In the House of Commons, on
Wednesday, UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, admitted that Britain
will now be openly arming the jihadists in Syria –
BBC News.
Okay, they deny its arming them, by saying its only armoured
vehicles and body armour – that they are telling us about – but
the reality is that these armoured vehicles will be used by fighters,
as platforms from which to shoot, and the body armour will similarly
be used by fighters. In any case, it is all a sham, and hypocrisy
because everyone knows that the jihadists, in Syria, have been
supplied with large numbers of weapons, including the most advanced
weapons, for at least the last year, via the feudal Gulf Monarchies, that act as proxies for Imperialism.
The irony, which again
demonstrates the ineptitude and short sightedness of western policy,
is that, on the same day, it was announced that these same jihadists
had kidnapped UN Observers On The Golan Heights. Who could be
surprised by that? Imperialism created Al Qaeda, and provided it
with masses of high-tech weaponry to fight the USSR in Afghanistan,
and it was then used to build a bastion for terrorism in that
country. Imperialism provided Saddam Hussein with chemical and other
weapons, to keep himself in power, and to fight for their interests,
and the interests of their Sunni Gulf allies, against Iran. When he
proved incapable of achieving that, they sought to remove him, and
ended up strengthening the position both of Iran, within the region,
and of Al Qaeda more generally. Then they armed, the jihadists in
Libya, and when they proved incapable of removing Gaddafi,
Imperialism itself used a massive bombing campaign, and thousands of
Special Forces troops, to do the job. Now the Islamists have control
of Libya, attack US installations, and provide weapons and a base for
the spread of jihadism into Algeria and Mali!
Einstein once said that the
definition of stupidity was to keep repeating the same experiment and
each time expect to get a different result. On that basis, the
Imperialists must be pretty stupid! Even their fan club in the AWL
seem to have got the message, as far as Syria is concerned. They
haven't admitted they got it wrong on Libya, nor admitted that they
had it wrong on Syria, until recently. You wouldn't expect anything
else from a bureaucratic centrist organisation. Instead, they simply
change course with another zig-zag, as though it was a natural
continuation of their previous positions. So, now even they admit
that it is the jihadists who make up the real opposition in Syria,
that they have committed atrocities like the regime, and that if the
regime were to fall, it is the jihadists who would come to power –
AWL Resolution On Syria.
Of course, given the
bureaucratic centrist nature of the AWL, now that Imperialism is
coming out more openly in support of the jihadists, the AWL may well
change course again. But, Imperialism itself has been forced to
confront the jihadis in Mali. The reality, is that Imperialism's
real target is Iran, which poses a strategic roadblock for it, and
Russia and China, which are Imperialism's global rivals, that stand
behind Iran. To that end, it has common cause with the Gulf
Monarchies. However, the Gulf Monarchies are tiny. The largest,
Saudi Arabia, has a population of only 25 million, half of which is
made up of foreign workers. It can make up for that, to an extent, by
its large arsenal of the latest weapons, but in order to project its
influence across the region, its chosen tool, is the global army of
jihadists.
It is that army that was
used in Libya, was and is being used in Iraq, and in Syria, and has
also been used in Russia's Muslim provinces like Chechnya.
Unfortunately, for Imperialism, for whom these are the chosen tool, for fighting its opponents, in the Middle East, they are the same
forces supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they
are the same forces responsible for carrying out terrorist attacks in
Europe and North America and elsewhere, against western targets. And
worryingly, for Imperialism, given the latest events on the Golan
Heights, they are the same forces who will ultimately, once they have
consolidated their position in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria, turn
their attention to Israel.
The good news for
Imperialism, and probably what they are counting on, is that these
jihadists, despite their reputation, appear to be pretty incompetent.
Their one major accomplishment was the attack on the World Trade
Centre. But, given their ability to recruit thousands of fighters
from across the globe, including at least hundreds from Britain,
their success rate is pretty abysmal. That can be seen by comparing
their successes in Britain, for example, with that of the Provisional
IRA in the 1970's and 80's. The reality of the struggle of the
Mujaheddin against the USSR in the 1980's, is that they would have
been lost without the advanced missiles and other weapons provided to
them by the US, via Pakistan. In Iraq, their main success was in
attacking Shia Muslims rather than Imperialist forces, and in Libya,
even with the supply of advanced weapons, and a massive bombing
campaign conducted on their behalf, they were able to make little
headway, until Imperialism and the Gulf Monarchies sent in their own
Special Forces.
That is not surprising.
Undoubtedly, the thought of fighting for an ideal, and the thought of
going to heaven, for dying in battle, leads to many of these fighters
being characterised by extreme bravery. But, the same thing leads to
them also being reckless, and for a modern fighting force,
recklessness is an extravagance that cannot be afforded. It means
not only recklessness with your own life – and many of them blow
themselves up rather than anyone else – but necessarily that of
your comrades. The same recklessness means that reverses can quickly
turn into a rout, and disorderly retreat. Faced with the French
military in Mali, the jihadis quickly retreated.
Having said that, at least
the jihadis have been able to mobilise thousands of fighters across
the globe to fight for their ideas. That is in stark contrast to the
forces of Socialism. The world labour movement, including the
representatives of supposed revolutionary socialism, have proved
themselves far less committed. Labour Movement's have grown flabby, even compared with the example of the International Brigade of the
1930's. A century of domination of the movement by the ideas of
Lassalle and the Fabians, rather than those of Marx, has led the
Labour Movement, in its foreign policy as much as in its domestic
struggle, to look to the bourgeois state to carry out the tasks of
history, rather than to walk up to the plate itself. That was something Trotsky warned against in his writings on the Balkans.
Perhaps that is why the
forces of Political Islamism have been advancing, and those of
Socialism have been in steady decline.
No comments:
Post a Comment