Letter to a “comrade” who insists on justifying the unjustifiable
by Julien Salingue
“Comrade”,
For several weeks now, I’ve been saying to myself that I’m going to write to you, and the tragic events of Aleppo and your reaction to them — and sometimes your non-reaction — is what eventually persuaded me that the time had come to address you.
Not necessarily with the aim of convincing you; I believe that, unfortunately, it is already too late. But this way at least you would have been warned and you will not be able to claim that you didn’t know.
In the name of anti-imperialism?
The city of Aleppo has been victim of a massacre, of a real carnage, which one cannot help comparing with other martyred cities like Srebrenica, Grozny, Fallujah, as well as Warsaw and Guernica, or the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Chatila.
The direct testimonies pouring from the city, coming from “ordinary” Syrians, and not only from members of armed groups, are eloquent, a fortiori when they are accompanied by photographs or videos. Words and images that tell about the distress, the impotence, the horror.
But you, “comrade,” in these last few days have done your utmost— if this exercise can be considered as having anything to do with a virtue — to explain that we should not engage with the inhabitants of Aleppo and that there was no need to denounce the bombing of which they are victims, nor to denounce the abuses committed by the troops on the ground during the “liberation” of the city. In other words, you came to explain to us that we should not take a clear and determined position against the planed massacre perpetrated by the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad and its allies, with Russia and Iran at the forefront.
If I address you, “comrade”, it is because in the past we have shared numerous battles, especially — but not only — when it came to the struggle for the rights of the Palestinian people. Because I thought that, despite our differences, we had common principles. Indeed, I have nothing to say to the pro Putin and/or pro Assad right and far-right, who are unambiguous in their support of authoritarian regimes in the name of shared “values”, and who have never bothered to appear as wanting to build real solidarity with oppressed peoples.
But you, “comrade”, arrogate to yourself “progressive”, “anti-imperialist”, “socialist”, “communist”, and even “revolutionary” virtues. And in the name of these virtues you try to convince us that for the time being we shouldn’t take a clear stance on the side of the besieged and massacred people of Aleppo, and that tomorrow we shouldn’t take a clear stance on the side of the rest of the already besieged and soon massacred Syrian cities.
Which does not, you will admit, constitute the slightest paradox.
“The bad guys are not necessarily the ones we thought”
My understanding was that what constituted the common genetic heritage of the anti-imperialist left was to be on the side of the peoples being crushed by the imperialist states and their allies. My understanding was that in this genetic heritage that we seemed to share, we would’t compromise with international solidarity. And I had hoped that, despite your sometimes more than ambiguous positions on the Syrian tragedy, the martyrdom of Aleppo would bring you back to reason, and back home.
But no. You’re stubborn. You persist with trying to explain that one cannot take sides with the massacred population in Aleppo.
You persist with trying to explain that “things are not so simple”. You persist with trying to explain that in this “war” there is no “good guys on the one hand and bad guys on the other”, and that what we need is to keep a cool head and not give in to shortcuts.
Because it’s pretty clear, “comrade”, that you don’t give in to shorcuts. Never. You propose us a complex, very elevated and nuanced analysis, which reads somewhat like this: “No, Assad isn’t a democrat, and the countries supporting him are no good models either. But be careful: the self-proclaimed Syrian rebellion is mostly composed by forces coming from fundamentalist, even jihadist Islam, which are remote-controlled and armed by reactionary regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, even by the Western sponsors of the latter, particularly the US and France”
Conclusion: “Be careful, the bad guys are not necessarily the ones we tought”
The Syrian people, you know?
The first problem of your analysis, “comrade”, is that it “forgets” about an essential actor: the Syrian people. Indeed, you seem to “forget” that the point of departure of the “events” in Syria is not a Saudi, US, Qatari or Turkish intervention. Not even a Russian one. The point of departure of all this is that in March 2011 hundreds of thousands of Syrian men and women rose up against a dictatorial and predatory regime, like they did in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya. And if Assad and his thugs wouldn’t have decided to brutally repress the uprising, with more than 5.000 killed and tens of thousands of detentions during 2011, they too would have fallen under popular pressure.
And we are talking about 2011, year in which, remember “comrade”, you were excited about the other uprisings in the region. “The people want the fall of the regime”, do you remember? You may have even chanted that slogan in the streets of a French city. You, who are so fond of freedom, social justice and democracy. In Syria, this slogan was chanted too, along with the same economic, social and political demands as in the other countries of the region that were touched by the uprising. And Ryad, Doha, Paris or Washington had nothing to do with it. If you are so interested in the Syrian question, you must know that, in recent years, every time there has been a truce, the demonstrations resumed. That without the intervention of Iran, then Russia, the regime would have fallen under the pressure of the Syrian people, not of a few thousand “foreign fighters” — who arrived, by the way, long after the regime killed thousands of unarmed Syrians and released tens or even hundreds of “jihadists” from prison. Have you ever wondered why? — And, yes, the roots of the Syrian “crisis” are indeed the popular protest against a clan and its response: to destroy everything rather than lose its power and perks.
Unless you want to imply that, from the beginning, Syrians were “manipulated” by Western countries, that all this is basically a story about hydrocarbons, and that the Syrian uprising was guided by remote control from outside by powers that need simply to push a button in order for whole populations to rise. But I dare not even think so: you are not one of those who believe that Arabs are such fools that they are unable to think for themselves and that, when they begin to mobilize and claim “social justice”, even if they risk losing their lives, it is necessarily because they have been manipulated by Westerners who think only of “hydrocarbons”.
Right, “comrade”?
Rocket launcher against aviation
The second problem with your analysis, “comrade”, is that you put, on one side the “support” provided by Russia and Iran to Assad and, on the other, the “support” brought by the United States, France, Turkey and the Gulf monarchies to the Syrian opposition forces, at the same level. You try to make us believe that an overwhelming military superiority of the Assad regime and its allies wouldn’t exist, and that, after all, barely altering a formula in vogue in a country bordering Syria, “Assad has the right to defend himself”.
But do you really dare to compare, on the one hand, the thousands of Iranian “military advisers” and armament, the thousands of Hezbollah fighters and, above all, the Russian air force (as well as the vehicles and heavy weapons supplied by Russia, the 2nd largest military power in the world) supporting a state and a regular army, and, on the other hand, small arms, rocket and antiquated missile launchers supplied or financed by the Gulf monarchies or Turkey and small arms, rocket launchers, a few anti-tank weapons and communications systems and night vision devices supplied, drop by drop, by the United States and France?
Did you know that what the Syrian opposition forces have been asking for since the beginning are anti-aircraft missiles, in order to defend themselves against Putin’s and Assad’s planes of death, and that it is the United States that have systematically vetoed the delivery of such weapons? Did you know that at the beginning of 2014, after the failure of the “Geneva 2” conference, the Saudis for the first time suggested delivering missile launchers to the Syrian opposition forces, and that the United States objected to it, and that they have not changed that position since then? The United States, which did not and does not want that these weapons fall “into the wrong hands”, and, above all, does not whish for the Syrian state apparatus to be destroyed because they have, contrary to others, drawn the balance sheets of their brilliant intervention in Iraq.
Ask yourself the following question: where are the terrible weapons of the opposition? Do you seriously think that Assad could have bombed entire neighborhoods from helicopters flying low if Syrian opponents had disposed of real armament?
And do you remember that last May the Russian embassy in Great Britain — which must, however, be well informed and which, if it had evidence of the overarming of Assad’s opponents would make it public — was limited to tweeting images extracted from a video game (!) to “prove” that the Syrian opposition forces were receiving chemical weapons?
So, please, let’s be serious!
Who is distroying Syria?
The third problem with your analysis, “comrade”, is that you simply forget a fundamental element: the facts. Because you will always be able to tell me that what I have just written is impossible to prove, even if it is the main actors of this “non-support” and the “non-supported” who have testified to it and continue to do so. Because, after all, they are perhaps arrant liars.
But if you absolutely want proof, just open your eyes and ask yourself this simple question: how could Syria have been destroyed? When you comment on the images of devastated cities saying that there is “violence on both sides,” you hide a detail: who possesses the weapons necessary to cause a destruction of such magnitude?
In other words: who can carry out bombings? Where are the planes of the Syrian opposition forces? Where are their tanks? Hidden underground, like the super-powerful army of Saddam Hussein that threatened the whole world? How many planes have been destroyed by the Syrian opposition forces? Are you aware that in 2013, when they knocked down two helicopters, it was such a rare event that they celebrated it with great pomp and spread images of their “feat” everywhere? Two helicopters! At that time, I couldn’t stop thinking of the people of Gaza celebrating the accidental fall of an Israeli drone…
The “coalition” led by the United States intervenes militarily, you object. But can you give me a list of the bombings carried out by this coalition against the armed forces of the Assad regime or against the armed forces that support it? No, do not waste your time searching, because I inform myself daily from reliable sources: according to the Damascus regime and the media that relay its announcements, sources that can hardly be suspected of wanting to conceal this type of bombing, it has happened …twice. The first time was in December 2015 (4 dead), in the Deir ez-Zor region, the “coalition” denied having targeted the Syrian army and claimed that it had bombed Daech. The second time in September 2016 (between 50 and 80 deaths according to the sources), near the airport of Deir ez-Zor, this time the “coalition” recognized having bombarded the positions of the regime and presented official apologies to Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.
In summary, and unless I’m somewhere mistaken (no one is infallible), the “coalition”, which claims about 5,000 “strikes” on Syria, has twice targeted the Assad regime since the beginning of its bombing campaign in 2014, and in one of those cases it has “apologized” for it. Therefore, write down in your notepad: “The real military operations carried out by the “coalition” have targeted Daech and other “jihadist” groups, not Assad and his allies”.
Finally, some “preventive” remarks
There are many other problems with your analysis, “comrade”, I do not wish to take up any more of your time. Indeed, having often had the opportunity to discuss these “problems of analysis” with you personally, by confronting your “geopolitics” and your “anti-imperialism” with the facts and the actual chronology of events, I know that you really don’t like that thing: the facts. They are truly too stubborn.
Because it is much easier to provoke or to stir up trouble via posts/comments on Facebook or discussion forums than taking the time to have a somewhat precise and reasoned exchange.
So in case you are still tempted to give in to shortcuts and want to play this little game, I want to present to you a few “preventive” remarks:
- Before telling me that I defend the same positions as the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bernard-Henri Lévy or some other “cumbersome companions”, remember that, if we reason in this way, you defend on your side the same positions as Russia, Iran, Marshal Sissi, François Fillon or Marine Le Pen, and ask yourself if that is an argument.
- Before telling me that since 2011 Israel has bombed positions of the Assad regime fifteen times, and that those who are against Assad are therefore with Israel, remember that last June Putin declared, at the end of a meeting with Netanyahu, with whom he had just signed several trade agreements, the following: “We have evoked the need for joint efforts in the fight against international terrorism. In this regard, we are allies. Both countries have significant experience in matters of fight against extremism. We will therefore strengthen our contacts with our Israeli partners in this area”. And ask yourself if that is an argument.
- Before telling me that the Syrian rebellion appealed to the Western countries in order to receive weapons and to benefit from substantial military support, especially air support, and that this necessarily hides something, remember that the Kurdish forces that you admire so much — and rightly so — have done exactly the same thing since they pushed Daech back in Kobane, and that they have obtained this support to the extent that they publicly thanked the United States for it, and ask yourself if that is an argument.
- Before telling me that the Syrian rebellion, even though one might at first have been sympathetic to it, is now hijacked by reactionary forces stemming from political Islam, and that some of these forces do not hesitate to attack civilians, or, a variation on the same theme, that it is really tragic to bomb civilians but that it happens because terrorists hide among them when they are not using them as human shields, remember that this is the speech of those who want to justify the campaigns of deadly bombing on Gaza, and ask yourself it that is an argument.
- Before telling me that the Syrian insurgents are “objective allies” of Daech, remember that Daech was driven out of Aleppo at the beginning of 2014 by those who are now being massacred by Assad. Then think about the concept of “objective ally”, and ask yourself if that is an argument. You can also reconsider, if you are not convinced, what I mentioned above on the real targets of the coalition bombing, and ask yourself a second time if the stroke of the “objective ally” is an argument.
- Finally, before telling me that those who denounce Assad and Putin “forget” to denounce the massacres committed by the great Western powers and their allies, keep in mind that among those who mobilize for Aleppo, we are many who also mobilize for Gaza, against military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or elsewhere, and that we do not renounce — contrary to you who chose not to be on the street last night to denounce the current butchery [December 14 in Paris] — to our political consistency, ideals and anti-imperialism. And ask yourself if that is an argument.
This is, “comrade”, what I wanted to tell you. The tone is not very pleasant, I admit, but it is not much compared to the indifference, sometimes even contempt that you display towards the martyrdom of Aleppo.
Do whatever you want with this letter, and of course you have the right to continue your gargle, your short-sighted “geopolitical” vision and your Pavlovian “anti-imperialism” while Syrians die under Putin’s and Assad’s bombs before your eyes.
We are not talking about an exercise of rhetoric on Facebook through interposed comments, but about thousands, tens of thousands of lives. We are not talking about a discrepancy between us about the appreciation of this or that event, but about your complicit silence or your miserable contortions in the face of one of the greatest tragedies of our time. We are not talking about a simple political disagreement, but about a real rupture.
I don’t know when we will talk next time, “comrade”. But what I know is that if you persist, and, unfortunately, I think that is what you are going to do, there will not even be quotation marks, for there will be no more comrade.
I leave you with Che, who has something to say to you: “Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against anyone in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary.”
15/12/2016
PS: No, I did not put any footnotes. It is not my style not to mention references, but you will probably have understood that it is intentional. Because you are very good at doing research on the internet (and elsewhere?), you and I know very well that you will be able to find all the sources used here.
Original article: http://resisteralairdutemps.blogspot.fr/2016/12/massacres-alep-lettre-un-camarade-qui.html