Syria are getting their information, globalresearch.ca? Counterpunch? WSWS? These are hardly places to find objective information.
Excellent articles. Thank you!
I said did not mean what you seem to have read from my words. I mostly agree with you.