Mondoweiss: While you were neutral about Yarmouk

This is how Amy Goodman finally reported on the siege of the Yarmouk, the Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus, Syria on Democracy Now,31 Dec 2013:

The United Nations is urgently appealing for access to a Palestinian area of Damascus where people are dying from hunger. A U.N. official says some 20,000 Palestinians are trapped inside the Yarmouk district of Damascus amid fighting between the regime and rebels. Since the last delivery of U.N. aid in September, 15 people have died there from malnutrition, including five this past weekend.

This is a good answer to her shameful cover-up. Republished from Mondoweiss:

While you were neutral about Yarmouk17 January 2014
by Talal Alyan
While you were insisting on neutrality about Yarmouk, the Syrian regime dropped barrel bombs on it. Mohammad Al Far. Husam Abo Ahmad. Mohammad Tafori. Mohammad Suhaib Al Qides. Ala’a Fri’j. These men are all dead. Mohammad Taha would later die too when he, along with a larger demonstration, approached a regime checkpoint in frustration after the carnage rained on them from above.

The Pro-Palestinian movement was delayed in picking up on the tragic unraveling of Yarmouk. It took the work of a great deal of dedicated activists to force it into the forefront of the solidarity movement’s agenda. What couldn’t be predicted, however, was that, in the place of silence, an ugly neutrality would hover over the new-founded concern. And that said the neutrality was often an unconvincing veil for something much more vile. Perhaps, in our naivety, we believe that when Yarmouk became visible, it would be nearly impossible to omit the clear fact that the siege was being imposed by the Syrian regime. Instead, it was the oppositional fighters in the camp who fell under the spotlight. A chorus emerged, one familiar enough to evoke a surreal sense of Déjà vu.

Yarmouk had transformed into Gaza. But this time, it was our side that was rationalizing the blockage, entertaining and validating the motives offered for collective punishment, instead of flatly rejecting it as a cruel practice.

As Lebanese blogger Mahmoud Mroueh wondered, “‘The Terrorists need to leave the refugee camp so civilians stop dying’–Zionist or Palestine solidarity activist?”

Al Awda, an organization dedicated to the Palestinian Right of Return, released a statement mourning Yarmouk. The culprit, however, was left obscured. “We call upon all parties, the Syrian government and the armed opposition, to take responsibility for any actions on their part.”

There is no equivalence to be drawn. By definition, a siege is forced by one party on another, imposing a collective punishment. The Palestinians of Yarmouk are starving? Agreed. The government is blocking the flow of goods? Agreed. Who is to blame for Yarmouk? Neutrality.

The US Palestinian Community Network issued a bolder statement calling on, ”all parties involved to immediately uphold the agreement of the Palestinians in Yarmouk itself: that the armed groups hiding in the camp must exit, and that the siege of the camp must end immediately”

The starved of Yarmouk

The rationalization of collective punishment. They oppose the siege. But peddle the reasons given by those implementing it. While there have been calls from within Yarmouk for armed groups to leave, it is a distant secondary thought. Palestinians from Yarmouk know that the regime is responsible for the imposed siege, and they resent that this point is muddled.

Salim Salamah, a Palestinian from Yarmouk, told me, “I mean with everything we are going through today, our belonging to Palestine is not defined anymore of our dream for our grandfather’s land, it is not embodied in a demonstration we hold on land day. With all the severe conditions, the romantic idea of Palestine is collapsing. We are third generation Palestinians; most of the ones inside Yarmouk now never saw Palestine. And then Palestinians outside Syria hold apolitical events to support us! They think they understand us and they do things like that!”

And he is right. For Palestinians from Syria, it has always been a lot clearer. “People in Yarmouk today and everyday saw where the mortars were coming from,” Salim explains, “and heard the warplane that approached today and bombed my friend’s building in Yarmouk. It should be clear to everybody who is to blame: Assad, Assad and then Jibril’s militia. The solution is clear, open Yarmouck from the north.” More...

Kafranbel on the regime starving the people in Yarmouk Camp: #Syria | pic.twitter.com/izHevMXEeJ
— mz ( م.ز ) (@Dr_mz13) January 17, 2014

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Why calling for “diplomatic solutions” stabs the Syrian Revolution in the back

By Andrew Pollack
January 15, 2014
republished by permission

On January 14th came reports of the conclusion of a two-day UN-sponsored conference attended by a self-selected group of women discussing how to increase female participation at the proposed Geneva II conference and its aftermath. Nowhere in the statements coming out of the event was there any indication that those seeking to achieve greater gender balance in Geneva have any problem with its core mission: to let imperialist powers dictate “peace” terms to Syrian revolutionaries.

This “women’s” event comes amid a welter of proposals for negotiations, diplomatic solutions, ceasefires, etc., etc. by various liberal and pseudo-radical forces. Many of those involved have been around the block and know what brand of snake oil they’re peddling. Newer forces less aware of the long history of such sell-outs may sincerely think that by demanding negotiations or diplomatic solutions they are aiding the Syrian Revolution. But in fact these calls for “talks” and “peace” are helping the imperialists, whether in Washington or Moscow, to stab it in the back. They deny the self-determination of the Syrian people – the only ones who have a legitimate right to say what a just resolution of the Revolution should be, the only ones with the right to define what liberation means for them. And they insult the steadfastness of the Syrian people, who despite horrific casualties, starvation, torture and genocidal murder, show no signs of abandoning their Revolution.

None of the politicians, whether in Moscow or Washington, Beijing or Tehran, Riyadh or Beirut have any business dictating terms to the Syrian people, or even demanding they come to the table. In any case the overwhelming majority of grass-roots forces in the Revolution have made clear that they see Geneva for the farce it is. They have expressed in no uncertain terms that not only will they not talk to Assad, but that they resent and reject the imperialists’ likely attempt to impose a Yemen-style solution, i.e. to maintain he current regime minus Assad.

Calling for talks or “peace” is calling for maintenance of that regime, for an end to the Syrian people’s just struggle for bread, freedom, dignity and social justice.

Below I’ll look at some statements by those pushing Geneva (or an “improved” Geneva). Then I cite briefly some parallel debates from the movement against the US war in Vietnam, and from discussions among Bolsheviks heading the new Soviet Republic who had to grapple with similar issues when under attack after the revolution’s success.

A November 28, 2013 article (“Opposition Activists in Damascus Give Views on Peaceful Solution,”) quotes Kifah Ali Deeb, a member of the executive office of the National Coordination Board for Democratic Change, saying she “is confident about a peaceful solution to end the crisis. “[This can be achieved through] an end to the violence, releasing prisoners, and negotiations in Geneva on a peaceful transfer of power to a transitional government with full powers.”

Geneva I, she said “didn’t fail. It produced a set of recommendations that we can build on for Geneva II in order to reach a political solution that will lead to a transfer of power. This will achieve the demands of the people for freedom, dignity, and democracy,” she said.”

Deeb’s group, the NCBDC, has been roundly criticized by revolutionaries from the beginning of the Revolution for attempting to cut deals with the regime and advocating direct talks with it. The groups making up the Coordination Board seem to be left-over pro-Moscow or pro-Beijing Stalinist parties, whose stock in trade has for decades been class collaboration, i.e. deals for “peace” whether in the international or domestic spheres.

Deeb is clearly operating in this framework. She hails the fact that all permanent members of the UN Security Council attended Geneva I, and praises their 12 point plan, “the most important elements of which were the formation of a transitional government with full executive powers which would include officials from the current Syrian government, reform of the constitution, ensuring the continuity of public services and agencies, including the army and security services, and stopping the bloodshed.”

Officials from the current government? Continuity of the army and security services? Clearly Deeb has no interest in advocating for what the Syrian grassroots is actually fighting for.

The same article quotes “political activist and lawyer Faeq Howeija, a member of the Syrian Secular Democratic Coalition,” as saying that Geneva II can succeed and a “political solution” be found “once the two sides genuinely feel that they cannot continue with a military confrontation.” So while those who face the bullets of Assad and the Islamists call for greater military and other aid to complete the revolution against all counter-revolutionary forces, Howeija and his ilk call for “peace.”

Some Palestine solidarity activists are also calling for “diplomatic solutions,” this despite their long standing and correct rejection of similar efforts by imperialists to force the “peace process” with Israel down their throats. (Although perhaps this hypocrisy tells us something about their rejection of that “peace process”: for some of them, it may just be a question of wanting “better” parties at the table, i.e. a hope that a “left” faction of the PLO, after achieving hegemony in the mass movement, could push aside Fateh as lead negotiator and come up with a “more just” peace.)

Meanwhile the “Anti-imperialist Camp,” a gaggle of groups which seem to come from the same neo-Stalinist milieu as the NCBDC, is pushing a shadow conference in Vienna to happen during Geneva II – while still supporting the latter. They do so because they – unlike the masses in Syria – have given up hope in the Revolution (one would certainly want to check statements of this Camp and its constituent groups to see if they ever supported the Revolution).

The Camp launched an “International Peace Initiative for Syria” months ago, seeking signatures of left celebrities on behalf of peace and love in Syria. Now they are organizing an “all sides’ civil society conference in Vienna.”

“Every day,” they warn us, “it becomes clearer that the Syrian war cannot be won by anybody with a positive outcome for the Syrian people. With its internal divisions on every side the civil war has reached the state of an unprecedented bloodshed increased by external interventions. Its continuation will only wreak havoc and spread destruction on all levels of society.

“Among its main victims there are the democratic rights of the Syrian people, who originally tried to claim these rights by launching a peaceful popular mass protest movement. However their efforts have gradually been thwarted by an increasing influence of sectarian tendencies as well as a growing regional and global involvement.”

So their counsel to the Syrian masses – who show no sign of sharing their defeatism, and who are in fact turning the tide against one pole of the counter-revolution, i.e. ISIS and its ilk – is surrender:

“Together with many people inside Syria and across the world our initiative for Peace in Syria continues to insist that the only viable solution is a political settlement with a ceasefire paving the way to a transitional government, based on a power sharing agreement between the socio-political, confessional and ethical blocs maintaining a common State. We are conscious that this is not the ideal solution for any side, and therefore it will be difficult for all sides to accept. Yet a political solution is the only way out, because the continuation of the war will be even worse.”

And they praise imperialist powers for sharing their crocodile tears and proposing a way out: “Internationally, most of the involved players have now come to the conclusion that a political settlement is necessary to stop the number of victims from growing. This is being shown also by the recent agreement between the USA and Iran which provides a framework for the upcoming Geneva II talks.”

But so as not to be completely confused with their imperialist inspirers, they propose a parallel confab in Vienna:

“… most of the Syrian people, who - while starving - continue to strive for their democratic and social rights, have lost their voice within the diplomatic efforts which are being made on the level of States. There is an urgent need to let them speak and allow their voices to be heard while important parts of the international community engage in power brokering ignoring the interest of the people on the ground.

“As an International Initiative of civil society, we are proposing to hold a conference in Vienna, Austria, with renowned figures of the Syrian civil society from all walks of life and associated with all sides of the conflict, in order to explore possible and realistic ways for achieving a democratic transition acceptable to the vast majority of Syrians. For this proposal, we have received positive signals from across the whole political spectrum of Syria.”

And just so no-one is misled into thinking that they’re trying to replace Geneva, they stress that

“Whilst we hope that Geneva II will get off the ground, we strongly believe that the Vienna conference is a necessary complement to it. There is a real need to lend a voice to those who will have no say at the negotiation table, because they are not State-actors or representatives of political organisations. Furthermore any ceasefire agreement will need strong popular support from below. [That is, they want to help the imperialists force an agreement on the revolting masses.] This is needed whether Geneva will yield results or not.”

The UN-sponsored women’s conference mentioned at the start took a similar approach to trying  to “improve” Geneva II, declaring that “The voice of Syrian women must be heard in all efforts to resolve the civil war that is tearing their country apart.”

Needless to say the conference took no position on who was responsible for the bloodshed and violence, the oppression and exploitation, which sparked the Revolution. Instead, the 50 gathered women (the statement doesn’t say who picked them and how), called for a solution that would urge greater women’s participation in the country’s political and social life (something Assad would assure them he had already achieved). They were motivated by the same horror of suffering – again, without attributing responsibility or blame – as expressed by those quoted above: “We have come together to prepare this set of demands and priorities based on our first-hand experience of the suffering of the Syrian people, which has become intolerable.” And on this basis they too recommended surrender, “calling for an immediate cessation of armed violence.”

They go on to list specific proposals for women’s participation in various negotiating, transition, constitutional and other processes. Not a word about the Revolution’s demands. In fact they characterize the fighting as a “conflict [which] erupted almost three years ago between the Government and various groups seeking the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad,” as if they didn’t know – or dare not voice – what revolutionaries are fighting for.

Of course this is about what one would expect from a body whose Secretary-General just got done heaping praise on deceased mass murderer Ariel Sharon, and whose main purpose has always been as a pacifist cover for imperialism.

Finally by way of examples we cite Code Pink, which weighed in long ago along exactly the same lines. The presumption, the violation of self-determination, the denial of the existence of the Revolution are too self-evident in its statement to need dissection here: Tell Obama, Peace Not War in Syria!

In contrast to the above approaches we must stress that our task now is greater support for the revolution, not efforts to force it into submission or surrender.

It’s not our business to pressure revolutionaries to go to the table; our job is to support them materially and politically against all forms of counter-revolution domestic or foreign.

That was the approach of revolutionaries in the US and other imperialist countries during the US war against Vietnam. While the Communist Party in the US and their co-thinkers were pushing for a negotiated “solution,” for support for peace talks, Trotskyists and radical pacifists said we in the US had no right to add to the pressure on the Vietnamese to submit, that our job was to get our government to stop committing and aiding genocide, to pull out completely and immediately.

These genuine radicals added that if the Vietnamese felt compelled to go to the table, whether out of weakness or for tactical propagandistic purposes, that was their business and their right. But by letting up for one second in the slightest degree the call for “Out Now!”, we would in fact be weakening the Vietnamese efforts to navigate their way through those thickets, and more fundamentally would be violating their right to self-determination.

As Nat Weinstein wrote:

“From the very first, however, there was a small section of the Vietnam antiwar movement that rejected the slogan, ‘Negotiations Now!’ simply because it implied that the United States had the right to set limits on the Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination. What proved to be the most effective section of the Vietnam antiwar movement had rejected the ‘Negotiate Now!’ slogan from the outset because it gave credence to the ‘right’ of American imperialism to send the world’s most powerful military behemoth into Vietnam to suppress the struggle of the Vietnamese workers and poor farmers for self-determination. And as the war dragged on and tens of thousands of body bags had already been shipped home, the ‘Bring The Troops Home Now!’ demand began winning the support of millions…”

A 1969 resolution of the then still healthy US Socialist Workers Party explained why the imperialists wanted talks in the first place:

“The central problem facing U.S. imperialism in attempting to win the kind of settlement it wants is control of the state power in Vietnam, which depends in the last analysis on force of arms. Without the massive military might of U.S. imperialism, the Saigon regime would rapidly collapse. This fact shows the fraudulent nature of all the well-publicized Washington schemes for a settlement: the scheme of turning the war over to Saigon; the scheme of a coalition government; the scheme of elections under the Saigon administration. So long as the Vietnamese revolutionaries refuse to give up their arms and continue to carry on the fight a U.S. withdrawal will lead to rapid victory over the Saigon regime. Under these conditions, a ‘compromise’ formula that does not settle the question of state power will remain illusory. The war can end only when one side is defeated; and until that happens, either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, the war will go on…”

The same can be said of Syria: the imperialists want talks above all because they want to ensure that the question of state power is settled in favor of the existing regime or some armed body like it, and not in favor of the Syrian masses.

Finally, some quotes from the parallel Soviet debate. After the Revolution, the new power was faced with invasion from imperialist powers on both sides of World War I. The Bolshevik government sent representatives to talks with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk, and had to encounter dissent within Party ranks about whether such talks were an impermissible compromise.

Lenin’s answer (not heeded at first, by the way, in what was then an incredibly democratic party used to stormy, vibrant debate), was that the new Republic had no choice but to negotiate, especially as to survive until aid could come from successful revolutions elsewhere – BUT that while the Soviets were under the gun, that made it MORE urgent for revolutionaries in other countries to oppose efforts by their own governments to dictate terms or even to presume there was anything to talk about. To use the same terms as in the Vietnam debate, the Bolsheviks could justify going to the table, but communists in Germany, England, France, etc. had no business calling for talks: their duty was to tell their own governments to simply get the hell out of the Soviet Union -- and while doing so, to try to make their own revolution at home.

Lenin wrote:

“Imagine that your car is held up by armed bandits. You hand them over your money, passport, revolver and car. In return you are rid of the pleasant company of the bandits. That is unquestionably a compromise. ‘Do ut des’ (I ‘give’ you money, fire-arms and a car ‘so that you give’ me the opportunity to get away from you with a whole skin). It would, however, be difficult to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise to be ‘inadmissible on principle,’ or who would call the compromiser an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits might use the car and the firearms for further robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was just that kind of compromise.

“But when, in 1914-18 and then in 1918-20, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia, the Scheidemannites (and to a large extent the Kautskyites) in Germany, Otto Bauer and Friedrich Adler (to say nothing of the Renners and Co.) in Austria, the Renaudels and Longuets and Co. in France, the Fabians, the Independents and the Labourites in Britain entered into compromises with the bandits of their own bourgeoisie, and sometimes of the ‘Allied’ bourgeoisie, and against the revolutionary proletariat of their own countries, all these gentlemen were actually acting as accomplices in banditry.”

Again, Lenin explains why those under attack might feel pressured to seek a deal:

 “Workers who lose a strike and sign terms for the resumption of work which are unfavourable to them and favourable to the capitalists, do not betray socialism. The only people who betray socialism are those who secure advantages for a section of the workers in exchange for profit to the capitalists; only such agreements are impermissible in principle…

“He does not in the least betray socialism who, without concealing anything from the people, and without concluding any secret treaties with the imperialists, agrees to sign terms of peace which are unfavourable to the weak nation and favourable to the imperialists of one group, if at that moment there is no strength to continue the war.”

That, however, is not what is happening around Geneva. Here supposed “friends” of the Syrian people are trying to drag supposed opponents of the regime to the table when the real revolutionaries have NOT yet declared the strike over (to use Lenin’s trade union example), are not yet ready to resume work under their exploiters.

What’s more, the Bolsheviks used to the fullest the opportunity of talks to state their case, and that of the global revolution, to all listening around the world – something which we can be sure won’t be the case with whatever craven “opposition” ends up at Geneva. Thus Leon Trotsky, in a public declaration issued to the peoples of the whole world, declared:

“We must open negotiations with those governments which at present exist. However, we are conducting these negotiations in a way affording the public the fullest possibility of controlling the crimes of their governments, and so as to accelerate the rising of the working masses against the imperialist cliques. We are ready to support this uprising with all the forces at our command.”

In other words, as had Lenin, Trotsky was telling fellow revolutionaries elsewhere:

“Don’t worry about what we may have to do at the negotiating table. The best aid you can give us is to make your own revolution, to rise up against your own government.”

That is certainly advice well-worth heeding in every country, including the US, which is suffering the same ravages of a capitalist system in decline and the resulting attempts by its masters to use whatever draconian measures are needed to pile the costs of that decline onto the backs of the world’s workers. That, after all, was exactly why the Syrian people revolted in the first place, and why they are determined to see their Revolution through to the end.

Postscript: While looking for the above quotes I came across the passage below, which sheds additional light on the debate within the ranks of those who support the Syrian Revolution about from whom and under what conditions it is acceptable to accept aid from imperialist bandits. In his biography of Lenin, Tony Cliff writes:

“On 22 February Trotsky reported to the Central Committee an offer by France and Britain to give military aid to Russia in a war against Germany. The majority of the ‘Left Communists’ were opposed in principle to accepting: aid from such imperialist quarters. Trotsky came out clearly in favour of accepting aid, from whatever source. ‘The “Left Communists” arguments do not stand up to criticism. The state is forced to do what the party would not do. Of course the imperialists want to take advantage of us and if we are weak, they will do so; if we are strong, we will not allow it.’

‘As the party of the socialist proletariat which is in power and conducting a war against Germany, we mobilize every means to arm and supply our revolutionary army in the best way possible with all necessary resources and, for that purpose, we obtain them where we can, including therefore from capitalist governments. In doing this, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party retains full independence in its external policy, gives no political undertakings to capitalist governments and examines their proposals in each separate case according to what is expedient.’

Cliff continues: “Lenin, who had not been present at the meeting of the Central Committee, added the following statement to the minutes of the session: ‘Please add my vote in favour of taking potatoes and weapons from the Anglo-French imperialist robbers.’

“To explain his readiness to use the conflict between the imperialist powers in the interests of the proletariat in power, Lenin wrote, on 22 February, an article entitled “The Itch”:

“’Let us suppose Kaliaev, in order to kill a tyrant and monster, acquires a revolver from an absolute villain, a scoundrel and robber, by promising him bread, money and vodka for the service rendered.

‘Can one condemn Kaliaev for ‘dealing with a robber’ for the sake of obtaining a deadly weapon? Every sensible person will answer ‘no’. If there is nowhere else for Kaliaev to get a revolver, and if his intention is really an honourable one (the killing of a tyrant, not killing for plunder), then he should not be reproached but commended for acquiring a revolver in this way. But if a robber, in order to commit murder for the sake of plunder, acquires a revolver from another robber in return for money, vodka or bread, can one compare (not to speak of identifying) such a ‘deal with a robber’ with the deal made by Kaliaev?’

“In a postscript to the article, Lenin added:

‘The North Americans in their war of liberation against England at the end of the eighteenth century got help from Spain and France, who were her competitors and just as much colonial robbers as England. It is said that there were ‘Left Bolsheviks’ to be found who contemplated writing a ‘learned work’ on the ‘dirty deal’ of these Americans.’

“In the end, however, nothing came of the offer of aid from Britain and France.”

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Echoes of American First in anti-war movement today?

“If international finance Jewry in and outside of Europe should succeed in thrusting the nations once again into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.”
                 -- Adolf Hitler, March 1933 after Reichstag fire

“It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany… But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation.”
              -- Charles Lindbergh, Sept 11, 1941, 3 mos. before Pearl Harbor

Mark Twain famously said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes," and I think some troubling similarities can be found between the pro-Hitler anti-interventionist movement led by Charles Lindbergh and organize by the American First Committee before the US entered World War II, and the current anti-interventionists "anti-imperialist" anti-war movement that has been promoting a "Hands Off Syria" approach to the devastation Bashar al-Assad has been wrecking on his country. For example, In 1941 New Republic columnist & AFC'er John Flynn published Should America Fight to Make Europe Safe for Communism? which claimed that supporting the fight against Hitler put us on the side of the communists, then the bogeyman. In August 2013 ex-journalist Robert Fisk published Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side? which I critiqued in a recent post, in which he claimed that if the United States supported the struggle against Bashar al-Assad, it would be on the side of al Qaeda, the current bogeyman. Does anyone else see parallels between these two rhetorical questions?

It goes without saying that there are important differences between the two historical periods and thus the two anti-interventionist movements. The situation in Europe at the time was clearly headed for a world class war, Syria is, at worst, a regional conflict. The Arabs just don't have that kind of clout. And communism is forward looking, at least in its theory, while Islamic extremism is backwards looking, in fact thoroughly reactionary, in its practise. The western propagandist have shown they can cast either in the role of "devil" as the situation requires, so these differences , as important as they are, mean little to them when it comes to justifying imperialist polices. Note how easily and transparently the "War on Communism" slip-streamed into the "War of Terrorism" as the Soviet Union disintegrated?

With these thoughts in mind, I've been reading a very interesting paper by David Gordon, History Department, Bronx Community College, published on 26 September 2003 when it was presented at a joint meeting of the Historical Society and The New York Military Affairs Symposium. It is titled America First: the Anti-War Movement, Charles Lindbergh and the Second World War, 1940-1941. Let's look at this paper about a certain section of the anti-war movement before the United States joined the war against the Axis powers with a special ear for anything that may resonate with the "anti-imperialist" anti-war movement that currently opposes any military intervention against Bashar al Assad and his government in Syria, or even support or aid for his opposition.

David Gordon warns us early on that the forces behind this anti-war movement were diverse:

Many joined the AFC as a way of attacking President Roosevelt and the New Deal. Still others had more sinister reasons. The evolution of the America First movement in the eighteen months of debate preceding Pearl Harbor revealed xenophobic and anti-Semitic sentiment both within the AFC leadership, and among its supporters.

This study of the America First Committee is thus a cautionary tale. It is a reminder that anti-war movements are not always, or entirely, the humanitarian movements their supporters claim them to be.

Then he tells us the approach these "anti-war" activists took and why:

The greatest weakness of the anti-war movement before 1917 had been widespread sympathy for Britain and France. It remained so in 1940. The central task of the Committee therefore became to reduce support for Britain. Building on the fears of the electorate, its leaders set out to convince Americans that aid was synonymous with war. But America First did much more. It claimed the nation could work peacefully and profitably with Germany. It consistently minimized or ignored Hitler’s crimes in Europe. At the same time the Committee’s unceasing criticism of the British Empire helped convince at least some voters that democratic England was not only an unworthy recipient of American aid, it was also undeserving of American sympathy.

The claim that aid is synonymous with war is certainly a central theme of the current "anti-imperialists." They don't just oppose military intervention of any type by Western powers against Assad, they oppose any material support for those Syrians fighting Assad. They see it not as a possible way to avoid war but instead as a first step towards war, both now and then. But why is it that because they don't want to take up the struggle, those in need of help must be found unworthy? We have seen this pattern repeated time and time again. We see that to today in the constant demonization of Assad's opposition by the anti-interventionists. How many times do they bring up that one heinous act of a rebel biting into human flesh, as a reason not to do anything to stop Assad from bombing the children? Walk on, the woman being raped in the park is probably a whore anyway!

David Gordon tells us they did something else that sounds like a talking point from the anti-interventionist "anti-imperialist" play-book, they tried to portray both sides and equally as bad:

In order to defeat the president’s pro-British agenda, Committee members insisted the crimes of the western powers were as great as those of Germany. Their arguments usually began with a formulaic denunciation of Hitler, without any serious examination of his actions. This was followed by a detailed catalogue of the sins of the allies.[26]

Hitler's fascist atrocities were down-played while the alleged crimes of his opponents were broadcast:

One AFC pamphlet asked “when is Britain going to release the 30,000 political prisoners in India?“[30] The verdict was clear. The European democracies, tainted by imperialism, were not worth saving.

The good thing about a line like that is both the fascists and the "anti-imperialists" can get behind it. Today we see that broad type of "unity" being built along Islamaphobic lines, and just as fear of al Qaeda has emerged as the main reason promoted by the pro-Assad crowd for not supporting his overthrow; fear of communism was used as an argument for not opposing Hitler then:

Another AFC pamphlet stated: “The entry of Communist Russia into the war should settle once and for all the intervention issue here at home. The war party can hardly ask the people of America to take up arms behind the red flag of Stalin. With the ruthless force of dictatorship and aggression now clearly aligned on both sides the proper course for the United States becomes even clearer. We must continue to build our own defenses and take no part in this incongruous European conflict.”

Now with Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other, the anti-interventionists thought they had a "both sides and equally bad" argument that couldn't be denied.

AFC drew its membership from a wide political spectrum, from socialists like Norman Thomas to Nazis:

Many AFC supporters were certain industry and the banks wanted war for their own profit.[14] Many other supporters were Republicans who flocked to the AFC for partisan political reasons. Still others were covertly pro-German. Some were German-Americans whose sentimental attachments had not been diminished by the crimes of the Nazi regime. Others, whether of German origin or not, were attracted to Hitler’s racism and anti-Semitism.

Norman Thomas could be considered the left wing of the AFC leadership  but he was not above showing them how to give their racist propaganda a little "anti-imperialist" flare:

Norman Thomas for example suggested to Senator Wheeler that when attacking interventionist Jews he should “avoid even a suspicion of racial implication” by putting in “the House of Morgan … and perhaps the Chase National Bank.” Swanberg, Norman Thomas, p. 248.

AFC tended towards fascism with time, and Charles Lindbergh became its best known speaker:

Charles Lindbergh was among the most extreme AFC spokesmen.[37] He also introduced a troubling new theme into the America First campaign. It was support for Germany.
...
Very few AFC members discounted the importance of democracy and personal freedom. Lindbergh, with what one critic called an “Olympian contempt for all democratic processes,” did.[39] Despite formulaic protestations about its “excesses,” he found much to admire in the new German state. He also shared many of its leaders’ racial beliefs. Lindbergh was not against war. He simply opposed war with Germany.
...
Lindbergh’s opinions were not shared by all AFC leaders, or the membership. However, he was the Committee’s most popular spokesman.[40]
...
Lindbergh gave voice to Nazi fellow travelers and anti-Semites who were among the least worthy elements within America First. They repaid him with enthusiastic support.

FDR, like most political observers, considered Lindbergh completely pro-Hitler behind a few pretences. He never blamed Hitler for the fascist aggression or the war:

Neither the freedom of Poland, nor the destruction of the Nazi dictatorship, seemed worth the struggle. Even after the invasion of Poland, he refused to blame Hitler for the conflict. “No one, not even Germany,” he asserted, “is more responsible for the conditions that caused this war than England and France.”[49]

Just as some in the anti-interventionist camp today somehow blame much of the violence in Syria on Obama, like Shamaus Cooke in Counterpunch:

President Obama will have no talk of peace. He has chosen war since the very start and he’s sticking to it.

Lindbergh blamed Roosevelt, not Hitler, for the rising war tensions, from his famous nine-eleven speech:

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Lindbergh also considered President Roosevelt a greater threat to world peace than Hitler and let it be known that he hoped for a negotiated peace rather than an English victory.



This anti-war coalition, involving as it did different motivations, was always shaky because it was based on opportunism, and the more open Lindbergh became about his pro-Nazi views, the more exposed the AFC became:

Most members of the AFC leadership refused to denounce him. Some agreed with him. Others, like Norman Thomas, Oswald Villard and John Flynn were willing to go along in order to achieve their goal - the preservation of American neutrality.[52] The unity of the anti-war movement, they were certain, was worth the sacrifice.
...
The moral implications of Lindbergh’s position were not entirely apparent in January 1941. What did seem clear was the need to remain united.

As spokesman for the anti-interventionists, Lindbergh always claimed that they were above board while the other side was trying to hide something:

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

He also argued that we had too many debts as it was and couldn't afford to do anything about Hitler. Then as now, any fart in a storm:

As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case.

It is not surprising that here too, those opposed to intervention were quick to point out that we aren't the cops of the world. Think of the guy hearing the pleas of the woman being raped in the park and responding "Hey, do I look like a cop?":

Lindbergh’s Washington testimony also received national attention. “It is not the duty of the United States to police the world,“ he had declared.[55] This would become a refrain taken up by men as different as Gerald Nye and Charles Coughlin, head of the anti-Roosevelt and anti-Semitic Christian Front movement.[56]

Lindbergh was clear on his reasons for opposing the United States entering the war as it did. He wanted to see Hitler prevail and he feared communism, just as many in the anti-interventionist movement today want to see Assad prevail and fear al Qaeda:

I would a hundred times rather see my country ally itself with England, or even with Germany, with all of her faults, than with the cruelty, the godlessness, and the barbarism that exist in Soviet Russia. An alliance between the United States and Russia should be opposed by every American, by every Christian, and by every humanitarian in this country.”[66]

And while most AFC'ers weren't really pro-Hitler, they were willing to "live with" Hitler for the sake of "peace," just as many in the anti-intervention movement today know that Assad is a fascist dictator but oppose the Syrian revolutionary's demand that he go as a pre-condition for peace:

Indifference and timidity characterized the AFC program. Most America Firsters were prepared to live, however uncomfortably, with Hitler because they believed they had no choice.[116] There were others, however, who were pro-German.

Those in the US opposed to actually doing anything to stop Hitler from creating millions of refugees did talk about humanitarian aid for those refugees as the solution, just as today. Robert Maynard Hutchins wrote:

In the meantime, we should begin to make this country a refuge for those who will not live without liberty. For less than the cost of two battleships we could accommodate half a million refugees from totalitarian countries for a year. The net cost would not approach the cost of two battleships, for these victims, unlike battleships, would contribute to our industry and our cultural life, and help us make democracy work.

Hiram Johnson sounded like so many in the anti-war movement who know Assad is a tyrant but can't justify the cost of helping when he  wrote:

Naturally, like any normally constituted human being, I hate the persecutions to which the Jews have been put, and I will go any fair length save the ruin of my own country to aid them; but I will not go to the length of fighting citizens of other nations, who have been badly and shamefully treated, nor that these citizens of other nations may vindicate their rights or punish their wrongdoers.

The reasons Rep. Alan Grayson gave Amy Goodman for opposing any military response to the Assad Regime's slaughter of 1700 Syrians with sarin gas would have served the AFC very well with no modification:

It’s not our responsibility, it’s not going to do any good, it’s expensive, and it’s dangerous.

David Gordon tells us that:

America First remained to the end an uncomfortable alliance of isolationists, pacifists, enemies of England, opponents of Roosevelt and friends of Germany.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and regardless of one's reasoning, the important question was how did one stand on taking the fight to fascism.

Some AFC supporters had been motivated by humanitarian ideals. Not all interventionists were. Yet in the end those who supported intervention also supported the preservation of democracy and human rights in Europe. Those who opposed war did not. This obvious fact had long troubled some Committee members, including Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Although anti-fascist, his Party had never been able to explain how fascism could be eliminated without war.[127]

Some stayed steadfast in their position even after Hitler's effects had been fully revealed.

From the fall of France until the end of the war, Senator Gerald Nye never lost his way. “To take care of our own (is) the number one American obligation.” The destiny of America, he was certain, was not “either to reform or to police the world.”[111] This was a practical policy. Depending on how the Nazi threat was assessed, it might have been a rational one. But it was not generous. It consigned most of Europe to Hitler’s murderous rule. Other Progressives were like minded.

For almost three years, the Left has been hoping that if they just kept ignoring the Syrian struggle, it would just go away, but instead it has been growing to proportions that they can no longer ignore. The non-interventionists among them have long blamed US imperialism for the crisis and increasing they've turned to "bad mouthing" Assad's opposition, dwelling on real or counterfeit "war crimes" of "the rebels" forgetting Assad's daily assaults and weekly massacres, all this in a effort to boaster their claims that "both sides are equally bad" as though this somehow relieved them of the responsibility of intervention when 120 children are being killed every day.

This last quote from the David Gordon piece has little to do with American First Committee or our current crop of anti-interventionists. I am including it because I think it says a lot about the attitude the Left should be taking towards opposition participation in the up coming Geneva II Conference. It is President Roosevelt explaining why he was not pushing his allies to negotiate a peace with Hitler:

[129] Roosevelt had told the nation during a fireside chat in December 1940 that “the Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world.” Therefore “the United States had no right or reason to encourage talk of peace, until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.” He also rejected any notion of a negotiated peace, since such a peace “would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armaments race and the most devastating trade war in all history. And in these contests the Americans would offer the only real resistance to the Axis powers.” Cole, Roosevelt, p. 343.

So, with those thoughts in mind, what business is it of anybody in the west to tell the opposition that they should sit down and talk with a dictator intend on running a fascist police state while he is still dropping bombs on schools, hospitals and bakeries?

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Did Syrian rebel who ate his enemy's heart have PTSD?

The most damning image of Assad's opposition in 2013 was that of a FSA commander cutting an organ out of the body of a dead enemy soldier and taking a bite out of it.That soldier's name was Abu Sakka, made famous by a video of him cutting an organ of out of a fallen SAA soldier's body and holding it up to his lips and saying "We will eat your hearts and your livers you soldiers of Bashar the dog."

What he did was incredibly damaging to the cause he claimed to be fighting for, and was a great propaganda victory for those he claimed to oppose. The Assad Regime can't stop talking about it, even Putin warned against arming "organ-eating Syrian rebels." Because it connects with our deep psychological fascination with cannibalism, it is the story that won't die, and it is the one outrage that is most often used to tarnish and condemn all those fighting to overthrow the Assad Regime. For example, one negative response to my most recent blog post, Bashar al-Jihad: Is ISIS a child of the regime?, said, in part:

Have you seen the You-Tube videos depicting the dissident leader's cannabalism of a Syrian soldier's corpse-- screaming insanse threats to repeat this atrocity on all followers of Assad?

And someone else posted this comment to an interview with media activist Raed Fares of Kafranbel, Syria, published on Truthout, 10 Jan 2014:

Now imagine that you are "next door", in a bordering country with those beastie animals out of control on the other side that eat the livers of their live opponents (whomever they are, I guess the tastier, right?) while the victim watching is agonizing. Or that gas each other (who knows who does what to whom) and innocent women and children die, luckily enough WHEN THEY ARE SLEEPING!.

This is an example of the kind of bigoted attitude that has found a home on the Left since it elected to turn its eyes away from the unfolding strategy in Syria and instead look for reasons to find them unworthy of our concern or support.  

Much of this commentary has been done in an effort to tar Assad's entire opposition with that particular brush, almost none of it has even speculated on why it happened. So now is as good a time as any to ask: Is cannibalism really an attribute of the Syrian Revolution, or was this the result of something more universal that affects some soldiers drenched in vicious and bloody warfare for extended periods of time, like US soldiers in Vietnam who cut off the heads of their enemy and placed them on spikes along jungle trails, or used them as soccer balls, or dug up graves when there were no fresh Vietnamese corpses to mutilate?

What possessed him to do this thing, record it and post the video to the Internet? Was it an outburst of evil that grew from the very character of the rebellion, or was it more like the something that breaks in some soldiers in all wars when its culture of death overloads them? Is it possible that Abu Sakkar was suffering from PTSD?

There is a lot of controversy over whether PTSD can cause depraved behaviour like this. Those that are trying to treat veterans suffering from PTSD, get them jobs, and re-integrate them back into "The World", as Vietnam vets use to refer to it, naturally wish to down play any talk of a relationship between PTSD and violent and beastly behaviour, but it has been recognized that veterans with PTSD are involved in a higher rate of spousal abuse than average, and there is significant anecdotal evidence of much worst.

US Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who was charged with going on a one-man killing spree in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan that took the lives of 17 civilians in one night, raised PTSD as a defence. It may have also been a factor with veteran Benjamin Cotton Barnes who was suspected of killing a park ranger at Mount Rainer Park before Barnes was found dead, or veteran Itzcoatl Ocampo who died while awaiting trial for stabbing to death four homeless men in Southern California. I also gave examples of the ghoulish insanity soldiers will be driven to in an earlier post:  Ten Things Worst Than Eating a Dead Man's Heart Done by US Soldiers in Vietnam.

But I don't think it really matters much whether you classify it as PTSD or some other psychiatric disturbance, war is a brutal, bloody business, and I think that some soldiers, if they are drenched in it for too long, will crack, like Colonel Kurtz, and turn into madmen or beasts, and that is the story of Abu Sakkar.

BBC News reporter Paul Wood found Abu Sakkar in Syria and interviewed him:

...when I met the commander, Abu Sakkar, in Syria last week, he seemed hazy on the details.

"I really don't remember," he says, when I ask if it was the man's heart, as reported at the time, or liver, or a piece of lung, as a doctor who saw the video said. He goes on: "I didn't bite into it. I just held it for show."

The video says otherwise.

Paul Wood tells how he responded,

when I ask why he carried out this depraved act.

"I didn't want to do this. I had to," he tells me. "We have to terrify the enemy, humiliate them, just as they do to us. Now, they won't dare be wherever Abu Sakkar is."

This is crazy Colonel Kurtz logic. Then Paul Woods goes on to tell his story:

Before the uprising, he was working as a labourer in Baba Amr. He joined the demonstrations when they started in the spring of 2011. Then, he says, a woman and child were shot dead at a protest. His brother went to help. He, too, was shot and killed.

In a YouTube video from June 2011, Abu Sakkar can be seen at the front of a crowd waving olive branches to greet deserting army officers. He took up arms against the regime, one of the first to join a new organisation called the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

In February 2012, he was fighting with the Farouq Brigade, and they tried, and failed, to stop the regime taking Baba Amr. When the FSA fled Baba Amr, he started his own brigade, the Omar al-Farouq. They saw bitter fighting in Qusayr.

Along the way, he lost another brother, many relatives, and countless of his men. His parents were arrested and he says the police rang him so he could hear them being beaten.

"Put yourself in my shoes," he says. "They took your father and mother and insulted them. They slaughtered your brothers, they murdered your uncle and aunt. All this happened to me. They slaughtered my neighbours."

He goes on to talk about the man whose flesh he held in his hands: "This guy had videos on his mobile. It showed him raping a mother and her two daughters. He stripped them while they begged him to stop in the name of God. Finally he slaughtered them with a knife... What would you have done?"

I think what Abu Sakkar did was go mad. It was a madness caused by more than two years of war and should be read as a plea for its end. It should not be used in a cynical effort to deny the righteous demand of those who have suffered so much in their just struggle to see an end to the Assad Regime because no peace can be purchased at that price.

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Re-examing ex-journalist Robert Fisk on the "Syrian Rebels"

Political wall painting in Kafranbel, Idlib Province, Syria

Now that the singularity of the Syrian "rebels," meaning the illusion that every fighting unit not openly allied with the Assad Regime could be lumped together under one meaningful label, has been sweep away forever by the fierce struggle now going on between the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham [ISIS] and just about everyone else fighting Assad, we can begin to examine not only how that illusion has been promoted but also how it has been used as a very powerful rhetorical tool against the Syrian Revolution. To illustrate my point I'd like to examine an earlier article by ex-journalist Robert Fisk written just this August after he'd had time to become a seasoned propagandist for Bashar al-Assad. Its the perfect article to show how this singularity of "the rebels" has been a useful tool for the Assad propagandists because without it the whole premise of this Robert Fisk attack on the revolution doesn't even get past a reading of The Independent headline:

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side? ‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime

27 August 2013
By Robert Fisk
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad. More...

The headline is not exactly a Robert Fisk original. He gets no high marks for creativity here, either as a "journalist" or as a propagandist. The position that all his opposition is al-Qaeda is 100% Assad. This is what Bashar al Assad told a French journalist the same week Fisk published his article:

The situation today is different; today we are fighting terrorists, 80-90% of them affiliated to Al-Qaeda.

By my calculations, that makes the remaining 10-20% of the "rebel" force some kind of super-special forces, because they appear to be holding their own against both the Regime forces with Hezbullah, Russian, Iranian and Iraqi help, and rolling back the 80-90% affiliated with al Qaeda all at the same time!

We can see from the second Fisk paragraph that he does know about alliances when he lumps them all together as "Syrian Rebels," and alliances are important to a winning strategy; the Syrian conflict has seen many.

If politics makes for strange bedfellows, and war is politic by extreme, i.e. violent, means, it follows that war makes for some real mind fucks. Take World War II for example. First we had the pre-season match with Germany and Italy squaring off against the USSR in Spain. That was followed by the Hitler-Stalin pact as the main event got going, but soon it was the US, USSR and England against Germany, Italy and Japan. No sooner than that was settled, some US generals wanted to keep their armies in Europe and immediately start a fight with Russia. I guess they were afraid we were running out of war. No danger of that though.

The forces that united to defeat fascism in WWII were never thought of as some singularity, they were collectively referred to as the allies, meaning that they were members of an alliance and it was understood by all that they each had their separate interests and goals, but had come together to deal with the task at hand, which was to defeat, in mortal combat, the fascist alliance. So if the Western Media and the Assad Regime were to refer to the various forces arrayed against him, from the Free Syrian Army, Kurdish forces, Islamic Front and al Qaeda affiliates as the "allies," they would have a case they could argue, but this is not their case.

Fisk's headline had been a staple of the Assad propaganda machine for some time and in the wake of his 21 August chemical attack and the slight fear that US President Obama might actually do something, they really ramped it up. For example, less than two weeks after Fisk published his piece, Bashar al Assad told Charlie Rose this about a possible Obama attack:

Any strike will be as direct support to Al Qaeda offshoot that's called al-Nusra, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

From this its easy to see that Robert Fisk was not providing the services of a journalist by bringing us news or enlightening us with insightful analysis, ex-journalist Robert Fisk was quite on message and merely fullfilling his role as a hack propagandist when he asked "Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?"

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria