Quick Thoughts: Geopolitical Context Matters pt. 2 - Slouching Towards Syria

Along with Nicaragua, the DPRK, and Jamahiriya Libya, one of the most unfairly maligned countries within Western 'left' circles in recent memory is Syria. Ranging from those who hail the U.S.-backed, foreign jihadist terrorists as "moderate rebels" -- to those celebrating the equally-reactionary and -sectarian YPG militias (also backed by the U.S.) in balkanizing and ethnically cleansing northeastern Syria in the hopes that they will fulfill the Anarchist wet dream of "beautiful utopian goals of democratic confederalism" -- it seems that Syria has indeed become a blank canvas upon which the Western left can project their fantasies. It is the new "Terra Nullius," as author Maximilian Forte (Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO's War on Libya and Africa) describes. While sections of the Western left continue to make themselves useful idiots for U.S. imperialism, the legitimate Syrian government and the Syrian people inside of Syria are not afforded the luxury of having the last word on the world stage. It is always the victims of imperialism whose voices are hardly heard above the noise of Western war propaganda; and by extension, the global masses will continue to be silenced when the imperialist nations and capitalist class are allowed to drown them out.

Generally speaking, the West -- but especially America -- is a bastion of ignorance when it comes to the Arab and Muslim world, with two extremes: the right-wing who see Islam as a race (rather than a religion) and a civilizational threat and equate all Muslims with Osama bin Laden, while the liberals and the 'left' also see Islam as a race and think that Wahhabism is just a mere expression of victimhood. While racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment is rife with far-right circles, "progressives" look at the Global South with a kind of condescending admiration as they welcome refugees but continue to cheer on the U.S.-led wars that create them. With regards to Syria, Western "progressives" will, for example, habitually defend Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia in the name of "multicultural"/pink imperialism (while the right wants a white supremacist imperialism), as well as allying with Al Qaeda in Syria and loudly cheering on the so-called "Syrian revolution". In either case, both left and right fail to understand the function of Al Qaeda. If there is a belief held in common between the two extremes is that they both see Wahhabists as 'true' representatives of Muslims (or Sunni Muslims), as if all Sunnis are naturally predisposed to near-genocidal hatred of Shia Muslims. It is true that Wahhabism is a threat, but not against Western civilization; more accurately, it is a threat to [secular] Arab nationalist resistance (a.k.a. Pan-Arabism) and there is a long history of the United States collaborating with Wahhabists (and/or Salafists) to undermine and crush Arab nationalist resistance against imperialism. Not to mention, both left and right extremes fail to take into account that the primary victims of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are in fact other Muslims, especially Shia Muslims, but also Sunni Muslims who do not fit the Sunni chauvinist trope that is typically expected of them in Gulf and Western media.

The failure to understand the very complex history and geopolitics of the Middle East cannot be any more spelled out clearly when it comes to Syria, the last bastion of Pan-Arabism in the region. The U.S.-led war on Syria is fought on a number of fronts: conventional military tactics but through the use of terrorists as proxy forces -- with the U.S. "pulling the strings" and essentially fighting the war from "behind the scenes" -- economic sanctions, and an aggressive imperialist propaganda campaign waged in Western (and Gulf) media. Some on the left have even uncritically swallowed and parroted the narratives put forth on Democracy Now! and Al Jazeera by guests who are essentially apologists if not PR reps for the terrorist groups inside of Syria. These talking points include pejoratively referring to the Syrian government as "the Alawite regime" -- nevermind the fact that it is secular, with Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and non-religious persons all being given equal representation in all areas of government; it just so happens that Hafez and Bashar al Assad are Alawite. Another erroneous talking point was the idea that the Syrian government was about to "commit genocide against Sunnis," -- a falsehood constructed by the terrorists in an attempt to stir up and win over Syria's Sunni population to their side, which largely failed since most of them (and the general population) support Bashar al Assad. Even more disturbing were slogans such as, "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave!" and "We will slaughter the Shia in Kefraya and Al-Foua!", which were blatant calls for genocide against Alawites and ethnically cleansing Shias from Syria. Caleb Maupin is not wrong to say, "For many people in the west, the traditional political compass seems broken, and “left” and “right” are almost indistinguishable in a confused political mess." Once associated with the anti-war movement and class struggle, it appears that the "left" -- in the age of identity politics -- has become the new ideological source of imperialism. And it is quite a curious phenomenon to see self-described "progressives" -- who are usually quick to decry Islamophobia -- echoing the sectarian vitriol aimed at Alawites (a Shia Muslim sect), whom many in the West have not heard of prior to 2011. Also ironic are accusations of "Islamophobia" -- in addition to "Assadist", "fascist", "nazbol", "tankie", "Stalinist", "Russian bot", and/or "Russian agent", etc. -- directed at those who dare to speak in defense of Syria, considering that the country is Muslim-majority (but also religiously diverse as there are large numbers of Syrian Christians, as well as a significant Druze population) and that many of those who lost their lives or suffered at the hands of the U.S.-backed proxy forces are Muslims.

As stated in the title of Stephen Gowans' 2017 book, Washington's Long War on Syria, the United States had for many years waged a war against the independent and sovereign state of the Syrian Arab Republic. In other words, the antagonism towards the fiercely anti-imperialist, post-colonial nation pre-dates the so-called "Syrian revolution" of 2011. Since breaking away from the yoke of French imperialism, the current and long-time secular government of the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party took many strides to achieve national liberation and economic development, which included taking land from [formerly] aristocratic families, nationalizing it, redistributing it. These progressive reforms and causes also included: women's liberation, uplifting their populations from poverty, guaranteed housing, public universal healthcare, free education, a commitment to the Palestinian cause, and nationalizing the country's resources -- namely its oil and natural gas reserves -- and using them to modernize and develop their infrastructure, as well as to benefit Syrians. And perhaps one of the most important Ba'ath pillars was Arab nationalism, or Pan-Arabism, which meant Arab unity and uniting on the basis that they are Arab first and foremost, and overcoming ethnic divisions and religious differences; it also meant recognizing that U.S. imperialism -- and its regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia -- is the enemy, which further stresses the importance of standing united in the face of an overarching threat. As part of their secular constitution, the Ba'ath Party had proposed a ban on political parties or movements that were formed on the basis of religion, sect, tribe, region, gender, birthplace, or race/colour. These explicit anti-sectarian goals were quite the antithesis to the Wahhabi-inspired forces who are vehemently opposed to modernization and development, and would much rather keep large sections of the population impoverished, as they sought to replace the Ba'athists with with a Sunni fundamentalist, anti-Shia, theological oil autocracy -- a Saudi-style regime, in other words.

In pre-Ba'athist Syria, Sunni Muslims made up most of the aristocracy and were the wealthy landlords, while traditionally it was the Shia Muslims -- but especially the Alawites -- who were of the lower classes or the peasantry and were treated as second-class citizens. The Ba'ath party made it their mission to uplift the Shia and Alawite populations by providing them with material incentives since they tended to be the poorest workers historically. This does not mean punishing the Sunnis by deliberately making them poor or pushing them to the margins, of course, as they are still allowed representation in high positions in governmental affairs and to enjoy the same progressive gains as full members of Syrian society. Needless to say, there were also a few deposed aristocratic landlords who did not take too kindly to the progressive reforms, to say the least, with some reacting violently and going as far as to join the Muslim Brotherhood, forerunners to Al Qaeda who also received U.S. support, to attack the Syrian government. And in 1982, with CIA-provided weapons and financing, they carried out acts of terrorism and other atrocities in Hama as they made a failed attempt to topple the then-government of Hafez al Assad. Like the Contras in Nicaragua, these reactionary and anti-modernity forces were useful tools for the CIA's destabilization projects, and it helps that these groups (Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood) already saw the Arab nationalist government as their ‘archenemy’, and will thus fight them to the death and resort to acts of terrorism against the civilian population. Once again, sabotaging economic development is conducive to creating a favourable climate for U.S. capital interests.

It would be somewhat-euphemistic to say that the idea of an "Alawite regime", or the claim that Alawites are "over-represented", are overstatements. If anything, this harmful myth of a conniving religious minority trying to dominate or dupe the majority for [vague] nefarious reasons is encouraged by U.S. propagandists as a way of discrediting the Ba'athist government, which is in keeping with the theme of vilifying the Assads. More importantly, such caricatures distract away from the economic and ideological roots of the conflict, effectively masking Washington's mission of maintaining global domination and its monopolistic spheres of influence.