I'm not sure that I have written anything about Syria. I'll tell you why. I can't figure out what to write. I mean, I have no use for Bashar Assad, none, zero, zip. He is a brutal tyrant whose Ba'ath party has been oppressing the people of Syria and repressing all left opposition for decades. I would love to see him gone. Then there is the "resistance." Well, I think it started out as pretty much a popular uprising which has been hijacked by Islamic fundamentalist, and petty capitalist who would be big capitalist if only they could. Got no use for either of them. Then there are the Western powers always wringing their hands about the suffering of the Syrian people, as if they care. Really can't get too excited there, that's for sure. And the Saud's and their chums, they would love to bring their brand of horror to Syria, too. No thanks. Finally, there are the international bodies like the UN and the Arab League. A bunch of chumps, if you ask me.
I feel very concerned for and stand with the Syrian people, the working people, the poor, who get to mostly just get killed by one side or the other. Although I believe the original uprising came from them, I think now, that popular resistance is just about as confused as I am about what to do.
The Empire can be a very confusing and a very awful place.
There will, though, come a time, in Syria and throughout the Empire when the multitude shrug off the whole wicked, lazy bunch of tired old potentates of the Imperial provinces and their puppet masters.
I still don't know what to write about Syria today though, so I will present you with someone else's thoughts. The following post is taken from CounterFire.
NOTE: I know that I am not in complete agreement with the analysis presented below (for example, I think the old theory of imperialism has died and am more into Empire theory myself), but I think there is a lot of good information and analysis there all the same.
Sami Ramadani speaks to Samuel Grove about the dynamics of the conflict in Syria, arguing that democratic resistance to Assad's brutal regime has been eclipsed by reactionary forces, backed by Western and Gulf statesThe upheaval in Syria is an enormously difficult subject for Western outsiders to get a handle on. One of the reasons for this is the sheer number of different interests jostling for position and power, from both within and outside the country. Let us start with the regime itself. Can you give us a brief history of where the Al-Assad family came from and the direction they have taken the country since they came to power in 1970?
“Though Al-Jazeera has now become the most influential political tool of counter-revolution in the Arab world, its role in Libya and the impact of the sectarian nature of its coverage of the Bahrain uprising would have been much less lethal had it not been for the massive prestige and authority it had gained at the height of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. [...] This [has given it] a unique position to influence events and perceptions, particularly in relation to Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. [...]Although Al-Jazeera has always had a sectarian undertone at an editorial level, a marked shift in direction came when the Qatari ruling family [...] buried their longstanding conflict with the Saudi ruling family in the wake of the revolutionary tidal wave reaching Bahrain [...] The channel’s silence towards the violent suppression of the protesters in Bahrain, headquarters of the US fifth fleet, was backed up by live interviews with Sheikh Qaradhawi, a very influential Egyptian cleric and a guest of the Qatari ruling family.”