Home > Middle East > The anti-war left’s concerns over Syria are understandable, but ill-founded | Richard Seymour, guardian.co.uk

The anti-war left’s concerns over Syria are understandable, but ill-founded | Richard Seymour, guardian.co.uk

There may have been outside attempts to hijack the Syria uprising, but evidence suggests this is still a popular revolution

by Richard Seymour

The lesson of the miraculous Arab spring is that people in the Middle East are capable of liberating themselves sans bombardment. Who fondly remembers Firdos Square today? And how does that compare to the crowds in Tahrir Square last January?

But things are never that simple. The US found a way to intervene in the revolution in Libya by forging an alliance with former regime elements to hijack the uprising, and piloting its allies to power. The racist violence that followed, with the ethnic cleansing of black Libyans and migrants, was a terrible conclusion to a promising uprising.

Anti-war activists are justly suspicious of any trace of US involvement in the region’s uprisings. Sami Ramadani rightly pointed out that US military intervention would be disastrous for the country.

For more on this story, visit: The anti-war left’s concerns over Syria are understandable, but ill-founded | Richard Seymour | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

What is 18 + 3 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)
I footnotes