'Hunter Gray' hunterbadbear@hunterbear.org [marxist]
2014-10-22 08:38:25 UTC
-----Original Message-----
From: David McReynolds [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:00 PM
To: 'Landy & Harrison-Campaign for Peace & Democracy', 'Socialist Party Members',
'Committees of Correspondence', ***@lists.riseup.net,
***@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ISIS, Kobane, and the Future of the Middle East
I appreciate this statement and am circulating it, but there are some problems of political reality
that it doesn't address. I'm sending this to my Edgeleft list and to the Middle East list.
First, one of the ironies of the Kobani situation is that the Kurds are sharply divided - the Kurds
in Iraq had no interest in the defense of Kobani. Turkey certainly didn't, sitting right across the border with
its tanks and guns pointed at Kobani but remaining silent. The Turkish position has been that the
US and its allies must destroy the Assad regime as well as ISIS.
The US is in a tricky position, having decided to arm and train the "moderate opposition" to
Assad in the hopes they will deal with ISIS. But the battles between the armed rebels
and the Syrian government forces are bitter, nasty, and intense. There is really no such
thing as a "moderate" military force. The Syrian rebels, who are deeply divided amongst
themselves, are very unlikely to make ISIS their primary target. They are almost certain to
continue to make the government of Syria their primary target.
And the reality of the Kurds in Kobani is that they are led by forces on the US terrorist
list, and have had good relations with the Syrian government. Their primary enemy is ISIS,
not Assad.
One of my contacts in Israel noted in a post to me that pacifists have to realize that the
air strikes by the US, which we oppose, have helped turn the tide. I don't have an easy
way out of this dilemma - it is a fact that if ISIS is defeated in Kobani, it will be a tribute
not only to the courage and tenacity of the Kurds there, but also to US military action.
And we are in a situation where I think that bad as the Assad government is, ISIS
is the greater problem. If there is to be a solution to the tragedy of Syria it will certainly
involve the isolation of ISIS, both in Syria and in Iraq. But it will also involve some kind
of negotiations with the Syrian government, which has the support of both Russia and Iran,
while the opponents of the Syrian government include not only the moderate rebels in
Syria, but also Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey - hardly a democratic coalition, but
that is the coalition the US has put together.
The world needs peace in Syria - the Syrians are desperate for it. Russia can play
a role, as it did in helping Syria get ride of chemical weapons. The US needs to
involve both Iran and Russia in negotiations, at least as much as we need to work with
Saudi Arabia.
It is in this sense that I find the statement by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy
missing some points. It has, with good reason, opposed the Syrian government, but
I think does not see that peace in Syria will need to involve that government as well as
the rebels.
It is a complex situation - I have no easy answers and perhaps no answers at all.
But I do think there are questions that need to be asked.
David McReynolds
From: David McReynolds [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:00 PM
To: 'Landy & Harrison-Campaign for Peace & Democracy', 'Socialist Party Members',
'Committees of Correspondence', ***@lists.riseup.net,
***@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ISIS, Kobane, and the Future of the Middle East
I appreciate this statement and am circulating it, but there are some problems of political reality
that it doesn't address. I'm sending this to my Edgeleft list and to the Middle East list.
First, one of the ironies of the Kobani situation is that the Kurds are sharply divided - the Kurds
in Iraq had no interest in the defense of Kobani. Turkey certainly didn't, sitting right across the border with
its tanks and guns pointed at Kobani but remaining silent. The Turkish position has been that the
US and its allies must destroy the Assad regime as well as ISIS.
The US is in a tricky position, having decided to arm and train the "moderate opposition" to
Assad in the hopes they will deal with ISIS. But the battles between the armed rebels
and the Syrian government forces are bitter, nasty, and intense. There is really no such
thing as a "moderate" military force. The Syrian rebels, who are deeply divided amongst
themselves, are very unlikely to make ISIS their primary target. They are almost certain to
continue to make the government of Syria their primary target.
And the reality of the Kurds in Kobani is that they are led by forces on the US terrorist
list, and have had good relations with the Syrian government. Their primary enemy is ISIS,
not Assad.
One of my contacts in Israel noted in a post to me that pacifists have to realize that the
air strikes by the US, which we oppose, have helped turn the tide. I don't have an easy
way out of this dilemma - it is a fact that if ISIS is defeated in Kobani, it will be a tribute
not only to the courage and tenacity of the Kurds there, but also to US military action.
And we are in a situation where I think that bad as the Assad government is, ISIS
is the greater problem. If there is to be a solution to the tragedy of Syria it will certainly
involve the isolation of ISIS, both in Syria and in Iraq. But it will also involve some kind
of negotiations with the Syrian government, which has the support of both Russia and Iran,
while the opponents of the Syrian government include not only the moderate rebels in
Syria, but also Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey - hardly a democratic coalition, but
that is the coalition the US has put together.
The world needs peace in Syria - the Syrians are desperate for it. Russia can play
a role, as it did in helping Syria get ride of chemical weapons. The US needs to
involve both Iran and Russia in negotiations, at least as much as we need to work with
Saudi Arabia.
It is in this sense that I find the statement by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy
missing some points. It has, with good reason, opposed the Syrian government, but
I think does not see that peace in Syria will need to involve that government as well as
the rebels.
It is a complex situation - I have no easy answers and perhaps no answers at all.
But I do think there are questions that need to be asked.
David McReynolds