Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama, Syria and the Arrogance of Imperialism

by RON JACOBS

Imperialists are not just arrogant, they are stupid.  Pretending that they might get a different result than previous US administrations have obtained before, the Obama administration is planning to send lethal arms to Syrian rebels.  According to the Washington Post, Obama and his advisors have been “edging” toward this decision for months.  Their rationale for jumping in now is because they believe it will give Washington more control over which rebel factions actually end up with the weaponry.  The expressed hope is that such arms would stay with the Free Syrian Army headed by Syrian Army defector General Salim Idriss.  Of course, as any student of war knows, once unleashed the demons that operate during such endeavors have a life of their own.  In other words, once the weaponry is in Syria, there is no telling who will end up with it.  The Syrians themselves are incapable of determining how their civil war will end.  Does Washington seriously think it can?Sinners front for web

Examples with many similarities to the Syrian situation exist, especially in the recent history of the Middle East.  A strong man and his nationalist party running a country incorporating economic principles of state-owned industry and government provided services.  Politically, the national government attempts to integrate various tribal, religious and ethnic differences into a single nation.  Naturally, this requires a certain amount of repression of dissident groups and is usually accompanied by a certain favoritism towards the leadership’s tribal, political and religious allegiances.  Held together by this combination, there are occasional outbreaks of protest that is often put down with state violence.  Usually, this violence is excused or ignored by the international community, since all governments understand that they must maintain the franchise on political violence or risk losing power and control.

The nation I am describing in the previous paragraph is Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party rule.  While there are particular differences between that nation and the Assad’s rule of Syria, I believe the similarities are enough to make a justifiable comparison.  If one adds the influence of the neoliberal economy of the last several decades, the similarity between the two nations’ histories supersedes any particular differences.

Like much of the Middle East, The growth of neoliberalism in Syria created a situation that saw the selling off of state-owned industry to private corporations, the reduction in services and basic subsidies and a drastic decrease in income for many of its people. Of course, that income decrease is directly related to the neoliberal economic model that insures the gross accumulation of wealth in northern banking centers with a similar reduction in individual buying power for most of the world’s population.  Just like in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt (among other nations around the world), the indigenous individuals and groups that tend to profit from the neoliberal privatization and loan scheme are those already part of the authoritarian regimes in power.

The transfer of industry and services from state to private hands usually results in the powerful adding profit to the power they already maintain.  In other words, the centralization of state power morphs into a centralization of political power and private wealth, usually at a greater rate than before.  The complement to this transformation is the further impoverishment of the working class and peasantry along with a growing impoverishment of the non-politically connected middle classes.  It is this economic factor which has pushed every population responsible for the “Arab Spring” to rebellion.  When combined with the long-running desire for political freedoms, the result has been, to say the least, incendiary and world-changing.

That is how Syria’s civil war began—as a massive protest for political freedoms and against neoliberalism.  It seems to have morphed into something quite different over the past several months.  As various Islamist factions of varying tendencies have taken up arms against Assad and his allies, the nature of the conflict has become incredibly violent and looks more and more like the sectarian civil war that ripped apart occupied Iraq in the middle year of that last decade.  If one looks at that period in Iraq for instruction, there is plenty to fear.  As antiwar journalists and activists made clear then, the United States was actively involved in arming various factions in this civil war and was also training death squads whose role was to kill potential threats to US designs.  In addition, various regional governments had their own forces operating in the country.

A similar scenario is playing out in Syria, albeit with the players assuming slightly different roles.  One can assume, however, that the intent is the same: a desire to determine the future according to their wishes.

It is this desire which is being cited by Washington for its growing intervention.  Despite whatever the politicians and generals might be saying, let me be clear.  Washington is an imperial nation.  It does not have the best intentions of the Syrian people at heart.  Indeed, when it comes to policy, it could care less about the Syrian people, just like it cared less about the Iraqis.  If it cared, the support it has shown for the Assads over the years would have been much more conditioned on respecting the civil and human rights of the Syrian people.  Instead, Washington’s real regard for those rights can best be summed up with the observation that until the Arab Spring began, Syria’s torture chambers were a favorite of the US rendition program.

Ron Jacobs is the author of the just released novel All the Sinners, Saints. He is also the author of The Way the Wind Blew: a History of the Weather Underground and Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator’s Tale. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden.  His third novel All the Sinners Saints is a companion to the previous two and is due out in April 2013.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press.  He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]