On Interventions and the Syrian Revolution

Down with Bashar al-Assad

The Syrian revolution is a revolution that began as a struggle for self-determination. The Syrian people demanded to determine their own destiny. And, for more than two years, against all odds, and in the face of massive repression and destruction from the Assad regime, they persevered.

 

In the course of the revolutionary process, many other actors have also appeared on the scene to work against the struggle for self-determination. Iran and its militias, with the backing of Russia, came to the aid of the regime, to ensure the Syrian people would not be given this right. The jihadis of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and others, under the guise of “fighting the Assad regime,” worked against this right as well. And I feel the same way about any Western intervention.

 

Some would argue that we have come a long way from that, that it isn’t even about self-determination anymore, but rather, simply stopping the killing. This is a position I cannot support. If it was simply about stopping the killing, then I would’ve supported the jihadis when they came in, because, no one can deny, they were the best armed and the best equipped to challenge the Assad regime. But I didn’t, and many others didn’t, because we knew that despite their ability to challenge the regime, that they did not share the goals of the Syrian people. They wanted to control the Syrian people, and stifle their ability to determine their own destiny. Because of this, they were counter-revolutionaries, even if they were fighting against the regime.

 

And now in the face of a possible Western intervention in Syria, I hold the same position. Many would say I’m being ideological, and that I should just focus on stopping the killing; but those people are ignoring that, even on pragmatic terms and within their own line of reasoning, their argument holds no sway, after repeated US insistence that “these will only be punitive strikes” and they “do not intend to topple the regime.” What indication is there that these strikes will do anything to stop the killing, or “solve” the Syrian crisis?

 

I don’t care about sovereignty. Syria has become a land for everyone but Syrians nowadays. The myth of Syrian sovereignty is not why I oppose Western intervention. Neither is the prospect of the destruction of Syria, for it has already been destroyed by this criminal regime. I oppose Western intervention because it will work against the struggle for self-determination, that is, against the Syrian revolution.

 

Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. I have no doubt about this. And this could have been prevented if the Syrian resistance was actually given weapons that could have tilted the balance against the regime. But foreign powers sat on their hands, not wanting Assad to win, but not wanting the resistance to win either. They couldn’t give weapons to the Syrian people to defend themselves, they said, who knows whose hands they might end up in? They might accidentally end up in, say, the hands of Syrians who wanted to determine their own destiny despite foreign interests!

 

So we’ve come full circle. No one armed the Syrian resistance, so they were killed by the regime, or forced to put up with jihadi infiltration. So Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrians, and the West wants to respond to teach Assad a lesson, a response that still guarantees that Syrians have no say in the matter of their future. And the regime will probably live through any “punitive” Western intervention, and the killing will probably not stop.

 

But despite all that, the Syrian revolution, and, at its heart, the Syrian people’s struggle for liberation and to determine their own destiny, will live on.

 

Source: http://darthnader.net/2013/08/27/on-interventions-and-the-syrian-revolut...

Zeige Kommentare: ausgeklappt | moderiert

In deinem Artikel behauptest du mehrfach, dass das Assad - Regime Giftgas eingesetzt hat. Eine Quelle dafür benennst du nicht, verlinkst nur deine eigene Seite.

 

Das ist kein sauberer  Journalismus und einem Graswurzelprojekt wie "Linksunten" nicht würdig.

 

In vielen Artikeln und Kommentaren auf dieser Seite wird klar, dass sich grosse Teile der Linksradikalen weder auf Seite des Assad - Regimes noch auf Seiten der FSA und Al Nusra verorten. Mensch beschäftigt sich eher mit den basisdemokratischen LCCs sowie der PYD und kurdischen Selbstverteidigungskomitees.

 

Und da ist  eine unbewiesene einseitige Zuschreibung einer Täterschaft kontraproduktiv.

 

Wenn dann eine der Sozialdemokratie nahestehende Zeitung besseren Journalismus betreibt, sollte man ins Grübeln kommen. 

 

http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.militaerschlag-gegen-assad-lu...