tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post2227622114399455576..comments2023-10-24T02:31:18.905-07:00Comments on insufficient respect: False Autopsies in SyriaMichael Neumannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-89325341649804179032020-05-24T08:15:32.317-07:002020-05-24T08:15:32.317-07:00Perhaps that's consistent with my view. Disun...Perhaps that's consistent with my view. Disunity was inevitable given that, unlike many historical revolts (e.g. French Revolution), the unrest emerged from multiple geographic, ethnic and political locations. It could not succeed without the Islamists, in some areas the major force. But unification from these disparate origins would happen only if some group or authority provided enough resources to make unity attractive: rebels consistently gravitated to those who could provide that. (Note, e.g., the many who joined Nusra simply because of their salaries and arms.)<br />Only Turkey could really provide that, because the Gulf States couldn't supply what was essential: direct air support. (MANPADS would never have done the trick.) When Turkey was sidelined, failure became unavoidable. Yet Turkey, unlike the West, would also have been sufficiently inclusive of Islamists for real unity to be a live option.Michael Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-28465181001339864692020-05-24T07:50:03.705-07:002020-05-24T07:50:03.705-07:00Michael, My own take on the opposition failure is ...Michael, My own take on the opposition failure is that the principal reason for its failure was the lack of unity. Certainly, the rapid radicalization of the Islamist currents alienated Western support, but the lack of unity was crippling. There were over 1,500 militias by 2012, according to the CIA. With such fragmentation, no accountable leadership existed. External powers could depend on no one. The emergence of Nusra and ISIS spooked them.<br /><br />No one knew who or what the opposition was or stood for other than the destruction of the Assad regime, as you argue. Had the opposition been able to coalesce around a knowable leadership, the West & Gulf states would very likely have pushed it to victory. Most of the world was opposed to Assad and his regime. Obama, Biden and others were quick to conclude that the Syrian opposition could not be trusted with anti-air missiles. This lack of trust doomed the Syrian opposition. But not only foreign supporters were skeptical, many Syrians, who deeply disliked the Assad regime, turned away from the opposition. Many feared something worse. Others simply feared the crumbling of central authority. Joshua Landishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00535704115505805784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-30468238390044547932020-03-18T08:54:07.947-07:002020-03-18T08:54:07.947-07:00Michael - I think this is a useful attempt to move...Michael - I think this is a useful attempt to move away from unthoughtful demonisation of "Islamist" political currents and unhelpful Islamist/secular binaries. It is certainly the case that the relationship between Islamist forces and Liberal secularists has dogged the political history of Arab states - the recent history of Egypt being the most dramatic (and depressing) example, where the "liberals bear much of the responsibility for the return to military rule.<br />But Kester is right - there is a lack of clarity in your own conceptual terms which obscure the issues. <br />I think its generally established that the Sunni majority in Syria is on the whole devout and relatively conservative in their views - they very likely would want to see Islam playing some sort of role in a future political order - but of course course it already nominally does so in Syria. But that doesn't make them "Islamist. Its also not helpful to equate "islamist" with the Muslim Brotherhood. In my view Hassan Hassan's critique of the Syrian Ikhwan is valid - not because they are "Islamist" but because they are powerseeking factionalists who did much to disrupt the formation of the Syrian political opposition and discredited it among revolutionary activists.<br />I also think we have to draw a clear line between Islam-inspired currents that are anti-democratic and sectarian in their outlook (which unfortunately includes the main armed groups in Syria today) and those which have (or could be persuaded to accept) an inclusive and democratc framework for Syria's future. its not just that replacing secular tyrants with theocratic ones is likely to be a hollow victory, but that no one will be able to forge the sort of social and political alliances necessary to undermine a regime like Assad's without a clear democratic vision.The Magpie's Nesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03540906098106833025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-2404370364532945672020-02-26T06:22:07.305-08:002020-02-26T06:22:07.305-08:00If you're referring to the last sentence: in m...If you're referring to the last sentence: in my opinion, liberals have no choice but to accept even an Islamist future that many Islamists would deplore. Sure, there are many forms of political Islam that liberals might find congenial. But to hold out for that sort of Islamist rule spells disaster. Worth noting that all the most extensive massacres in recent MENA history - Lebanon 1975, Algeria in the 1990s, Syria today - have been at the hands of secularists. The problem isn't to give some form of political Islam a good name, but to convince liberals that their image of political Islam really doesn't matter. What matters is to remove secularist tyrants. Only after that is some form of opposition to Islamist rule, of any sort, an option.Michael Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-76772723045521145142020-02-26T04:36:33.497-08:002020-02-26T04:36:33.497-08:00Don't you need to define 'Islamist' fi...Don't you need to define 'Islamist' first? <br /><br />It can be an inclusive definition which isn't just designed to demonise and dehumanise. Kesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10754208253205834736noreply@blogger.com