Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

August 30, 2013

An open letter on Syria to Western narcissists

Filed under: Syria — louisproyect @ 2:10 am

(I very rarely crosspost but this is worth it. This blog should be bookmarked.)


On the eve of what seem to be ineluctable strikes on Syria, I’ve been struggling with what my position on Syria should be. Before I get to that though, I should say that while I’m not Syrian, I too have some skin in the game, as it were. On our way to donate blood for a friend’s mother’s surgery last month, my wife got a call from a friend telling us to avoid the neighborhood of Bir al-Abed in Beirut’s southern suburbs, since there had just been a large explosion there. At Bahman Hospital, my wife and baby daughter and I saw ambulances speeding toward us carrying those who had just been wounded. And a few days after I’d left for southern Turkey to conduct interviews with Syrians who had fled the war in their homes, I found out that a car bomb had just gone off a few blocks from my mother in law’s home in the “Hezbollah stronghold” of Rweiss. It kills me that my daughter has heard the sound of a car bomb before her first birthday.

Extended family from Yarmouk, the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, have been displaced and are forced to seek refuge yet again in Lebanon, a country that doesn’t want them. And even now, we’re making plans for what might happen if the impending strikes on Syria fuel an escalation in Lebanon, where living in the southern suburbs can get you killed if there’s a war with Israel. And yet all of this pales in comparison to what my Syrian friends continue to go through on a daily basis.

All that to say that the current conflict in Syria isn’t just of academic interest to me; it’s personal as well. This is partially why I have so little patience for some of the rhetoric I’ve been seeing from Western leftist circles, where this conflict seems like nothing more than a rhetorical bludgeon for scoring ideological points. This has been illustrated by the passing around of an article by Robert Fisk, who asks, “Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?” This lazy and facile opinion piece assures us that if the US attacks Syria, then “the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.” It is the flip side of the rhetoric that was so evident in the run-up to war in Iraq that equated any opposition to an idiotic war with support for Saddam Hussein. Well, guess what? There are lots of perfectly fine opinions that might put you on the same side as al-Qa’ida. Just to name one: if you’re against drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, as I am, then you’re also “on the same side as al-Qa’ida” according to this logic.

This is the caricature of knee-jerk leftism, where everything is always and everywhere about the United States. The narcissism of such a position boggles the mind. In such an ideological stance it’s not enough to be critical of Washington’s actions and motivations, as well we should be, it is necessary to parrot the talking points of Washington’s enemies. (The same phenomenon can be seen in certain Islamophobic and right-wing circles.) In this narrative, the militarization of the uprising in Syria was an American plan, not a foreseeable reaction to a brutally violent crackdown on a predominately peaceful opposition movement by the security forces of the Ba’ath regime. This conflict is, so the argument goes, a creation of Washington, and perhaps Riyadh, and the opposition is made up of only of blood-thirsty sectarian Islamists who are generally seen as but tools of malicious statecraft. Such a narrative, of course, denies the agency of Syrians, seeing them as so many lifeless puppets waiting for a tug from the imperialist American hand.

This is why discussions of Syria in such quarters tend not to be discussions of Syria. They’re actually discussions of “American capitalism” or “American imperialism” – take your pick. So let me be clear: if your opinion of Syria is actually an opinion about the United States, I have no interest in hearing it, and it’s probably safe to say that most Syrians (or at least all of the ones I know) who are faced with the business end of the regime’s ordinance don’t either. I can’t think of a single Syrian who’s willing to get killed so you can flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your local coffee shop.

Lest I be accused of shilling for American intervention here, let me set a few things straight. In addition to endangering my family’s lives, the proposed “punitive strikes” that are all but inevitable probably won’t make anything better on the ground, and may make things worse, which is why I’m against them. My opinion on American intervention in general and in this conflict in particular (about which more in a subsequent post) is that the US is not to be trusted to act in anything but what it sees as its interests, and often a woefully short-sighted understanding of those interests to boot. So no, Washington does not really care about those children killed last week in a chemical attack, just as it didn’t care about the Iranians or Kurds killed in previous ones. Consequently, my feeling is that a vicious, and viciously short-sighted, realpolitik in Washington would probably like nothing better than to let its enemies fight indefinitely in Syria, burning the country to the ground as they do so.

But please, don’t let the conflict in Syria be about opposing America. Let it be about Syria, and what might actually help Syrians – you know, the actually existing people who are dying by the tens of thousands in this brutal war. But if you can’t do that, then do me a favor, and please shut up.


  1. people in ‘murika don’t know the horror of Mass Explosives going off near by. It’ll make you PTSD in second ~ the terror and having it happen to children ~ the shame America/Capitalism distributes around the world is unbearable. Not sure what the talking points of ‘murikas enemies is are we talk’n Venuzuela or N Korea etc? i understand the factions and sects create a murky muddy field and America has no business getting involved unless it’s to vaporize Israhell.

    Comment by Darwin26 — August 30, 2013 @ 6:04 am

  2. Good stuff. The pro-Putin Poison Gas Left have now taken ownership of Assad’s war crimes whilst Cameron gets to play Pontius Pilate.

    Comment by David Ellis — August 30, 2013 @ 9:25 am

  3. A good article, to be sure, but the author does express a view the can be embraced by Westerners: no bombing of Syria.

    Comment by Kirk Hill — August 30, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

  4. “Consequently, my feeling is that a vicious, and viciously short-sighted, realpolitik in Washington would probably like nothing better than to let its enemies fight indefinitely in Syria, burning the country to the ground as they do so.”

    This has always been my view. The proposed bombing of Syria is just a means of carrying out this policy, which is why even proponents of support for the resistance should oppose it. While I dislike Camus’ romanticization of French colonialism, his stance in Algeria against the violence of the FLN and the violence of the SAS is apt in this instance. Camus recognized that the intensification of violence agains civilians was going to extend into the post-independence period, which it did to a degree beyond what he could have imagined. I asked someone over at the North Star awhile ago about how support for the resistance was going to benefit workers if it prevailed given the influence of Islamicist units financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The answer that I received was not a reassuring one. I was informed that there would another war between secular, working class Syrians and the Islamicists. I don’t find this very appealing and I doubt that many Syrians do either, especially as they are probably very aware about the consequences of such protracted conflicts in Lebanon in the 1980s and Algeria in the 1990s. I believe that there is a tendency here in the US, and among leftists especially, to characterize Syrians as either pro-regime or pro-resistance, but this is unlikely. Instead, there is probably a large number of Syrians who want the conflict to end, but, being unarmed, and without political representation domestically or internationally, are disempowered. If the war is to end, I wonder if it will happen because of work stoppages, strikes and other forms of action within areas controlled by the regime or the resistance, instead of by arms.

    Comment by Richard Estes — August 30, 2013 @ 4:37 pm

  5. I actually think Camus is not a very good example-his position was mediated by being equivical about French Colonialism in Algeria. In answer to your question I think socialists have to make a democratic wager when confronted with the reality of people rising up against dictatorships. Siding with dictatorships against whole populations (more then half of whom are now displaced whether internally or externally) because your not confident in the outcome can’t be an option for any left worth the name. Its also true that blaming people for taking up arms in the face of barrel bombs and attempting to write them all off as Islamicists on the basis of a few op-eds in the US media is precisely the kind of thing this article is about.

    Comment by John Gamey — October 13, 2015 @ 11:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: