And next, Syria?

[treelover]

We are Syria’s moderate opposition – and we’re fighting on two fronts Asaad Hanna

President Assad and Islamic State are two sides of the same coin. Whenever we, the Free Syrian Army, make advances against the regime, Isis steps in

Syria’s moderate opposition is real – but we’re fighting on two fronts | Asaad Hanna

There has been talk of a number of “moderate” fighters who are open to co-operation. David Cameron has talked about the existence of 70,000 fighters opposing Daesh, and there is reason to believe the number is yet higher. I want to unpack this a little.

Last October the UN special envoy for Syria, Steffan de Mistura, invited Syrian military factions to engage in dialogue with the regime through the so-called Four Committees Initiative. The initiative was rejected by the factions out of mistrust, but it did reveal the elevated number of opposition fighters that were active in Syria: 74 military factions signed the rejection statement, the smallest of which numbered 1,000, while others totalled more than 10,000.

Crucially, none of these 74 are internationally classified as extremists. The moderate opposition is not a myth. Syrians do not need foreign fighters to help them fight Isis; they have indigenous fighters, better acquainted with the land and able to confront any aggressor, particularly where there is firm international will to support them to do so.

The Syrian armed opposition is fighting a war on two fronts: against Assad and against Daesh. Assad’s barbarity has driven Syrians from their homes and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians over the past five years.

On the other side, we are facing Daesh, a terrorist group whose creation Assad must take some of the responsibility for. Daesh is helping the Assad regime by fighting us, the armed moderate opposition. The relationship between the two should not be in doubt.

Interesting article which makes the claim there are well over 70000 non extremists fighting Daesh, (camerons claim) very sad too.

 

[teqniq]

 

[frogwoman]

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Interesting article which makes the claim there are well over 70000 non extremists fighting Daesh, (camerons claim) very sad too.

No it doesn't make that claim, it just refers to Cameron's claim in passing without specifically reinforcing it. It "unpacks" that claim and points out that things are a lot more complicated than Cameron thinks.

 

[butchersapron]

No it doesn't make that claim, it just refers to Cameron's claim in passing without specifically reinforcing it.

The first article - the one treelover originally referred to before editing in the 2nd one which appears to to be the only one that you read - does state that there are reasons to believe the figure is in fact higher than 70 000 and then proceeds to show why he believes this. i.e 74 group with memberships at least 1000 strong and some as large as 10 000 signing a rejection of dialogue with the regime and none of them classified internationally as extremists.

 

[mauvais]

That noone has yet bothered to catalogue and categorise 74 different bands of misfits does not on its own automatically make a moderate opposition.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

The first article - the one treelover originally referred to before editing in the 2nd one - does state that there are reasons to believe the figure is higher than 70 000 and then proceeds to show why he believes this. i.e 74 group with memberships at least 1000 strong and some as large as 10 000 signing a rejection of dialogue with the regime and none of them classified internationally as extremists.

Butchers I had already edited my post before your response. They are apparently not an organised force that would work with Western troops even if there were any available.

 

[butchersapron]

That noone has yet bothered to catalogue and categorise 74 different bands of misfits does not on its own automatically make a moderate opposition.

Plenty of cataloguing and classifying has been done of these groups and others since the uprising started. That's precisely how people can argue thle non-extremist nature of these groups. Links have been posted regularly on this thread and the other concurrent ones.

Incidentally this moderate/extremist nonsense is not at all helpful or useful in accurately reflecting what it taking place in syria. The terms (esp the former) have simply become a cipher for useful to *insert larger interest here US/Russia/Iran etc* rather than anything else.

 

[butchersapron]

The first article - the one treelover originally referred to before editing in the 2nd one which appears to to be the only one that you read - does state that there are reasons to believe the figure is in fact higher than 70 000 and then proceeds to show why he believes this. i.e 74 group with memberships at least 1000 strong and some as large as 10 000 signing a rejection of dialogue with the regime and none of them classified internationally as extremists.

There are two articles as i just pointed out - you appear not to have read the oen that treelovers post that you rejected referred to. That one does exactly what you say that it doesn't. This is the one you should read.

 

[mauvais]

Plenty of cataloguing and classifying has been done of these groups and others since the uprising started. That's precisely how people can argue thle non-extremist nature of these groups. Links have been posted regularly on this thread and the other concurrent ones.

Enough to pass this I assume carefully chosen criteria of 'internationally classified'? That's not even as simple as being put on the list of terrorist groups by the Americans.

 

[sihhi]

Plenty of cataloguing and classifying has been done of these groups and others since the uprising started. That's precisely how people can argue thle non-extremist nature of these groups. Links have been posted regularly on this thread and the other concurrent ones.

Incidentally this moderate/extremist nonsense is not at all helpful or useful in accurately reflecting what it taking place in syria. The terms (esp the former) have simply become a cipher for useful to *insert larger interest here US/Russia/Iran etc* rather than anything else.

Can we be 100% certain of this:

On the other side, we are facing Daesh, a terrorist group whose creation Assad must take some of the responsibility for. Daesh is helping the Assad regime by fighting us, the armed moderate opposition. The relationship between the two should not be in doubt.

The relationship with Assad issue. How much? How far? How soon or how late?

 

[butchersapron]

Enough to pass this I assume carefully chosen criteria of 'internationally classified'? That's not even as simple as being put on the list of terrorist groups by the Americans.

Yes, of course. Would you like some numbers? These are some of the ones that Charles Lister (probably the most respected author on the various opposition groups around) has used as the basis for his analysis and in his latest book.

 

[butchersapron]

Can we be 100% certain of this:

On the other side, we are facing Daesh, a terrorist group whose creation Assad must take some of the responsibility for. Daesh is helping the Assad regime by fighting us, the armed moderate opposition. The relationship between the two should not be in doubt.

The relationship with Assad issue. How much? How far? How soon or how late?

We can be certain at least that it's the claim made in the article contra hocus eyes claim that it says no such thing.

 

[mauvais]

Yes, of course. Would you like some numbers? These are some of the ones that Charles Lister (probably the most respected author on the various opposition groups around) has used as the basis for his analysis and in his latest book.

The point is that 'internationally classified' is weasel words. What does it mean? That multiple countries have put them on their extremist lists? What if some have but there's no consensus? Does it require that the UN has worked its way around, having presumably been given several decades notice, to a binding resolution? It's a movable target that may be impossible to hit.

No doubt, however, it's not in its detail a particularly valuable argument anyway, because it's eclipsed as you say by the fact that the label of extremist is more dependent on the ever flexible nature of global interests & affiliation. Yet even if there are 74k+ individuals out there not yet classed as on the wrong side by someone (which I naturally doubt on a few levels but haven't evidence for), that lack of such a label lends no automatic tangible support to what either the author or Cameron are claiming.

 

[mauvais]

And that some group gets invited to a conference in the interests of pursuing the same agenda as espoused by those two - enablement of Western intervention - is obviously no better litmus test of moderation either.

 

[butchersapron]

The point is that 'internationally classified' is weasel words. What does it mean? That multiple countries have put them on their extremist lists? What if some have but there's no consensus? Does it require that the UN has worked its way around, having presumably been given several decades notice, to a binding resolution? It's a movable target that may be impossible to hit.

No doubt, however, it's not in its detail a particularly valuable argument anyway, because it's eclipsed as you say by the fact that the label of extremist is more dependent on the ever flexible nature of global interests & affiliation. Yet even if there are 74k+ individuals out there not yet classed as on the wrong side by someone (which I naturally doubt on a few levels but haven't evidence for), that lack of such a label lends no automatic tangible support to what either the author or Cameron are claiming.

It means that state and other institutions and authorities that monitor and classify groups involved in this and other conflicts have not put any of the 74 signatories on a watchlist of extremist groups.

I don't understand your last sentence - if it can be shown that there are 70 000+ moderates/non extremists then it certainly supports the authors claim that there still exists a non-islamist and non-regime opposition that it is being squeezed between these two forces and that the international forces are now swinging behind the regime to the detriment of those 'moderate forces'. That's sort of the point. Cameron is utterly irrelevant beyond being a useful kick off point for discussion of this in the UK given his previous claim. The fact is the FSA and those this author speaks for oppose british (and russian) intervention - it isn't a piece supporting Cameron and his arguments for bombing syria.

 

[butchersapron]

And that some group gets invited to a conference in the interests of pursuing the same agenda as espoused by those two - enablement of Western intervention - is obviously no better litmus test of moderation either.

Nope. Don't understand what you're saying here. What two? What and whose agenda? What conference? Do you mean the author and Cameron? If so, again i will say, the FSA oppose western intervention and have done so since the start.

 

[Patteran]

Plenty of cataloguing and classifying has been done of these groups and others since the uprising started. That's precisely how people can argue thle non-extremist nature of these groups. Links have been posted regularly on this thread and the other concurrent ones.

Incidentally this moderate/extremist nonsense is not at all helpful or useful in accurately reflecting what it taking place in syria. The terms (esp the former) have simply become a cipher for useful to *insert larger interest here US/Russia/Iran etc* rather than anything else.

That Yassin Saleh interview posted a few days back referenced this -

Due the regime’s brutality and the baseness of the big egos of the globe, a dynamic of radicalisation, Islamisation and militarisation, was triggered and changed everybody in the country, myself included. In September 2015, I was in Oslo for a few days, where I appeared on a TV programme. Before this show, the presenter asked me, if I was “moderate”. No, I am not, I replied. She was alarmed, but she wanted to be sure: “But you are secular, aren’t you?” For the discursive habits in the West, ‘moderate’ implies that siding with us (“We are the centre of the world.”) and “good” are synonyms. You are “extremist” and “bad” whenever you side with your own people.

Of course, I am bad.

There was a similar sentiment expressed in a film made for Vice (I think), following young, articulate fighters with what was still the FSA - & one them reacts to the same question with, & I'm paraphrasing from memory
'No, I am not a moderate. There no Syrian moderates now'.

 

[mauvais]

Nope. Don't understand what you're saying here. What two? What and whose agenda? What conference? Do you mean the author and Cameron? If so, again i will say, the FSA oppose western intervention and have done so since the start.

Yes, the Graun author and Cameron, and obviously the conference described in the link you just put up. (The best bit of that Spectator piece is the logical hinging on the 'Islamist-averse US', who are famously averse to Islamists right up until it's expedient to make use of them)

And in this context who cares what the FSA think? Irrelevant - it's an attempt at a rationale & justification being presented to a Western audience for getting the west involved in Syria whether anyone there is interested or not.

 

[butchersapron]

That Yassin Saleh interview posted a few days back referenced this -



There was a similar sentiment expressed in a film made for Vice (I think), following young, articulate fighters with what was still the FSA - & one them reacts to the same question with, & I'm paraphrasing from memory
'No, I am not a moderate. There no Syrian moderates now'.

Micahel Karadjis says in his latest piece:

The betrayal of the SF and the question of “moderates”

One final comment about the search for Syrian “moderates.” Most supporters of the Syrian revolution hate the Orientalist way that western imperialists and the western left use this term to decide who are “good” and “bad” Syrians when they are fighting for their very survival against such a barbaric regime bombing its entire country to bits. One would not feel very “moderate” in such circumstances. If being “moderate” means responding to a fascist regime using every conceivable weapon bar nuclear against its people, by forming prayer groups and engaging in letter writing campaigns rather than shooting back, then sure there are few “moderates,” and who would want them.

However, “moderate” might also be used as a not-very-precise political identification. Thus, rebels who are politically “moderate” might either be politically secular, that is believe in full separation of church and state, and the setting up of a civil state, or, if Islamist, be only of the mildest kind, opposed to forcible imposition of so-called “Islamic law” and so on; and more generally, to support democracy, women’s rights, and equality for Syria’s various ethnic and religious groups. That is, “moderate” as opposed to advocates of theocratic repression. In this case, there are of course plenty of “moderates” fighting the regime in Syria (Yes, there are 70,000 moderate opposition fighters in Syria. Here's what we know about them - Spectator Blogs), of which the SF is a prominent example, and of course they deserve our support.

Using this meaning, the only thing worse than hearing imperialist leaders complaining that there are hardly any “moderates” to support, and if you do arm them, they give their arms to the “extremists,” is listening to the imperial “left” criticising imperialist rulers for ever thinking there were any “moderates” at all, and agreeing that if they did exist, they would give their weapons to “jihadists”. Because, after all, the imperial left knows even better than the imperialist leaders that there can be “no good guys” in a place like Syria; everyone there, of course, is scum.

Unfortunately, finding many among the imperial left to be even more racist than imperialist rulers on this question is no longer surprising.

But what the incident with the failed US attempt to forge an anti-ISIS brigade that would not fight Assad, on one hand, and the betrayal of the genuine, powerful SF, on the other, reveal, is that finding politically “moderate” forces fighting the regime who are powerful enough is not really the problem it is made out to be. The problem is that for the US and other western states, “moderate” also means being ready to serve western “interests” rather than the interests of the Syrian revolution. And the FSA has never been “moderate” like this. Because this means ending the revolution and joining an Assadist regime, with or without Assad (and now it means explicitly with).

Explaining why the US was not arming the Syrian rebels back in 2013, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said that the Obama administration was opposed to “even limited” US military intervention in Syria as no side represented US interests (A moment of truth in Damascus and Washington): “Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides… It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favour. Today, they are not.”

Thus not “moderate” enough.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, the Graun author and Cameron, and obviously the conference described in the link you just put up. (The best bit of that Spectator piece is the logical hinging on the 'Islamist-averse US', who are famously averse to Islamists right up until it's expedient to make use of them)

And in this context who cares what the FSA think? Irrelevant - it's an attempt at a rationale & justification being presented to a Western audience for getting the west involved in Syria whether anyone there is interested or not.

For a third time, The FSA oppose western intervention as benefiting the two forces that the guardian author says is crushing them - the regime and the beardies - and establishing an anti-revolutionary dynamic that is helping undermine or destroy and non-islamist or near-genocidal forces. You have misread both this article and the situation. You, in fact, have it back to front.

If, as you say, you don't care what the FSA think, say and or do in the ongoing conflict in syria then i can fully understand why you have made that above mistake, bit it does leads me to ask what on earth you're doing on this thread?

 

[butchersapron]

(That's it from me tonight btw, don't anyone bother penning really well researched replies or nothing)

 

[mauvais]

I don't understand your last sentence - if it can be shown that there are 70 000+ moderates/non extremists then it certainly supports the authors claim that there still exists a non-islamist and non-regime opposition that it is being squeezed between these two forces and that the international forces are now swinging behind the regime to the detriment of those 'moderate forces'. That's sort of the point. Cameron is utterly irrelevant beyond being a useful kick off point for discussion of this in the UK given his previous claim. The fact is the FSA and those this author speaks for oppose british (and russian) intervention - it isn't a piece supporting Cameron and his arguments for bombing syria.

You may be right but I find it very difficult to agree with the latter components of that when it aligns closely with the narrative that the British state, sections of the media & others tried to put forward, specifically 70k useful, non-extremist domestic forces that could be leveraged one way or another. I don't know who the author is, tbf, but what do you think they want to achieve other than shining light on it?

And I don't know if you're being deliberately misinterpretative, but I certainly didn't say that I don't care what the FSA think, did I? Merely that in the context of that narrative, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether those 70k particularly want you involved or not when you're selling your plan to the public on the far less nuanced basis of the 70k's mere existence.

 

[Casually Red]

Can we be 100% certain of this:

On the other side, we are facing Daesh, a terrorist group whose creation Assad must take some of the responsibility for. Daesh is helping the Assad regime by fighting us, the armed moderate opposition. The relationship between the two should not be in doubt.

The relationship with Assad issue. How much? How far? How soon or how late?

IS are fighting the Syrian army . So are the " moderates " . That logic is bollocks . The Kurds have often clashed with these moderates . Are they helping IS too ?

They've even fought the Syrian Army together, and regularly did at the beginning . The " moderates " called for them to come and help them from all over the globe, and they did . They welcomed them in with open arms . Syrian soldiers surrendered to the "moderates " who handed them over to IS for mass decapitation . Virtually every last western hostage IS decapitated or kept as a slave was first kidnapped by the FSA and also handed over to IS .

They Syrian army have expended massive man power and resources breaking the IS siege around kweires airbase, which lasted years . Theyre still fighting them all around there and taking territory while those elite troops and resources are badly needed on other fronts . IS have hundreds of their best republican guard troops besieged at Deir Ezzor and are currently throwing the kitchen sink at them trying to overrun them . They may well even succeed after years of siege and non stop suicide assaults . It's a meat grinder . That's the relationship .

 

[butchersapron]

...and we're back to boldly stated assertions presented confidently enough to maybe sway or convince anyone passing through who hasn't been following all that closely, and who may already be primed by repeated previous assertions that all opposition are head-choppers, all anti-assad people who are muslim are secretly ISIS style islamists and so on.

The kurds have often clashed with the regimes SAA - where does that leave your attempted logic of if the kurds have clashed with them then they really are secretly ISIS? And what's made you change your mind from earlier attacking the YPG to now making them the arbiter of who is what in this conflict? Does it have anything to do with them toning down their anti-assad postion and being taken up and promoted by the russians in the form of the PYD (in their own interest of course)?

Maybe you could explain the rush of FSA fighters into the Kurdish YPG dominated SDF in the north east and north west if the YPG is so anti-FSA and the FSA so anti-kurd and so secretly islamist? Or the FSA volunteers who went to kobani to help the YPG/J defence when it was looking like it was just about to fall to isis? Or the push that FSA group (expanded by other local FSA groups) then jointly made to clear ISIS out of the whole province, linking the two eastern kurdish cantons, closing the most important ISIS held border crossing to turkey and opening the door to the re-taking of raqqa from ISIS? Don't worry, just say head-choppers head-choppers and the crowd who take an interest once a week will sing along.

The mass killing of SAA regime soldiers have taken place after the demoralised under-resourced and unsupported lost against ISIS (and these massacres were largley in iraq not syria). The FSA did not call for people around the globe to come and join them, the FSA have said they only ant syrians to be fighting in syria - here we have you deliberately confusing the islamists who called on their comrades worldwide to join them with the FSA who told them to stay the fuck away knowing full well they would sectarianise the conflict and undermine the revolution (in line with assad's plans to go easy on the Islamists, release them from jail etc in order to achieve exactly the same). When this was ignored the FSA declared war on ISIS (in july 2013, well before most people had even heard of ISIS) and drove them clean out of western syria and have been at war ever since.

Well done all the all-conquering SAA taking back 1.3% of the areas it lost in the rebel pushes north and south last year. Those 1000 civilians killed by air-strikes, the many thousands more now turned into refugees, the thousands trapped in north-east syria, unable to return home or to become refugees, the hundreds of thousands now under starvation siege - great work.

 

[camouflage]

Message approved by Philip Hammond.

 

[teqniq]

If you think, even sarcastically that the above post reflects the UK government's stance on Syria you clearly have little or no grasp of the situation there. If they cannot get rid of Assad by installing some compliant western or rather capital-friendly regime then they will settle for Assad. The last thing they want is anything resembling true democratic representation by the people for the people.

 

[teqniq]

In one Damascus suburb, regime moves away from truce and towards ‘surrender’

 

[hot air baboon]

ISIS: The 'Islamic State' between Orientalism and the Interiority of MENA’s Intellectuals

Is ISIS all about Islam, or about geopolitics? This dualism has framed the debate about ISIS among Western analysts, especially American ones.

They have formed two camps, one sees in ISIS and its practices an irrefutable evidence of the “true face of Islam”; another insists that ISIS has nothing to do with “real Islam” and reduces it to a telltale backlash against imperialism and Western policies in the Middle East and North Africa (hitherto MENA).

This dichotomous approach is one of a few angles through which ISIS has been dissected and analyzed in the United States, but it has more significance than others because it is more common and involves high profile American polemicists, activists and intellectuals who have shaped the contours of this debate.

Yet both camps of the ISIS debate, we argue, evoke Orientalism as a discourse that privileges Western knowledge of the East and sidelines or patronizes voices from the MENA region. Their concerns are Eurocentric, revolving around Islamophobia, with the first camp promoting it and the second fearing and battling it, thus turning the ISIS debate into one about the West and its own battles and polemics.

 

[butchersapron]

Syria: 'Burning Country' book launch



Robin Yassin-Kassab in conversation with Kristyan Benedict

“By far the best account of the Syrian uprising” - Professor Yasser Munif, Emerson College, Boston

“Indispensable for those who wish to know the truth about Syria” – Yassin Al-Haj Saleh, Syrian writer and former political prisoner

Journalist and author Robin Yassin-Kassab in conversation with Kristyan Benedict, Campaign Manager at Amnesty International UK to mark the release of Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War by Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami. The book explores the horrific and complicated reality of life in present-day Syria.

****

Not read yet, but geri is finishing her copy lunchtime today so i shall have it after that. leila's site is here and is well worth the read and she is also worth following on twitter.