To the US Anti-War Movement: Allow yourself to be happy for the Syrian People!

Or how the anti-war movement missed the forest for the trees

I am from Sudan. I have lived in the US for 8 years. English is not my first language. So, please forgive my imperfect writing. I argue in this article that the Anti-War Movement in the US must expand their horizon beyond merely opposing the US establishment.

Is there an Anti-War Movement in the US?

As Glenn Greenwald explained, the Left vs Right view of politics is flawed. I always saw the Anti-War Movement as part of the Center-Base against the Center-Establishment. As one can not only identify the Anti-War Movement as part of the populist Base, but also as part of the broad "Centrist" parts of this base: From the leftist-leaning feminist movement Code Pink or an anti-imperialist socialist writer/journalist Ben Norton to the recently more vocal Anti-War elements of the Trump movement and voices like Colonel Douglas Macgregor. I claim, under this understanding, the word Centrist has a different meaning. It suggests a "broad" coalition, not small central elites.

One can clearly say, from this view: yes, there is an Anti-War Movement in the US. Still, it is somewhat weak and not yet mainstream in all its elements. The fact this movement exists, and that it started to spread in a Centre-based way, is quite significant, in my view.

As someone who hates the establishment elites, I follow and rely heavily on this Anti-War Movement media, such as Glenn Greenwald’s System Update or websites like the Gray Zone, for my daily news consumption. So, it is no surprise. I find journalists like Aaron Mate inspiring. He is a crucial example of how to invidually contribute to building a strong Anti-War Movement against the establishment. For example, Mate's remarkable investigative journalism about alleged chemical weapons use in Douma and the coverup by the OPCW almost single-handedly broke a wider establishment pro-intervention narrative. His, and Max Blumenthal's, latest coverage of the Oct 7 mass rape claims proves similarly effective. (I subscribe to Aaron Mate's Substack and recommend it. His show with Katie Halper, Useful Idiots, is fun too.)

What is wrong, then, with this Anti-War Movement?

I argue that, being a product of a broader struggle against the US establishment, the American Anti-War movement sees everything from a narrow anti-establishment perspective. The basic underlying assumption is: whatever the official establishment position is, we should be against it.

Such a way of looking at things might be useful when it comes to local and national politics in the US. The anti-establishment movement can easily grasp the specifics. One can, for example, be against the establishment media. At the same time, one can understand that the New York Times and Washington Post are sometimes good sources of information, if you know how to read them. The anti-establishment movement can, at both local and national levels, understand each situation's nuances through its rigorous debates and discussions, especially in the age of the internet.

On the other hand, when it comes to the complex foreign issues that the Anti-War Movement finds itself needing to deal with, the anti-establishment lens becomes too narrow, in my opinion. For example, watch the following interview Aaron Mate and Katie Halper had with someone called Kevork Almassian (minute 17:06 - 30:11):

Regardless of the fact that Aaron is taking information from this obscure figure of Kevork Almassian as if it is absolutely true. You will also find Aaron Mate perplexed regarding the complex situation of that unfortunate part of the world: why many people who are against what Israel is doing in Gaza are at the same time celebrating the defeat of the Assad regime, although the Assad regime is one of the main opposing forces to Israel?

Whatever is happening in Syria, it is for sure not simple:

I belong to a similar, yet not exactly, situation.

Most of the region, including Syria, was originally ruled as part of the Ottoman Empire (from 1516-1918) - pay attention to the fact that, during the greatest part of this period, the US was establishing its democratic institutions and cultures - I am not an expert in Syrian history, but it is safe to say that this period of Ottoman rule was sectarian and regionally based, with no clear national modernist identity. Like most of the colonised world, Syria as a unified country or nation-state came to exist through the colonial project, mainly by the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

This brief history is important to understand the anti-democratic, violent, paranoiac, conspiratorial, and sometimes inhuman nature of the post-colonial Arab Nationalist regimes: neither the Ottoman period nor the colonial era provided, as one can expect, a good foundation for nation building, so after independence the process of assimilating different types of people into one nation-state was chaotic and plagued with political violence. Political violence in Syria in the 1940s to 1960s is a story like many other post-colonial ex-Ottoman states like Iraq and Egypt. Added to this history came the Cold War: some of the Arab Nationalist regimes, in their frantic and often simplistic and naive pursuit of “nationalism," found a good ally in the Soviet Union; the superpower, like the US at that time, did not find it immoral to support newly founded Arab Nationalist regimes, even if they were established through violent coups. Here you find yourself in the contradicting situation that perplexed Aaron Mate: an anti-imperialist (anti-US and Israel) regime that is deeply violent (believes in and practices the violent creation of a nation) and absolutely hated by its own people.

I am intimately familiar with how the Syrian people felt about the Assad Regime; It seems Aaron and his guest feel that Al Jazeera has uncanny propaganda powers on the people in the Middle East (the reality is that, like the American people in regards to CNN or MSNBC, Arabs watch establishment media like Al Jazeera critically and form their beliefs about politics independently); the truth on the other side is that, for quite a long time (since I was a child, I am 34 years old now), the Arab people in places like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, etc., had a deep hatred for the post-colonial dictatorial regimes. And not just because of Al Jazeera propaganda.

These regimes used state power to daily humiliate the people. People in the West take it for granted that rights like elections, rule of law, freedom of speech, due diligence and the right to legal defense etc. exist, and sometimes it is hard for them to imagine what the lack of these rights, for an extended period of time, does to people. It is important to note that the Arab dictatorship is different from autocratic but socially structured regimes like Singapore or China. The Arab regimes are often a very elitist, narrow ruling class. They use brutal political violence to terrorize their population. I don't find the fact that the Syrian people hate the Assad regime even more than Israel surprising at all. I grew up learning to hate, these mediocre, untalented, violent rulers, who destroyed our communities and kept us poor and marginalized, to hate them every day of my life.

Does that mean the US establishment is trying to honestly help the Syrian people and deliver the long-promised democracy? No.

Does that mean every anti-Assad soldier in Syria is a good person? No.

Does that mean the worry about terrorist organisations' influence in post-Assad Syria is not warranted? No.

I am not trying to advocate for a "naive" anti-war movement. What I am trying to ask is the following question: What is the proposed course of action that this movement is offering to people like the Syrian population?

It is not enough, when dealing with a population under a brutal, inhuman, terrorist regime like Assad’s, to point out that this or that faction is created by the CIA or is part of Al-Qaeda. If you want to be serious in offering an American alternative to the current US foreign policy towards the Middle East, you should start offering a more holistic vision. The Anti-War Movement should, at the same time, have a pro-democracy side.

… And a good place to start is to talk to Syrians (first talk to them, then maybe try to collaborate the Anti-War efforts with them etc). I read somewhere that there are almost 200,000 Syrians in the US; it is suspicious how absent they are from the Syrian War discussions. It is easy, for a post-colonially oriented mind like me, to understand how a western activist will completely disregard whole populations from his or her analysis or understanding; I would still feel a bit disappointed if that person is an anti-imperialist, enlightened if we may say, moral person.

Assad was defeated primarily by his own people. Regardless of all the complexities of the situation, it is truly a moment to celebrate. And I know..