Many of my friends on the Left have been at each others’ throats over the situation in Syria. Some of these folks won’t even talk to each other, let alone work together. All in all, the situation is bad.
At the same time, many activists and good hearted citizens remain on the sidelines because they see a very toxic environment of dogmatic ideology, sectarianism and binary thinking.
My hope is that we can get past these petty barriers and create an antiwar movement built on a shared set of values and principles. In order to do so, we must address several issues. This essay is a supplemental by no means an exhaustive list – just some basic reflections. I hope you find them useful.
The Failure of Identity Politics
First, there is no such thing as the “Syrian People.”
There are various groups of people who live within arbitrary lines that define the nation-state of Syria, but the people who live within those lines don’t speak with one voice, nor do they necessarily share the same values or interests. Of course, the same is true elsewhere.
For instance, there is no such thing as the “American People.” Some Americans are radical leftists. Others are libertarians. Some are Republicans and Democrats. Some Americans are members of the KKK. Others are anarchists, and so on.
The point is that societies, regardless of where they’re located, are extremely complex entities. Hence, we should always avoid easy explanations. Thus, when people say, “The Syrian people want x, y, or z,” the proper response should be, “Which Syrian people are you referring to, specifically?”
Today, people are using Syrian identities as political weapons against those who express opposing views. For example, people have said to me, “My friend is Syrian and her view about what’s happening in Syria is much different than yours.” Fair enough.
However, the problem with this approach to understanding and responding to issues around the world is that it’s not based on a set of values or principles. In other words, of course there are Syrians who want Western military aid and/or further military intervention, yet that doesn’t mean people should automatically support those wishes.
A decent percentage of Iraqis, though certainly not the majority, wanted the U.S. to maintain a robust military presence in the country. Does that mean activists in the U.S. should go along with those wishes just because Iraqis expressed them? Of course not.
In the past, I’ve debated Iraqis who supported the U.S. invasion and occupation. I listened to their stories and opinions. I was respectful. That being said, did their stories change my mind about the war or the role of the U.S. military? Not at all. I always knew the situation in Iraq was extremely complex.
But I also knew that the first step in deescalating the violence was for the U.S. to immediately withdraw its forces. Likewise, the best way to deescalate the violence in Syria is to immediately stop expanding state sanctioned terrorism and violence. Bombs won’t solve the problems bombs create.
Anecdotal accounts are important, but they are also insufficient. I’ve met plenty of Vietnamese immigrants and refugees who supported the war in Vietnam. Does that mean the war in Vietnam was just? You get the point.
As antiwar veterans, we’d constantly remind the media and civilians that we were veterans because it legitimized our antiwar positions. We promoted the idea that our voices mattered more than those who didn’t go to the war. The problem with this approach is that for every veteran who spoke out against the war, there were two or three who would speak in support of the war.
For every Syrian who supports Assad, we can find one who vehemently opposes him. At some point, people have to formulate their own opinions, and base their judgements on a wide range of knowledge, not just anecdotal stories from Syrian people, for instance.
Political movements, organizations, programs, and so on, cannot be based on identities or personal stories – they must be based on principles, values, facts and history.
Avoiding Sectarianism and Ideological Dogmatism
Back in 2013, I routinely encountered leftwing activists who would lose their minds the moment I mentioned the fact that Assad and Putin were authoritarian agents and certainly no friends of the Left.
I’d regularly be forced to explain that my personal and political contempt for Putin and Assad didn’t mean that I was advocating for the West to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations, let alone help overthrow governments.
In 2013, there were several protests in Chicago urging Obama and U.S. Congress not to bomb Syria. Unbeknown to me, the group holding the event was comprised of Assad loyalists, Maoists and Stalinists. Needless to say, their organizations and groups haven’t grown much since then, but they hold a steady and vocal presence.
So, here we are, opposing U.S. militarism and imperialism, and we have people holding up pictures of Assad and chanting his name. I’ve experienced some sectarian absurdity over the years, but nothing on that level. Throughout the event, people praised Assad and denounced the protesters in Syria as “C.I.A. agents” and “traitors.”
I asked a few folks what they thought about Assad’s many brutalities and crimes and they either looked at me like I was nuts, or told me, “None of those things are true. That’s all U.S. propaganda.”
On the flip-side, I’ve received emails from people who accused me of not supporting today’s equivalent of the Spanish Republicans. Obviously, the comparison is completely ridiculous (some of the most ruthless and barbaric ele
Without question, ideology is powerful. Ideology conveniently ignores facts and reality and thrives in an environment of ignorance and simplicity. Our culture is a breeding ground for this sort of non-thought. If ideology is driving your understanding of what’s happening in Syria, you’re likely missing important lessons.
What Can be Done?
Today, people, including many I respect, are asking, “Vince, why haven’t you called for action in Aleppo?”
My question is the same as it’s always been: What, exactly, do leftists want to do in Syria? Do they want a “No-Fly Zone?” If so, do they understand that such an action is considered an Act of War? Are people willing to deal with those consequences?
Do leftwing activists want the U.S. to increase its military presence in Syria? Do they want the U.S. to keep arming so-called “rebel forces?” Are leftists actually calling for further military intervention in Syria? Am I processing this correctly?
Already, over 12 nations have bombed Syria, with horrific results. Are we asking for more bombs, but from different planes? What principles are activists operating under?
The U.S. military is not a nation-building force, a jobs program, or a humanitarian entity, though it’s often sold as one. The U.S. military is good at one thing, and one thing only: killing. That’s what militaries do – they kill and destroy and maim and torture. They always have, and they always will.
The U.S. military is incapable of “saving people.” The U.S. military kills people. Yet, I keep getting emails from people saying, “The U.S. has to do something! We have the power to do something!”
Institutions and Internationalism
The Left should support governments when those governments act as representatives of the people, not corporations and banks. And even when those leftwing governments, say in the case of Cuba or Venezuela, are doing good things for the people, they should still be critiqued and constantly improved.
Here, again, the Left lacks nuance. People seek dichotomous answers: “Is the revolution in Venezuela a failure or a success?” Or, for instance, “Was Fidel good or bad?”
Such simplistic and silly thinking must be challenged if we hope to build successful movements. Plus, we want to develop leaders and activists who can think independently and critically. None of those things are possible without first challenging our comrades to avoid easy answers and binary thinking.
In the meantime, we shouldn’t be rooting for the Russian government, or the French government, or any government for that matter. The state apparatus, while more democratic than corporations, remains a fundamental problem. Democratizing our current government structures is an important task.
But we should also talk about and hopefully create alternatives to the existing state model. And surely we shouldn’t root for one nation-state over another nation-state. That’s not our battlefield. Engaging in politics on that level is playing the game on their turf, with their rules. It’s a losing battle.
Remember, working class and poor people in the U.S. have more in common with their counterparts in Russia than they do with U.S. government officials and the same is true on the Russian end.
That’s the point of radical activism: to always challenge concentrated power – corporate, military, state, media, religious or otherwise. That’s also the point of art and creativity.
We’re stuck in this position of constantly trying to repair existing institutions and because of this great challenge, we often neglect the more important tasks of building new institutions and ways of organizing society.
Finding Common Ground
Let the sectarians cut each other down and waste time. The situation in Syria, and elsewhere, is far too serious to play games. Those of us who are interested in building an antiwar movement that’s capable of stopping and dismantling the U.S. Empire must develop a series of values and principles we can roughly agree on and move forward with building new institutions.
I think people like Phyllis Bennis and others are reasonable, thoughtful and proactive in their approaches to the situation in Syria.
If activists in the U.S. are truly interested in stopping the violence in Syria, they must apply pressure where they have the most influence. Again, this is within the U.S. government. Let’s build on existing suggestions, learn valuable lessons from the previous fifteen years of the War on Terror, and start the long and difficult process of building an antiwar movement capable of stopping the next Syria.
Vincent Emanuele is a writer and activist. He can be reached at [email protected]
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
3 Comments
Paul, how is it supposedly a ‘conspiratorial meme’ to say what Tom just did that…. ‘ As it now stands, the United Staes of America has fully normalized killing, destroying, maiming and torturing as the means to grow and maintain neoliberal global (and domestic) capitalism?’
Personally I think he nails it perfectly and that it is actually you, whose preposterous posturing supposedly from ‘a left perspective’, coincides exactly with White House war mongering like in today’s speech by US government CIC, Obomber the Drone Man.
“The U.S. military is good at one thing, and one thing only: killing. That’s what militaries do – they kill and destroy and maim and torture. They always have, and they always will.”
Exactly. Thanks to Vincent Emanuele for stating this as clearly as it can possibly be stated.
With slight variations, this is also true of the rest of the National Security State apparatus, such as the CIA, NSA, FBI,etc. It’s also becoming increasingly true within our militarized domestic police forces.
As it now stands, the United Staes of America has fully normalized killing, destroying, maiming and torturing as the means to grow and maintain neoliberal global (and domestic) capitalism.
Tom,
I don’t think you understood Vincent’s message at all.
You comment was almost entirely a string of simplistic social-media-programmed conspiratorial memes that fails to recognize that the are other, arguably worse, vile state actors, from a left perspective than just the United States! Assad’s Syria is one of them,. and Putin’s Russia – or more ominously, the coming Trump/Putin plutocratic axis is another.