By



Barbara McKenzie

21st Century Wire

This is a sequel to Stop the War, Libya and the CPGB-ML, which considered the response of the UK’s Stop the War Coalition to NATO’s plans for regime change in Libya.

The war on Syria began in much the same way as that for Libya: romantic talk of the Arab Spring, and claims of peaceful protests ruthlessly put down by a dictator with hitherto unsuspected genocidal tendencies. However the non-NATO aligned members of the Security Council, on the one hand, and a high proportion of the general public on the other, had learned from the disastrous consequences of Russia and China’s acquiescence to a no fly zone in Libya, and thus moves to introduce one for Syria, either with or without the agreement of the Security Council, have so far failed.

The purpose of the Libyan war, i.e. the overthrowing of Gaddafi, was achieved within a few months thanks to NATO’s bombing campaign; the lack of such action on the part of NATO and its allies has enabled the Syrian to withstand the terrorist onslaught, with the Russian participation a game-changer. The protracted nature of the conflict has enabled and encouraged research into the facts of the war, with extensive evidence available on essential points, in particular:

1: Forced regime change in Syria had been planned for years by US and allies (see Wesley Clark on US intentions in 2001, the Clinton emails from 2006 and the revelation by French Minister Dumas relating to NATO plans for Syria in 2009).

2: Syrians had little taste for a revolution in Syria: no-one in Damascus turned out for a pan-Arab Day of Rage on 4 February 2011, while in those early days there were huge demonstrations in favour of the government and Bashar al Assad in Damascus and Aleppo.

3: The early protests, notably in the provincial town of Dara’a, were violent from the outset, with a stiffening of foreign terrorists imported from Libya. There is extensive eyewitness testimony to that violence, including that of Jesuit priest Father Frans der Lugt (murdered in April 2014), of soldiers called to the famous protest in Dara’a on 15 March 2011, and of civil defence workers.

4: The heavy involvement of outside governments in the war, with NATO powers such as the US, the UK and France, and Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar spending enormous sums on training, arming and funding militants and financing foreign mercenaries; the role of Turkey in the movement of prospective jihadis and trade with militant groups like ISIS cannot be overstated.

5: The barbaric nature of the extremists, native and foreign, who owned the insurrection.

In ‘The cause and instigation of the war on Syria’, which references many essential primary sources, Angelis Dania concludes:

‘The fact that the US was plotting regime-change in Syria with the use of false propaganda should colour every report on events in Syria, subjecting them to the need for review in light of the now established pre-existing US regime-change campaign.’

Many who found the idea of overthrowing the extremely oppressive regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, or at best undemocratic and unpopular government of Egypt were disillusioned when they realised that regime change was only meant to happen in countries not aligned with the West. The Stop the War leadership, however, whose remit somehow expanded from opposing war to active concern with the internal affairs of other countries, has continued to support in principle the concept of the Arab Spring.

Stop the War’s Position on Syria

Over the years Lindsay German has written a number of articles reiterating the organisation’s position, almost always with a note of apology for not supporting the war on Syria, e.g. There is no hypocrisy in our stance on Syria November 2012. Stop the War’s official position on Syria, in simple terms, is that it is opposed to external intervention. The leadership have constantly opposed all proposals by the UK government for a no-fly zone or a bombing campaign in Syria, and occasionally objected to external intervention in more general terms.

Accordingly STW protests have been organised in response to any specific proposal that would entail bombing Syria, such as when it was claimed that the Syrian government had crossed Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons in East Ghouta in August 2013. (The sarin attack was a false flag by insurgents, probably Liwa al Islam, an earlier incarnation of Jaish al Islam , see for example the WhoGhouta investigation.)

PROTEST 15 JUNE 1PM US EMBASSY GROSVENOR SQ LONDON. Stop US and UK military intervention in #Syria: http://t.co/SrSOnO2HH4 — Stop the War (@STWuk) June 13, 2013

Protests were held in December 2015 before and after the British government voted to ‘bomb ISIS’ in Syria.

After Russia joined the war, condemnation of Russia was emphasised, e.g. StWC Statement on Syria ‘We oppose all of these interventions, including the current Russian bombing of Aleppo’, and With or without UN agreement, bombing Syria by Russia or UK should be opposed.

‘Stop the War is against Russia’s attacks on Syria. We think they should stop immediately. And we would welcome less hypocrisy from those who have supported US and allied bombing over the last year.’

Stop the War’s record in terms of protest and publications shows that its primary focus is to oppose blatant warmongering such as invasion and bombing campaigns. However STW has on occasion acknowledged, condemned, and even protested against less overt interventions.

Britain secretly equipping #Syria rebels and SAS teams understood to be "slipping into Syria on missions": http://t.co/drK8CqLE — Stop the War (@STWuk) August 6, 2012

The first step to ending the war in #Syria is stopping western intervention: http://t.co/4YjALNNaro #g8 — Stop the War (@STWuk) June 18, 2013

The demonstration outside the US embassy on 15 June 2013 was directed against the ‘new’ Obama initiative to arm the rebels in Syria.

PROTEST 15 JUNE 1PM US EMBASSY GROSVENOR SQ LONDON. Stop US and UK military intervention in #Syria: http://t.co/SrSOnO2HH4 — Stop the War (@STWuk) June 13, 2013

In November 2016, STW published Abigail Watson’s article on the role of the SAS in Syria, The UK’s Not So Secret War in Syria, and a few weeks later when action in Aleppo was being mooted by the British government, German acknowledged,

‘It is foolish in the extreme to believe that really the west and its Middle East allies are not doing anything to help the opposition. That simply flies in the face of the facts including money, arms, special forces.’

While Stop the War publicly opposes intervention in Syria, the organisation claims that it does not support ‘Assad’, and is extremely defensive in the face of accusations, real or imagined, that STW might be made up of ‘Assad apologists’. Lindsay German’s Does Opposing Western Intervention in Syria Make the Anti-war Movement “Assad Apologists”? ensures distance from the Syrian government by referring to it as the ‘regime’, ‘Assad’s regime’, and ‘Bashar al Assad’s regime’ – terms favoured by the Syrian government’s opponents.

Stop the War supports a political solution in Syria. The Syrian government have a policy of offering amnesty to insurgents who want to come in from the cold, and Russia has been administering a Centre for Reconciliation to facilitate this. This is not what Stop the War has in mind; rather it looks to negotiations in Geneva which attribute the status of legitimate opposition to groups allied with ISIS and al Nusra, such as Jaish al Islam and Ahrar al Sham.

Many STW officers openly support the ‘revolution’ in Syria, and gloss over the responsibility of the UK and other external governments for the insurgency. In December 2015 Stop the War published a statement drafted by John Rees, setting out the organisation’s official position on Syria. Once again, the statement starts out on the defensive.

For avoidance of doubt: the positions of Stop the War Coalition

The Stop the War Coalition is under unprecedented attack because of its opposition to the bombing of Syria and because attacks on it are perceived to weaken Jeremy Corbyn. Here in straight forward terms are our views on some issues now being routinely misrepresented by the Tory government, the right of the Labour Party and sections of the media.

1. The STWC has never supported the Assad regime. Just as we never supported the Taliban, Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi. Only in the minds of ‘them or us’ pretend patriots does the opposition to our own government’s wars mean support for dictators or terrorists. Our case has always been that war will worsen the problem and not solve it. We were right in that analysis in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

2. The STWC has never supported Russian intervention in Syria and issued a statement opposing the bombing as soon as it began.

3. The STWC does believe that it is the people of Syria who are the only ones who should decide the fate of their country free of all great power and regional power interference.

4. The STWC is utterly opposed to the IS as a totally reactionary and, in the Arab Spring, counter revolutionary force.

5. The STWC believes that the invasion and dismemberment of Iraq, and western support for Saudi Arabia, were and are instrumental in the creation of the IS.

6. The STWC does not support calls for western invention, including an air war to establish a no fly zone, whether those calls emanate from Syrian exiles or anyone else, just as we did not support such calls from anti-Taliban or anti Saddam Afghans or Iraqis. Syrians do not all speak with one voice but many are opposed to western bombing.

7. The STWC concentrates on campaigning against UK government policy because this is where we are citizens and voters. […]

STW priorities are only marginally different from Barak Obama’s [emphasis added]:

1: The first point, reiterated in the sixth, is to voice opposition to Bashar al Assad, comparing him, furthermore, to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

2: The second is to criticise Russia for its involvement in the war.

3: Rees twice mentions ISIS, the fall guy when it comes to jihadi barbarism, but does not mention al Nusra, Jaish al Islam, or any other of the vicious gangs operating in Syria.

4: In December 2015, by which time the character of the ‘moderate opposition’ was well known, he is still talking about the ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘revolution’.

5: The necessary condition for the Syrian war, i.e. the role of the UK and its allies, is only mentioned in the last two points, and then in relatively mild terms.

Lindsay German produced another position statement in October 2016, Stop all intervention in Syria and let the people decide their future, which was consistent with everything said over the previous years: the Coalition did not support ‘Assad’ (i.e. the legitimate government of Syria) or Russia, and was opposed to a no-fly zone and the sale of arms – other interventions by the Western powers are ignored here. German claims: ‘We do not take a position on the internal politics of Syria, and believe that this is a question for the Syrian people alone‘. Much of the article was self-promotion and self-congratulation.

‘We did not stop the war in Iraq, but we have helped to shift opinion in this country against further wars. It could be argued that Chilcot would never have happened without an anti-war movement.’

Problems with Stop the War’s approach to Syria

‘Don’t bomb Syria‘ is a totally inadequate response to the war on Syria.

In August 2013, pursuant to the false flag chemical attack by extremists on Ghouta, the British government voted on the question of officially going to war with Syria. The Stop the War Coalition mobilised demonstrations against the proposal, which was lost. Lindsey German penned a self-complacent article, A partial victory, but a victory, 30 August 2013:

British MPs’ arguments and information were influenced by a strong public opinion against such a war, itself a product of a mass movement which didn’t stop a war ten years ago but has prevented a further one now. […] Britain will play no part in any Syrian intervention.

German’s article totally disregards the role of Britain in the Syrian war. The NATO countries and their allies have consciously endeavoured to carry out their plan to achieve regime change in Syria, contrary to the will of the Syrian people, by pouring billions into funding and arming terrorists. Turkey has funneled thousands, or more probably hundreds of thousands, of jihadists through to Syria and in return bought from ISIS stolen Syrian oil, antiquities and Aleppo’s factories.

The United Kingdom, moreover, has a large budget for propaganda projects specifically designed to create support for a no fly zone, such as the fake humanitarian outfit the White Helmets, staffed by members of vicious gangs like al Zinki, seven year old Bana who tweeted in perfect English from Aleppo, calling for WWIII in order to ‘save Aeppo’, and fake research organisations like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, essentially one man in a house in Coventry, but cooperating with the British Foreign Office.

Stop the War’s protests against active intervention are clearly inadequate when it is turning a blind eye to the material and moral support given to the terrorist groups in Syria, and to the propaganda designed to achieve compliance with a no-fly zone.

‘Russian bombing’

Dreadful reports from Aleppo. @STWuk want to see an end to bombing and brutality on all sides in Syria. — Stop the War (@STWuk) December 13, 2016

Stop the War’s position is that with or without UN agreement, bombing Syria by Russia or UK should be opposed. ‘Stop the War is against Russia’s attacks on Syria. We think they should stop immediately‘.

If there were no external intervention, no funding and arming of terrorists, including hundreds of thousands of foreign mercenaries, there would be no Syrian war. Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah are all militarily involved in the Syrian war, on the invitation of the Syrian government, as a response to external intervention. They are defending Syria against barbaric extremists who are loathed by the Syrian people. The involvement of Russia, Hezbollah and other Syrian allies is consistent with international law and has been absolutely vital for the country’s survival. To put the Russian contribution to defending Syria on a par with the illegal intervention and support for terrorism by NATO and its allies is the height of dishonesty.

Obama’s much vaunted campaign against Daesh in Syria only saw ISIS and associated groups grow and flourish. The presence of a US air force did nothing to prevent ISIS convoys cross the desert from Iraq and take Raqqa and Palmyra. On the other hand, the attack by NATO forces on Syrian troops protecting the besieged town of Deir ez Zor caused the loss of more than 60 Syrian lives and facilitated ISIS advancement. (Many people, including the Syrian government, believe NATO consciously provided ISIS with air cover according to a pre-arranged plan, though this is denied by NATO.)

Russian air-cover enabled the Syrian Arab Army and its allies to retake Palmyra in March 2016, though not before the museum curator was murdered as an ‘Assad stooge’ and extensive damage was done to the historic site. Russian assistance helped liberate Aleppo from ISIS and al Qaeda affiliated gangs, who were terrorising eastern Aleppo and shelling western Aleppo, causing horrific casualties. Since then Russia has provided extensive humanitarian aid to Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria, ranging from food aid and mobile hospitals to demining eastern Aleppo. Stop the War, however, wants to see an end to Russian involvement in Syria.

Stop the War accepts the NATO narrative on Syria without question



Stop the War’s leadership specialises in producing flabby articles devoid of content: there is no new information, no analysis, just NATO’s discredited mantras of popular revolution, moderate rebels and wicked despot Bashar al Assad. Much of the space is taken up in apologising for not supporting invasion or a no-fly zone, or claiming that STW is not pro-Assad. Given that Stop the War never addresses an alternative and more valid concern, i.e. whether the Syrian government is right to resist an externally sponsored insurgency, its protestations of not being pro-Assad have to be seen as a dishonest ploy.

While Lindsay German satisfies herself with referring disparagingly to the ‘Assad regime’ and becoming indignant if anyone suggests that STW should (heaven forbid) support Syria against an immoral and illegal war driven by, amongst others, the United Kingdom, other officers of Stop the War are openly hostile to the Syrian government, for example chairman Murad Qureshi:

Syria revolution four years on: Don't bet against President Assad – a ruler willing to see his country destroyed http://t.co/VNqNNBDt2z — Murad Qureshi (@MuradQureshiLDN) March 13, 2015

You'll find that you don't have the National Socialists in Syria but you'll find the Baath Party which Alawites like Assad belong too. — Murad Qureshi (@MuradQureshiLDN) August 31, 2013

and John Rees:

@MsIntervention @STWuk Assad is a butcher responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. And Blair for over million Iraqi's …do the maths — John Rees (@JohnWRees) July 10, 2012

George Galloway: Assad must go. No place for dictatorship. But we are not swapping Assad for US dictatorship. #syria #fb — John Rees (@JohnWRees) April 4, 2012

Stop the War’s position is essentially the bogus ‘third way’: while it opposes direct bombing, and occasionally complains about the better publicised aspects of direct intervention, it assumes the validity of the regime change narrative. Despite the wealth of contrary evidence, at no point does STWC question the NATO narrative of a legitimate uprising and an illegitimate government.

There has been an enormous amount of research carried out on the subject of the Syrian war, by people alert to the inconsistencies in the NATO narrative, who have wanted to find out the truth. Some of these people have traveled to Syria more than once, and recently. 21st Century Wire alone has published over 100 articles on the Syrian war. The articles contain a wealth of references, photographic and video evidence, and testimony from Syrians.

STW has not published, promoted or referenced, either in its homepage or via social media, a single article that gives an assessment of the facts that differs from that of the corporate media.

Mother Agnes Mariam