Skip to content

Military strikes on Syria what does it mean

Marxist Theory · 2018-04-14

Core Argument

The central thesis is that the 2018 US-UK-France missile strikes on Syria were a hollow, performative act of imperialism, not a genuine military intervention. Woods argues that the strikes were militarily insignificant — targeting already-evacuated sites, causing no lasting damage, and incapable of altering the outcome of a civil war that was effectively over. The real purpose was twofold: externally, to project an illusion of American power and resolve in the face of Russian ascendancy; internally, to allow Trump to shore up his domestic political position by demonstrating anti-Russian credentials, thereby creating the conditions for a subsequent negotiated deal with Putin. The article insists that the humanitarian pretext — punishing chemical weapons use — is a cynical cover for imperialist interests, and that the strikes reveal not strength but impotence, fear, and panic among Western leaders.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, drawing directly on Lenin's framework of interimperialist rivalry and the division of the world among great powers. Woods treats the Syrian conflict not as a civil war with external interference, but as a theatre of competition between rival imperialist blocs — the US-led NATO powers versus Russia — with the Syrian people as the victims. The argument also deploys the Marxist critique of bourgeois humanitarianism: the claim that Western powers act out of moral concern is exposed as ideological cover for strategic and economic interests. There is a clear debt to Rosa Luxemburg's emphasis on militarism as a means of capitalist accumulation and to Trotsky's analysis of imperialism's tendency toward war and barbarism. The article's contempt for the "hypocritical cover" of humanitarian rhetoric echoes the classical Marxist tradition's insistence on piercing through the ideological veil of ruling-class discourse.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was published on 14 April 2018, immediately following the strikes. It situates the attack within a specific conjuncture: the Syrian civil war was effectively over, with Assad in a stronger position than at any point since 2011. The strikes were a response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma — an event the article claims, citing Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, was staged by jihadis with foreign backing. Woods identifies several conjunctural features: the advance warning given to Russia by the US, the evacuation of targets beforehand, and the Pentagon's explicit effort to "mitigate" Russian casualties. These details are marshalled to demonstrate that the strikes were carefully calibrated to avoid escalation with a nuclear-armed power. The article also notes Trump's domestic vulnerability — under sustained assault from his enemies in Washington — and his isolationist inclinations, arguing that the strikes were a prelude to deal-making with Putin. The broader geopolitical context is one of declining US hegemony, Russian resurgence, and the exhaustion of Western publics after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a snapshot of a single moment, but its themes are developed across the IDOM corpus. The analysis of Syria as a proxy war between imperialist powers is elaborated in earlier and later pieces by Alan Woods and other RCI writers, particularly in coverage of the 2017 Shayrat missile strike and the 2019 Turkish incursion into northern Syria. The broader question of Trump's foreign policy — isolationist rhetoric versus imperialist reality — is taken up in articles on US-China trade war and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The critique of humanitarian intervention as imperialist cover is a recurring motif in IDOM's coverage of Libya, Yemen, and the Balkans. The theoretical framework of interimperialist rivalry is developed more systematically in Woods' longer works, particularly The Bolsheviks and the World Revolution and his writings on the Ukraine crisis. Readers should also consult the RCI's Against the Stream podcast episodes from April 2018, which discuss the strikes in the context of the broader crisis of American imperialism.

Connections

The article should be read alongside Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for its theoretical foundations, and alongside Trotsky's writings on the First World War for its analysis of how imperialist powers use humanitarian rhetoric to justify slaughter. Within the IDOM corpus, it connects to Alan Woods' earlier piece "Syria: The real meaning of the US missile strike" (April 2017) and to the RCI's ongoing coverage of the Middle East, particularly articles on the Kurdish question and the role of Turkey. The analysis of Trump's "deal-making" imperialism anticipates later IDOM pieces on US-Russia relations and the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit. For a broader Marxist treatment of Syria, readers should consult the writings of the International Marxist Tendency (now the RCI) on the Syrian revolution and its degeneration into civil war.

Key Quotes

  1. "This is an exact repetition of what occurred 12 months ago, when the Americans launched around 50 Tomahawk missiles against an empty airfield in Syria. Whatever limited damage had been caused was rapidly repaired. The actual effects on Syria's ongoing Civil War were precisely zero."

  2. "Behind these pathetic comments one detects a note of impotence, fear, even panic. And that note, far more than the public belligerence, boasting and breast-beating, is far nearer to the truth."

  3. "The intention of the present action is not to win the war or to topple Assad – aims which are entirely beyond their ability to achieve. It is an empty gesture, aimed at convincing the world that American power is still a factor of some importance."

  4. "Having shown his muscle and his determination to 'stand up to Russia', the stage is set for negotiations and 'deal-making'."

  5. "The 'righteous power' of Britain, France, and the United States of America is the power of imperialism that at no time and nowhere has represented anything other than the cynical interests of the ruling class."

  6. "Their talk of peace and humanitarianism is only a hypocritical cover for the pursuit of their own selfish interests in the Middle East. In the words of the Roman historian Tacitus: 'And when they have created a wilderness, they call it Peace.'"