DSA Statement on the Islamic State

[Powers Hapgood]

http://www.dsausa.org/statement_islamic_state

In posting this, I must admit that I am a member of DSA and have my own set of partisan feelings involved. Nevertheless, having read this statement from the DSA National Political Committee I am rather proud of the stance DSA took over a year ago, specifically on Islamic State before it was commonly called ISIS. I find it interesting that the statement calls for some measures currently being considered to fight ISIS, and specifically addressing the refugee problem. I also like the way the statement observes that past U.S. policy has played a key role in making the situation what it is: dangerous.

However, I do know that other socialist organizations may have different ideas and approaches -- and most likely some departures from the ideas DSA puts forth on this statement. I am just wondering if there are any other members of socialist parties or groups whose organizations have taken clear stances on the matter, and if they could be discussed (in a comradely spirit).

I can't help but think that a socialist approach could have spared the world some of the current level of pain and suffering.

[Cheese Sandwich]

1. Overall a pretty good statement

There are a couple of parts I can nitpick but I agree with 95% of it.

On point 2 in the document does it seem to somewhat mistake the relationship between the US and the gulf kingdoms as "coddling", where they commit abuses but we want access to oil so we let it slide?

Partially it is that, but does that mistake where power really lies? Is more real to say the relationship is that of a dominant power to a client state where actually the states there are so interdependent on the US military-industrial-oil-complex that they are barely distinguishable from it as separate entities with different interests. The interests of the Saudi government and Exxon mobile are so connected and similar that to a rough approximation their interests are identical.

Maybe it's just a different way of saying the same thing.

On point 5 it's still favoring this idea of regime change in Syria by echoing the call 'Assad must go'. Even though he's a disgusting dictator, I think maybe it's time to back away from that because that particular call is actually a huge obstacle to any peace process such as the ones you guys are calling for in this same document. The Russians and Iranians have to be part of any peace arrangement and they are in there defending the Assad government. Assad is fighting ISIS so if you are focused on getting rid of Assad then ISIS benefits. I think the document has that internal contradiction but I'm not sure if maybe some of the anti-Assad lines are just rhetoric that people felt compelled to throw in so nobody would think they were defending the dictator.

But overall it was actually good and I agree 95%.

[TBF]

2. I definitely agree w/cutting some ties -

The U.S.’s fundamentalist allies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) fund I.S. as their preferred anti-Assad agent, thus weakening the democratic forces opposing Assad.

We really need to look seriously at that alliance. According to recent sources US is getting 13% of it's oil from Saudi and 4% from Iraq. Surely we could cut that off and make it up from Canada, Mexico, and/or Venezuela?

Problem two - Bush's interference in the area was a disaster. Saddam Hussein was not a nice man, but he had folks under control. Now it's a fundamentalist free-for-all over there.

I'm not sure what the answer is for the Middle East but I think it involves a couple of things - a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine, and US getting the hell out.