One of the commonest untruths used to support arguments by those supposed to be on the Left against the Syrian revolution is that Turkey has been supporting Jabhat al-Nusra, an extreme Islamist group with ties to al-Qaida, though not as extreme as the Assad-collaborating ISIS, which crucified some people recently and is now rampaging across Iraq. We get this from the loony end like Seymour Hersh, who claims Turkey got al-Nusra to launch the chemical weapons attack in Damascus in August, but also from those who are meant to be a bit better like Owen Jones. When I saw Eamonn McCann repeat this in his piece defaming the opposition as possible sarin users, it was obvious that he had swallowed this titbit without any attempt to verify it. It is sad to see Ireland's greatest Trotskyist turn into a gullible fool.
Turkey had a military government for years, that ruthlessly defended a secular nationalism particularly against Islamists, Communists and Kurds.
The military is still there, these days co-operating with an extremely moderate Islamist government. The idea that they would choose al-Nusra as a proxy in Syria is ludicrous, when there are so many brigades with a more amenable way of thinking. In fact al-Nusra thrived in Northern Syria was the US was effective in stopping any flow of heavy weapons to the Free Syrian Army or to spontaneously formed rebel brigades.
Who does fund al-Nusra? I can't precisely say. I understand that it is wealthy donors in the Gulf. What I am fairly sure is that if Turkey was supporting them, some evidence would come out of weapons shipments and the like - the Americans would be the first to blow the whistle - as there is nothing, I think this can be taken to be as much of a fantasy creation as the WMDs in Iraq.
So here is the statement of the Turkish foreign minister, which I think can be taken at face value.
“Jabhat al-Nusra is the result of the quagmire there. Continually referring to it is having the effect of making it loom large. While they were a controllable group comprising 500-600 people initially, today they number 5,000-6,000. In other words, declaring them a terrorist organization has resulted in more harm than good. Otherwise, we see Jabhat al-Nusra the way we see al-Qaeda.”
A false reading of "controllable" would see it as an admission that Turkey is controlling al-Nusra. But I think he's saying that Syria is a mess, and that al-Nusra wasn't the most serious problem. Turkey has the Syrian army to worry about, and any penetration into Turkey of Assad's forces to worry about, and concentrating on weeding out a force that is fighting against Assad was not a priority.
If Turkey had really been supporting al-Nusra, and getting them to launch chemical attacks, we'd get to hear about that now that turkey is calling them terrorists. But we won't.
There are a number of distortions in this article I thought I might go through individually.
"The Erdogan government has no choice at this point but to also accept that as far as the United States and Europe are concerned, the emphasis in Syria has shifted from toppling Assad to combating the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist groups in that country."
There never was an emphasis on toppling Assad.
"Looked at in retrospect, these groups have posed the most important obstacle to Ankara’s policy of pushing for international military action against Assad. They have also prevented the Syrian opposition from being armed with the necessary weapons to fight the Syrian army."
The last sentence is true, and re-states the implausibility of al-Nusra as a Turkish front. It doesn't help that JAN has grown, especially when lifting the obstacles the West has placed on the rebels getting weapons has impeded the fight back against the massively armed régime. For a long time more secular revolutionaries took the view that with the fight against Assad a life-and-death one, and no support coming from anywhere in the world, stopping the growth of extreme Islamism was too much for them. When the Islamists were getting arms denied to more secular groups and with Assad armed to the teeth, there wasn't any option. ISIS has shown itself to be no part of the revolution at all, and so real rebel groups have been forced to attack it, far more succesfully than the Iraqi army in the last couple of days, which tells you who the real bulwark against al-Qaida is. JAN is a more complicated question, along with that of the Islamic Front, leaders of which are responsible for kidnapping the activists, the Douma 4* and the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Some revolutionaries think they are reactionary forces who are as equally unwelcome in Syria, which is a position that I think lacks nuance. In the Spanish Civil war the Russian secret police had its own murderous spree on the Republican side, but that didn't make sense to demand that the Soviet Union stop supplying arms. The shift in policy against JAN will only work if it is accompanied by real support to the rebels in Syria.
"The United States and some Western countries, like France, were not averse at first to arming the Syrian opposition with sophisticated weapons. These countries even appeared willing to start a bombing campaign against Assad’s forces after chemical weapons were used in that country."
Two untruths. A lot of people fell for the second one.
"They pulled back, however, not only because it could not be established conclusively who used the chemical weapons, but also because of the fear that jihadist groups could fill the political vacuum left by the Assad regime if it were to be ousted by a military intervention."
The first is rubbish, we know when and where Assad's forces used their rockets, and when Assad falls, we will hear in detail from those who did it. The second does reflect the fears of Western policy analysts, the truth is that the idea that this was a Sunni sectarian rebellion was always propaganda by the government, and that it is the lack of support for secular opposition forces that let the jihadis thrive.
"The idea of providing the Syrian opposition with heavy and sophisticated weapons was also overridden by fears that these could fall into the hands of radicals and be turned against the West in the future."
It was untrue, and there were such weapons in the hands of America's enemies already, but it became a convenient excuse for doing nothing about the mass chemical attack.
"The main attack of this sort, which concentrated Turkish minds and turned the public even more against the government’s Syria policy, was the Reyhanli twin car bombing on May 11, 2013, which left at least 50 dead. Although the government was quick to blame Assad loyalists, the opposition in Turkey still insists that it was jihadist groups that carried out the attack."
I think it was Assad loyalists**. Why would jihadists groups do it?
"Meanwhile, the so-called “Sunni Axis” against Syria, comprising Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, fell apart without having influenced the course of events against Assad."
There never was a Sunni axis. When it melts into air so easily, it never was a bloc in the first place. It is Assad who created the sectarian conflict, torturing prisoners until they blasphemed against their Sunni beliefs, getting brigades of Iranians into the country to commit sectarian massacres under cover of claiming to protect Shi'ite shrines. The countries of the region have helped the Syrian revolution sparingly and in ill-coordinated fashion. If they hadn't been monarchies liberal and reactionary or moderately Islamist capitalists they might have been more help, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
"Turkey’s banning of Jabhat al-Nusra is vindication, not just for Iran but also for Russia, of course. Both countries, which support the Assad regime, have been arguing from the start that Syria is under threat from radical terrorist groups that are being aided by outside powers."
Assad's forces have started dropping a second barrel bomb thirty minutes after a first, in order to kill survivors. That's terrorism, and the radical groups are strengthened by Assad's destruction and the weakness of a real alternative, things will get worse while he stays, unimaginable as that is.
"All that is left for Turkey to do at this state is therefore to cooperate with the United States and other allies against these groups, and to “ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists,” to use Obama’s words. There is, however, no guarantee that this will expedite Assad's demise, which Erdogan clearly dreams of."
Supplying anti-aircraft weapons will stop low-tech attacks from helicopters. I don't think Syrians need a guarantee to go for that.
*[http://www.syriauntold.com/en/story/2014/05/27/9592]
**[http://arabsaga.blogspot.ae/…/turkish-bombings-linked-to-ba…]
No comments:
Post a Comment