Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War

by Robin Yassin-Kassab, Leila Al-Shami

*Shortlisted for the Rathbones Folio Prize 2017*



In 2011, many Syrians took to the streets of Damascus to demand the overthrow of the government of Bashar al-Assad. Today, much of Syria has become a war zone where foreign journalists find it almost impossible to report on life in this devastated land.



Burning Country explores the horrific and complicated reality of life in present-day Syria with unprecedented detail and sophistication, drawing on new first hand testimonies from opposition fighters, exiles lost in an archipelago of refugee camps, and courageous human rights activists among many others. These stories are expertly interwoven with a trenchant analysis of the brutalisation of the conflict and the militarisation of the uprising, of the rise of the Islamists and sectarian warfare, and the role of governments in Syria and elsewhere in exacerbating those violent processes.



With chapters focusing on ISIS and Islamism, regional geopolitics, the new grassroots revolutionary organisations, and the worst refugee crisis since World War Two, Burning Country is a vivid and groundbreaking look at a modern-day political and humanitarian nightmare.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Middle East, Politics, War, International Relations, Journalism

303 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 15, 2016

About the author

Robin Yassin-Kassab was born in London in 1969. He has taught English around the Arab world as well as in Turkey, and has been a journalist in Pakistan. His first novel, The Road From Damascus, was published in 2008.

Reviews

[Noor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Think Syria is complicated? This is the book for you.

I cannot describe how much I love this book. Having read much on Syria, books and otherwise, this is by FAR the greatest account on the Syrian conflict I have come across for a number of reasons.

1) First and foremost, it brings the conflict back to those who are suffering most: the Syrian people. We are told accounts of real civilians who have worked tirelessly on the ground to support their cause, including those who were/are engaged in civic efforts and from all backgrounds. There is an entire chapter that focuses on the cultural impact, and the beautiful and creative pieces of work that have been created out of this – be it writings, poems, artwork or films.

2) As someone of a Syrian background and who has been closely following the conflict over the past five years, I could relate. So many of the accounts mentioned made me reminiscent of more optimistic days and reminded me of the beauty that came with freedom of expression. The authors Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila al-Shami captured and articulated so perfectly what I believe so many Syrians have experienced and felt over the past few years.

3) The book is really well-structured and well-rounded. There are 10 chapters, and each focuses on a particular aspect of the conflict. There are chapters on the history of Syria, Bashar’s decade rule before 2011, the spark of the revolution, the grassroots’ efforts, the militarisation of conflict, the subsequent islamisation of some groups, as well as a chapter dedicated to the cultural side of things. The reader isn’t inundated with unnecessary facts and it’s extremely concise considering the breadth that it covers.

4) The book is very nuanced, lacking the sloppy mistakes and generalisations that other writers/journalists never fail to employ when talking about Syria. Sloppy mistakes that other commentators make include:

-Describing that Syria is a proxy war with Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah on one side and the USA, Turkey and Gulf states on the other. But this is simply not the case. The United States, for example, is revealed to have blocked the FSA from gaining substantive weapons to combat Syrian warplanes, very sparingly allowing anti-tank weaponry from external donors. Later, it would supply light weapons to certain factions of the FSA, and as soon as gains were made against Assad, the influx of weapons would stop. In essence, the USA was playing a dirty game, prolonging the conflict and preventing the FSA from making any substantive gains. Meanwhile, on the face of it, it appeared supportive of those fighting Assad and criticised the Syrian regime with nothing but words. At least Russia openly professes its support to Assad. The Gulf states, on the other hand, selectively provide weapons (again, no anti-aircraft support) to factions that suit their own agendas.

-Tarring all islamists as undemocratic, sharia-imposing nutters. The authors explain how there are many moderate islamists fighting against Assad, how they support democracy and how this is just reflective of the religiously conservative nature of Syrian society. This is no way means that they should be conflated with more extreme jihadists, and in fact most of Syrian society absolutely rejects the creed espoused by ISIS.

-Claiming that Syria is now a war between Assad and ISIS, with many foreign commentators shifting the narrative to supporting Assad. This completely misses the fact that ISIS was a symptom of the main cause of the problems. As the writers so eloquently put it, Assad is the arsonist posing as the fireman, and the world sadly is believing him.

-Describing Syria as a civil war. See the first point above. Assad’s great advantage in this conflict is aerial power. This is why ‘civil war’ is a very inaccurate description, and why the Syrian people have felt very isolated and abandoned by the world. The authors describe it more like a war against foreign occupation than a civil war (regarding Iran and Russia’s imperial role in Syria).

-That the Gulf states purportedly fund ISIS. While it is true that certain donors within Gulf states have sent money to the organisation, it is not sanctioned by the governments and indeed ISIS seeks to destroy said states.

There are MANY more. But this would be a much longer review if I digressed… Ultimately, it lacks the top-down, oversimplistic approach that Western and international media/journalists favour.

5) It does not romanticise the revolution, but instead includes genuine criticisms of the mistakes that have been made on the side of the opposition. At the same time, it does not include this without context, and explains how this neither detracts from the cause nor legitimises Assad.

Essentially, this is a very holistic book. It is written by Syrians who are extremely qualified to give their commentary, and relates what is happening back to the people. Thank you, Robin and Leila, for your beautiful analysis.

[Imran Ahmed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Think your life is complicated? Try figuring out the Syrian war. Only then can one really know what complicated means.

Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War, coauthored by Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami, tries to lucidly dissect the state of the nation as at 2016. Sure, it's hard for academic works to keep pace with the fast changing ground realities of the country. However, Burning Country does provide a summary of events which led to Syria becoming a playground for opposing forces, including Assad, Islamic State (ISIS) and Kurdish Leftist groups.

Both authors suggest the present state of affairs is a byproduct of a home grown revolution designed only to overthrow the Assad patriarchal state. Due to the Assad regime's brutally violent counterrevolutionary response a power vacuum ensued. It's this power vacuum which has been filled by opposing domestic forces as well as the (none too invisible) hands of foreign influences.

The Gulf monarchies, Iran, Russia, Turkey and the US exercise varying degrees of influence to protect their interests. The authors' are cynical of virtually all foreign countries indicating no nation recognizes the Revolution as indigenous and none does much to address the humanitarian crisis tearing Syria apart. Indeed, the book suggests foreigners play a dirty, selfish game by maintaining a balance of power between several domestic players – as long as ISIS is kept in check.

Burning Country underscores the complexities of modern Middle Eastern politics. It's a sad book to read as the reader clearly sees the train wreck arising out of the many missteps and gradual militarization of an erstwhile civil disobedience movement. The slow destruction of a state with the consequent impact on millions of lives is apparent for all to see (refugee crisis anyone?).

Undoubtedly, Syria has now gone the way of Afghanistan (Iraq?). It ceases to be a 'normal' nation state and will be difficult, if not impossible, to fix in the coming decades. Not least because of the substantial depopulation and sectarian hatred besetting today's Syria.

[Sleepless Dreamer]

I became overwhelmingly sad when reading this book.

In careful and detailed writing, Yassin-Kassab and Al-Shami describe the Syrian revolution. The focus is 2011-2016. By detailing various themes, they share a glimpse of how Syria fell apart, just like that. Each chapter shares a piece of Syrian history.

The authors focus on the people, on individuals who fought (and died) for the dream of changing Syria for better. The powerhouse of this book is the stories and experiences. Full of personal testimonies, the Syrian revolution becomes human.

Now, the authors have a strong bias: they support the rebels and yearn to represent them in the best light. As I lack any education about this, I didn't mind. However, it seems right to point out that this is only one perspective. The authors also criticize the rebels themselves but even then, the framework is still vastly pro-revolution.

So what did I learn from this book? (and ofc, hopefully this doesn't have any super embarrassing mistakes)

Syria, on par with Middle Eastern countries, is a sectarian country. Shia, Sunni, Druze, Kurds, Christians and more make up the society. Religion serves as a political tool, even if many people aren't very religious in practice. After French colonialism and the Ottoman Empire, Syria became a country in 1946, although there was a brief moment when Syria united with Egypt in the United Arab Republic. The Syrian revolution itself can be split into three parts:

Part One: Local and Nonviolent Resistance Against the Regime

In 2011, as part of the Arab Spring, Syrians also started to revolt against Assad, who had been ruling since 2000 (and had replaced his father who ruled from 1971). Initially, the protests were very peaceful. The revolution started as cross-sectarian. Assad thought the revolution was about Kurds and other minorities. He hadn't realized that the true threat was the secular majority, that the people themselves were angry, not any particular sect of society. The revolution was distinct precisely because it was for everyone. It couldn't be fought by appealing to sectarian causes.

The authors describe the hope of the revolutionaries to enact a change. Syrians hoped to achieve a democracy. There were various initiatives, including democratically run councils. The book takes the time to detail how Syrians organized and felt empowered, how deeply the Syrians yearned to create a different Syria, one where everyone could be welcome. These were moments of unity and solidarity. To quote, "Syrians were discovering themselves and their country anew".

And there's an alternative universe somewhere where the regime responded by changing, where Assad recognized that the tide was turning and was willing to reform (or at least make it seem like changes were happening like that's what all successful dictators do at this point). Alas, this is not what happened. Instead, the regime brutally suppressed the protests. Peaceful protests were met with live fire, the death toll grew and grew.

One of the saddest chapters is the eventual adoption of weapons. At first, the revolutionaries wanted a peaceful transition. They hoped their nonviolence would attract more Syrians as well as broader international support. However, as the regime violence grew, slowly more people armed themselves. The authors describe it as an inevitability. There's a level of state violence that makes people feel so at risk that they seek to fight back and defend themselves. One of my favorite quotes from the book was "Pacifism cannot defend itself against uncompromising extermination".

This led to the birth of militias and especially the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Many of this militias were defectors from the Syrian army. The authors also point out that mandatory army conscription meant average Syrians had military training (my conspiracy theory: the Israeli mandatory army service is to prepare for the day when Palestinians and Ultra-Orthodox Jews join forces and try to kick secular Jews out). Obama's "When you get farmers, dentists and folks who have never fought before going up against a ruthless opposition in Assad, the notion that they were in a position to suddenly overturn not only Assad but also ruthless, highly trained jihadists if we just sent a few arms is a fantasy,” gets criticized heavily in this book.

All this said, the chaos of the FSA also played a role in the failure of the revolution. Calling it an army makes it seem like it's an actual army, like the Syrian civil war was two equal armies initially. In practice, the FSA was a sporadic and unorganized group of militias. This meant they couldn't really control each other. The revolution was presented as a civil war internationally when in practice, it was civilians against a regime.

Part Two: Regional and Sectarian Powers: ISIS and Hezbollah enter the fighting

The authors describe how helplessness leads to religious extremism. ISIS was often able to support people in a way that the state was not. At the end, ISIS brought order to places, even if it was strict Islamic law. This is especially tragic because it makes sense. In a world where civilians are bombed daily, people turn to God and to the order of organized and strict religion. Learning that ISIS was too extremist for Al-Qaeda was also interesting.

ISIS gained power in part because of the foreign fighters. This was something I hadn't known to this extent. Foreigners from across the Muslim world fought in Syria for their own caliphate goals. At first, the regime embraced ISIS' growth. Extremists hurt the rebels' cause as it distanced people from them. It helped the regime present itself as the only one capable of holding back extremism. The FSA was fighting both ISIS and the regime which stretched their power. However, eventually, the regime started to perceive them as a threat and began opposing it.

In some ways, this period is when the revolution became about Shia and Sunni. Gulf and Iranian money began to play a role. The authors also suggest that this is when the regime began giving away the country. Iranian commanders played a role in the fighting. Parts of Syria were simply handed over to regional superpowers.

Part Three: International Powers: The USA, Iran and Russia enter the fighting and dismantle Syria

Before reading this book, I had blindly accepted the American liberal argument that the US should stay out of Middle Eastern wars, that US involvement in wars in the Middle East were solely for its own gain. However, in this book, the authors point out that Assad's regime used chemical weapons in the early stages of the war in order to prove to the Syrians that no one would do anything about it. And truly, no one did. This was a catalyst for Syrians to feel fully betrayed and abandoned which ultimately played a role in the violent rise of extremists. It showed that there are no red lines.

And yet, pro-Assad voices will argue that the FSA represent Western powers involving themselves in the Middle East. There's an interesting balance of the world's responsibility to stand up to state violence and the world's tendency to involve itself in the Middle East for its own interests. Who is responsible for the welfare of the Syrian people?

The US only started to get involved when ISIS took more power. Even then, the authors argue that the US often ended up hurting Syrian rebels as well. They did not fully cooperate with the FSA and the US strived to defeat ISIS, rather than to fight Assad. It raises a fascinating question about what role should the US have in these cases. When Assad's regime is bolstered by Iranian money and support, does the West have an obligation to counter it, especially when Assad commits such crimes? Can the US simply decide to limit itself to getting rid of ISIS? Proxy wars are bad but standing silently in the face of injustice is also not great. It seems like a lose-lose situation (as time goes on, I'm realizing that international relations is one of my favorite poli-sci fields).

The Syrians seemed to have hoped that the international community would step in when the state violence reached such extremes. The authors spend time exploring their disappointment and frustration at how no one seemed to care. However, the Syrian civil war also shows us how international involvement can tear a country apart. Americans fighting Iranians and Russians in Syria isn't really a path to democracy, it seems.

And here we are, in 2021. This book was published in 2016 and I have no idea how Syria can actually get back on its feet. Syria recently had "elections" and Assad "won" over 95% of the vote. It's been a full decade since the Arab Spring. What now?

Israel's role (cause, gotta focus about us too)

The way the authors spoke about Israel and its intentions was inaccurate. It made me wonder what other corners they're cutting.

As the authors point out, there is a broad consensus against Israel in Syria. The rebels yearn for more action for the Palestinians. Assad also isn't a friend of Israel's. In practice, Syria doesn't attack Israel because they tried that and it didn't end well for them. I'm kind of grateful to be alive in this decade of the Israeli-Arab conflict cause the 60s and 70s were no fun.

So Israel claimed neutrality during the fighting. Claiming neutrality is not the same as supporting the regime. Suggesting that Israel had any fond feelings of Assad seems to be a way to manipulate readers like "ha, Assad is evil and so is Israel so they must be friends". It seems clear that Israel was just looking at its own interests, rather than actively taking a role.

This is a tricky situation. It is horrifying to realize that civilians were attacked with chemical weapons across the border and Israel's response was only humanitarian. Operation Good Neighbor was a good thing but it does not feel like enough. That said, Syria is an enemy country- was Israel supposed to help the rebels so that later they could attack Israel? Wouldn't Israel helping the rebels lead to their cause being discredited cause it had evil Zionist help?

For me, the more I read about the Middle East, the more I recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a regional problem. It's not an Israeli and Palestinian problem. It's popular to think the Arab-Israeli conflict ended when Israeli signed peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt but when Israel fights Iran in Syria, that's an Israeli-Arab conflict (or, Israel-Iranian, I guess). The lack of stability from Israel's neighboring countries means that Israel won't let Palestinians build an unstable country. An unstable Palestine has the potential to take Israel down with it, be if through a war or through political instability. The role that neighboring countries currently play also can't be underestimated. From expelling Mizrahim to the various ways they deal with Palestinian refugees and their descendants, it's kind of baffling that we don't realize they deserve a seat at the table.

People often mistakenly assume the I-P conflict is the center of the MENA problems. Instead, it seems like we're seeing a cold war of Iran vs USA play out in a proxy war. It's as if the broader MENA conflicts impact Israel-Palestine and not the other way around. And it's wild because there are so many levels to this region- the international elements, the inner instability, the impact of colonialization, fragmented societies, corruption, politicized religion.

To conclude, I'm still optimistic that one day things will be good enough for me to visit Syria (everyone says Syrian food is the best Middle Eastern food, gotta check that out). This book shares a lot of knowledge about Syria in a thorough and organized manner. For people who don't know anything about Syria, I think this does a great job.

What I'm Taking With Me

- Who knew Syrians are still so upset about the Golan? That's so 1967. I don't even consider the Golan an Israeli land dispute. Like come on, Syrians, I challenge you to find 10 Druze people who are interested in exchanging their Israeli citizenship for a Syrian one.
- It seems that the Arab Spring basically dismantled Syria, Libya and Yemen.
- The death count of the Syrian war is so big that it's hard to even calculate. Honestly mind boggling that this happened and continues to happen, that this doesn't even make the news.

-------------------------------------
Me: Assad committed heinous crimes against his people.

Also me: This song lives rent free inside my head, it's like an Arabic Eurovision entry.

Review to come, hopefully soon!

[Zira · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have several complaints about this book. One is that it contains a lot of unsourced material. I'll provide a couple of examples. In Chapter 5 there is a description of the Syrian government's behavior below (pg. 106):
"The regime pursued a scorched earth strategy. It was all very deliberate and self-declared. The shabeeha scrawled it on the walls: ‘Either Assad or We’ll Burn the Country’. In the countryside they killed livestock and burned crops." This passage is found between a footnoted interview with Ziad Hamoud and claims about shelling and barrel bombs. The footnote after this passage links to a HRW article that doesn't say anything about what I've quoted. Where did the authors get this information?
Another example is in Chapter 3, pg. 44:
"Deraa’s central Balad district, meanwhile, was now under complete lock-down. Snipers positioned on rooftops and government buildings shot at anyone attempting to enter the neighbourhood. The 15,000 residents trapped inside were starting to run out of baby milk, food and even water as snipers shot holes in roof tanks. Electricity, telephone and the Internet were cut off."
"At dawn on 25 April, tanks rolled into the city, firing indiscriminately, even into people’s homes as they slept."
Immediately before this passage is a footnoted (29) interview with "Joly". Footnote 30 links to a video of young men trying to save someone who has been felled by gunfire. There is nothing to prove, however, that "regime" forces fired into people's homes and nothing to prove that the people posting on rooftops and killing anyone who tried to enter, cutting off utilities, etc., were government forces.

When sourcing is clear, many times it is still dubious. I watched all of the accessible YouTube videos referenced purporting to document Syrian government shooting unarmed civilians. In all but one case what the video consisted of was a bunch of people running around with audible gunfire in the distance but with no indication of who was actually shooting. The exception to this is the water cannon video but this clip contains no context for what is happening. We are to believe, observing from quite a distance, that these were all peaceful protesters but it is incredibly hard to tell that that is the case.

Other sources that the authors cite like EA Worldview, frequently rely on unnamed "activists" or "rebels" for information. The authors repeat in this book what these anonymous sources say as if they are verified facts, when the truth is much of the time the claims are not corroborated by named individuals who are in a position to know what is going on.

Another person used as a source is Razan Zaitouneh, who was interviewed in RFERL, a known pro-US propaganda outlet that was notoriously used by the CIA during the Cold War.
She is mentioned as a founding member of the "Local Coordinating Committees", which have been indirectly supported by the US through the Office for Syrian Opposition Support.
OSOS is a partnership between the US State Dept. and the UK Foreign Office.
The accuracy of Zaitouneh's Violations Documentation Center reporting has been
questioned for listing militants killed in fighting with the SAA as "civilians". While what ultimately happened to Zaitouneh is undoubtedly awful, whether she was aware of it or not she was an implement of Western propaganda. Zaitouneh and the LCCs is just one example but many of the faces and institutions of this so-called "popular revolution" are backed in some way by foreign governments who have an interest in the destruction of the Syrian state.

Much is left out of this book. Unmentioned is the fact that the "Syrian Revolution"
Facebook page was started in late January 2011, roughly seven weeks before the alleged "crackdown on peaceful protesters" that we're led to believe drove people to call for revolution in the first place. On March 11, a week before the Deraa incident, Syrian security forces found that illegal weapons had been shipped into the country. Police were being killed in Syria from the very beginning of the uprising, not after several months.
Ali Hashem even resigned from Al Jazeera over the channel's Syria coverage. The
provocations in Banyas on March 18 from a reactionary cleric also go unmentioned, as does the murder of Nidal Janoud in mid-April at the hands of a sectarian mob. According to investigations by reporter
Alaa Ebrahim, all of the witnesses he talked to about Deraa said they couldn't tell who was behind the shooting. This is not to say that there is no political opposition in Syria or that initially there were no protests or calls for reform. But the characterization of the political climate in Syria leaves much to be desired. Sharmine Narwani's
reporting on the Syrian opposition reveals most of them hated the FSA and the SNC because these were foreign entities. They also told her they did not want to see the country or its sovereignty destroyed. Assad himself has also admitted there is political opposition to him and his party.

The authors promote multiple conspiracy theories about the Syrian government, often with scant or nonexistent proof, and often by presuming to be able to read Assad's mind, which should make any critical thinker roll their eyes.

The idea that Assad had an "undeclared non-aggression pact" with ISIS is untrue and not backed up by any source provided by the authors. The SAA actually took ISIS on directly in places like Deir Ezzor in 2014. While it's true Assad bought oil from ISIS, the
reason is that ISIS had occupied Syria's oil fields, and Assad had no choice but to buy oil from them in order to keep his country functioning. Furthermore, there is evidence that the FSA was at one point allied with ISIS, as one of their early commanders Okaidi voiced his support for them.

The authors cite the Maher Arar case to prove Assad's anti-imperialist reputation is undeserved. However, the Maher Arar story is suspect. You can read about the lack of clarity about what happened to Arar in this official
report. It's hard to say what happened here since he was also paid for his ordeal. However, these are inconsistencies that shouldn't be ignored. What also shouldn't be ignored is the fact that soon after this alleged torture took place, the US government increased the sanctions on Syria, the country's "cooperation with Islamic militants" being one of the reasons. So the US sent Islamic militants to Syria to be tortured and then punished Syria for cooperating with Islamic militants? Something here doesn't make sense, and the authors don't seem the least bit interested in addressing this contradiction.

The authors make the assertion that the Syrian government has been relying primarily on Iran and Hezbollah for its ground battles because the SAA is weakened and "not trusted" by Assad, based once again on anonymous sources.

Anonymous sources are used again to "prove" Assad deliberately released Salafists from prison to crush the "revolution". One of these testimonies "could not be independently verified", according to Phil Sands, the author of the cited article. The testimony of former Jordanian military officer Major General Fayez Dwairi is also provided, but he speaks about the internal plans and communications of the Syrian security forces without explaining how he would have access to that information. The truth is that the release of political prisoners was demanded by the protesters themselves. And while the authors claim that the government kept secular peaceful pro-democracy activists in prison, they never provide evidence of this claim nor any of the names of these people.
Anwar al-Bunni, for instance, was a human rights activist calling for a "free" and "democratic" Syria and he was one of the people released.

The Haaretz editorial "Israel's Favorite Dictator of All is Assad" is cited to indicate that Israel prefers Assad to what may come after him and that his pro-Palestinian credentials are fake. However, this is not an in-depth study of Israel's relations with Syria under Assad, but is merely an opinion piece with nothing provided to substantiate its claims.

Yarmouk is an issue of contention in this book as well, but it turns out there is more to the story.
While Syria does not have a perfect record on Palestine, it has generally been on the side of liberation groups and there is evidence that the Syrian government has significant support among Palestinians because of this record.

While admitting Assad is genuinely popular, the authors refer to people being "bussed in" to attend pro-government rallies. The relevant footnote cites an Irish journalist who says that 90% percent of the people he saw at the pro-government rallies in Damascus were children, state employees, or army conscripts. How does he know which individuals are army conscripts and state employees?

View footage of these rallies and judge for yourself if these people are genuine.

While I don't doubt that President Assad has made concessions to neoliberalism, in Chapter 2 the authors blame basically all of the country's economic woes on these reforms, using some vague language like "key industrial sectors" being affected by privatization (which ones, and how?) and the assertion that "international investment flooded in, primarily from the Gulf" with no information on how much came in and where it was invested. The authors say nothing about sanctions or the effects of the Iraqi refugees on the Syrian economy. Imad Moustapha pointed out in a 2006 interview in Counterpunch, for instance, that the refugees caused real estate prices to soar. For general debunking of the claims that Syria under Assad is some sort of sectarian neoliberal hellhole, this article is a useful source.

Assad cannot be blamed for the far-right supporting him, as these people have their own ideological reasons for their views, one of which is fear of Middle Eastern refugees. In 1930s Europe some early fascists were also anti-capitalist, based on their own hatred of "Jewish bankers" and their irritation with a complacent anti-nationalist bourgeoisie that capitalism enabled. It had nothing to do with the communist/socialist understanding that capitalism is a murderous exploitative system. We should believe capitalism is good now because some fascists were against it? Similarly, we should scream for NATO intervention and the destruction of a sovereign nation because some fascists like Assad? This is an example of the ludicrous level of debate that has been reached on this matter. Assad has also been supported
by
committed
leftists for years but this fact gets no mention in Burning Country. (The book also states as fact an unverified claim from Vice (via Leila al-Shami's blog) about the Black Lilly Group fighting on the ground with Syrian forces.)

The authors deny the Syrian horror is a NATO regime change operation and dismiss the evidence of this reality. But it turns out the US wanted to
invade Syria along with Iraq in the early 2000s but these plans were scrapped because the US had too much on its plate.
The way in which terrorists were armed by the US to bring down the Syrian state was explained by Gareth Porter in Consortium News.
The US began forging ties with the
Syrian
opposition in the mid-2000s. In Hillary Clinton's book "Hard Choices" readers can see (on page 464 in hardcover) that the US was involved in training Syrian "activists". During the Q and A session with the authors a State Department employee
admitted that the US provides a lot of assistance to the "local councils" (out of the goodness of their hearts, one can only assume of course). After this book was published it also came out that John Kerry, in a meeting with anti-Assad Syrians,
acknowledged the US armed the opposition and let ISIS grow to threaten Assad. (What people miss is that if Assad was willing to become a puppet of the US, then the US would have no problem with him, hence the "negotiation process" to force his hand.) Whatever "timidity" there was by the US when it came to Syria stemmed from the fact that Syria is an ally of nuclear-armed Russia, and the US was hesitant to get into a potentially nuclear conflict in the Middle East. It had nothing to do with the idea that the US was only pretending Assad was their enemy. Later on the US stepped up direct efforts like airstrikes because they realized they probably weren't going to get their regime change and decided to try destroying the country instead. "Revolution" propagandists like to cite US government officials' statements on this matter in 2016 as proof that the US never intended to get rid of Assad in 2011 or earlier, but they are not considering that these statements may simply reflect a change in strategy.

In Chapter 6 the authors claim people who think Israel and Nusra could be working together have bought into "Assadist" "conspiracy theories". A few years after this book's publication, the possibility that Nusra and Israel are allies has only grown more likely. One can hear the reason why in this Al-Jazeera interview with former Mossad head Efraim Halevi who
acknowledged Israel treats Nusra fighters because it wants to deal with its enemies humanely. However, they would not do this for Hezbollah because Hezbollah actually attacks Israel. One can't help but wonder, if Nusra doesn't attack Israel, and does go after those who do attack it, on what basis does Israel consider Nusra its enemy? (In this same chapter the authors mention a massacre of Druze civilians by Tunisian members of Nusra. This massacre is dismissed as a "dispute over property", rather than being religiously-based, but how exactly were 23 Druze killed in such a dispute? There is no explanation here of what actually took place, and there is no source to substantiate what the authors have said.)

Finally, does the uprising actually have a truly revolutionary character? First, what global repercussions would result from the overthrow of Assad? Would the US empire be strengthened and emboldened or stymied and frustrated? (With more than 700 military bases worldwide and a post-WW2 death toll of at least tens of million on its hands as a result of proxy wars and interventions, the US empire should be of much greater concern than "Russian and Iranian imperialism".) Would the large Western oil and energy companies gain or lose? Would Israel, whose Chief of Military Intelligence Herzi Halevi
admitted in July 2016 he'd prefer ISIS remaining influential in Syria rather than Assad's allies Hezbollah, benefit, or not? Second, what has happened to the people who have been affected by the "revolution"? Has there been an expansion or a limiting of rights as a result? As Jay Tharappel asked in his
presentation on the imperial left in Syria, "What kind of society are the two sides fighting for?" You can see, for instance, in this
report on the local councils, that it is clear the religious militants dominate and whatever secular beliefs some of the people in these areas have, they cannot make their voices heard. While acknowledging women's oppression in the "liberated" areas, the authors blame the inherited authoritarianism of "the regime" (interestingly enough, denying the "agency" of the people involved to think for themselves), and I can't help but point out that even if we take that ridiculous explanation as true, it is a sign that genuine revolutionary consciousness has not occurred, because if it had, the effects of "the regime" on people's thought would no longer be a factor. Except for the privileged classes, revolutions do not take away the rights of people that existed prior to the revolution. So if the Syrian state allowed women to own businesses, uncover their hair, serve in the armed forces and in high-ranking government positions, and under "liberation" they are now forced to don the hijab, are segregated from men, and in some areas are excluded from political life, it is a regression, not a revolution, that has taken place. In addition to these reasons, It does not follow that one can claim there is a revolution going on in Syria, because the movement has no leader, no cohesive philosophy or view, and does not enjoy mass support.
Shamus Cooke elaborates on this matter.

Overall, this book was a God-awful mess. Burning Country has contributed to people's utter ignorance about the conflict in Syria, and that's something I cannot forgive. If you are going to read this book, take note of its deficiencies (be wary of anonymous sourcing and consider whether the often vague or inconclusive "evidence" presented would hold up in court) and engage with a critical mind.
Revisit some of the early reporting on the conflict for a refresher
course on the facts.
This presentation provides a perspective from the other side, worth acquainting yourself with.

[Murtaza · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is less a book about political events than an account of how the Syrian revolution has transformed the country both politically and culturally. It offers a seldom-reported firsthand perspective on how and why Syrians sought to free themselves from the Assad dictatorship, as well as the effects of the global counterrevolution that has met their efforts.

The authors takes an anti-imperialist perspective of events, convincingly describing the Assad government as a local satrap for regional and international powers. Russia in this telling acts as America to Assad's Israel, protecting it from international censure. Iran meanwhile props up the unrepresentative minority government with brute force, similar to American efforts in Vietnam.

The brutality of the regime towards its leftist and civil society opponents is little discussed in the narrative of the war - most accounts tend to wink approvingly at such tactics being used towards "Islamists" - but is documented in great detail here. The positive role played by Muslim volunteers in protecting the Syrian population from the Ba'ath is also described. While much demonized, Muslims who provided aid and volunteered with nationalist militias (as opposed to ISIS neocolonialists) represent one of the few segments of the world that showed any meaningful solidarity with the Syrian people during their struggle. Some of the best parts of the book also deal with the incredible cultural changes experienced by Syrian society since the revolution. While many Syrians have predictably become more conservative, old forms of social organization have also withered away in the face of increasing independence and freedom of thought afforded to Syrian men and women by the breakdown of the Assad order.

The Syrian people experienced a genuine revolution after decades of repression and humiliation, but it was also a revolution that was inconvenient for the rest of the world. In contrast to the regime narrative, which was lazily picked up by many around the world, the uprising was initially cross-sectarian and enjoyed widespread popular support. The later sectarianization was both deliberate and inevitable after years of targeted provocation and violence by the Assad government and its allies, which has refined the colonial practice of exploiting religious divisions to an art form. Most damningly, the government would have likely fallen to a relatively representative Syrian uprising had it not been bailed out by its local and international allies. This is an unforgivable crime, a colonial action that effectively saw the Syrian people as a terrible threat that must be contained through suffocating dictatorship.

This is both a very difficult and very necessary book to read. The Syrian catastrophe is not something that can just be ignored for ideological reasons things. The disastrous effects, worse than the Nakba in sheer scale, necessitate questioning of the existing order, including questioning how once-popular "resistance" organizations could have inflicted such a massive betrayal on a population that had always supported them. A must-read on the revolution, the future of the Syrian people, and the human experience of revolt against suffocating tyranny.

[Alex Linschoten · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven’t been following events in Syria that closely. ‘Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War’ (by Robin Yassin-Kassab, Leila Al-Shami) is only one among several books that have been written in the midst of the ongoing conflict, but I’d heard consistently good things about it since its release at the beginning of 2016. It doesn’t disappoint. I started it yesterday, lulled by the conclusion of a large project and a thousand pictures of Christmas dinner preparations on twitter. I woke up this morning and finished the rest.

Burning Country is compellingly written, not only on a structural level but also on account of its interspersed interview and other oral history-type testimony. This is the book’s primary strength, I felt. It’s hard enough to write accurate and compelling history after the fact. Doing so while events are still unfolding makes the job even harder. Thankfully, Burning Country delivers the goods.

After introducing Syria and Syrians as if to set the stage, Yassin-Kassab and al-Shami launch into an account of the Syrian uprising’s early days, told through a diversity of sources from a variety of backgrounds. They make a strong case for the initial moments of the revolution as being less co-opted by one group or another, even as later chapters show how a variety of forces pushed and pulled that initial impulse in unintended directions. I learnt a lot from the accounts of initial organisational strategies, the way different groups responded to similar kinds of threats from the state and how the logic of violent escalation started to take on more prominence. The chapter on cultural shifts (or expressions) brought about by the revolution (chapter eight) was also excellent. The end of the book falls a little short, if only because the conflict is ongoing and you had the sense that it is an unfinished project.

As a one-stop shop introduction and opening-out to some important parts of Syrian society, history and current affairs, Burning Country is well worth your time. The book ends with a note on thinking about and understanding Syria:

> “In order to truly think globally – rather than to hide from thought behind clumsy globalising paradigms – it is necessary to act locally. We ask the reader, rather than applying the usual grand narratives, to attend to voices from the ground.”

I hope we get to read other histories of Syria (and other countries) that employ the same logic.

[Elena Sala · Rating 4 out of 5]

BURNING COUNTRY: SYRIANS IN REVOLUTION AND WAR (2018) is a chronicle of the 2011 Syrian revolution which includes testimonies of people involved in the war, a really complex, ruinous, endless war.

The first chapters are probably the best: they provide historical context and explain how the minority Shia Alawite sect (only 12% of the Syrian population is Alawite, most of the people are Sunni Muslims). The Assad family belongs to the Alawite sect. They seized power in the 1960s.

Hafez ruled for 30 years and modernized the country at the cost of brutal repression. Capitalism for friends and sectarianism were the hallmarks of his rule. When he died in 2000 his son, Bashar, came into power. At first he seemed to be a different kind of leader, but that was only an illusion. At the first signs of dissent, Bashar restricted freedom of expression.

After 12 years of enduring repression, a great number of people took to the streets to demand reforms. Bashar responded savagely. Very soon small groups of armed rebels started to appear. The rebels had no unifying ideology and many times they had difficulty working together. They were united in their hatred of Bashar, but they had different agendas.

As the rebels increased in number, they managed to obtain arms. They fought fiercely. Bashar soon had to accept help from Iran (with its proxy Hizbullah) because he couldn't control the rebels. And then extremist islamists like ISIS took the opportunity to embed themselves in liberated territory.

If things didn't look bad enough for the Syrians, the US started to intervene. They targeted ISIS and other jihadists, but killed lots of civilians who were nearby. Then Russia intervened with a massive campaign too: Russia targeted the communities which had driven out ISIS and Assad.

Most of us are aware that this war has brought the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War. The country is mutilated, fragmented, it's economy and infrastructure destroyed. The conflict still rages. It's a desperately depressing story with no end in sight.

I think this book's analysis is very thorough and intelligent, though it clearly is in favor of the rebels. However, I felt that it wasn't very accessible for a reader who has no prior knowledge of middle eastern sectarian politics. I don't feel very comfortable rating this book because of my own shortcomings as a reader but I felt it got more and more confusing as the war raged on and many new and different players joined the fight. It doesn't help either that sometimes the authors used both acronyms DAESH and ISIS, which I believe are the same thing, but I initially thought they referred to two different jihadist groups. The same applies to Nusra and Al-Qaida: I think they are the same thing but they use both terms, and this creates a huge confusion for a reader who wishes to read an introductory text. I'm sure there are other examples of this which I have missed so I wouldn't recommend this book as an introductory text despite its many merits.

3.5⭐

[Sotiris Karaiskos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Μία εξαιρετική αφήγηση των γεγονότων που οδήγησαν στη σημερινή κατάσταση στη Συρία από την πλευρά των πιο αρμοδίων για να μιλήσουν για αυτά: των ίδιων των εξεγερμένων. Αυτών δηλαδή που το 2011 ξεσηκώθηκαν ενάντια στο σκληρό καθεστώς που τους κυβερνάει εδώ και δεκαετίες για να γνωρίσουν στη συνέχεια τη βία του συριακού στρατού και των συμμάχων τους στη συνέχεια, τη βαρβαρότητα των τζιχαντιστών και την αδιαφορία της δυτικής κοινής γνώμης. Μέσα από τις σελίδες αυτού το βιβλίου ο αναγνώστης μαθαίνει για το πολυδιάστατο προοδευτικό κίνημα που βρίσκεται πίσω από την επανάσταση, για αυτά που προηγήθηκαν αυτής και φυσικά για τη μεγάλη καταστροφή που έφερε η ένοπλη σύγκρουση. Ένα απαραίτητο ανάγνωσμα για αυτούς που θέλουνε να έχουμε μία πληρέστερη περιγραφή των γεγονότων στη Συρία και δεν διακατέχονται από διάφορες ιδεολογικές προκαταλήψεις.

[Matt Brady · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the Syrian revolution, tracing it's origins from a largely peaceful, entirely spontaneous cross-cultural uprising into it's militarization and then islamicisation (is that even a word), and arguing that the latter was actually openly encouraged by assad's regime in a clever move to secularise the conflict and prevent the rebels from receiving wholehearted foreign support. It's bleak and depressing, but also serves as a pretty important tribute to the many courageous Syrian activists who took a stand, fought, and in many cases died (and are still dying)

[AC · Rating 4 out of 5]

An activist's account of the revolution and of Assad's savage repression in Syria. A very disturbing look from within. In sum: Assad is a monster.

[Radiantflux · Rating 4 out of 5]

75th book for 2018.

A very interesting history of the Syrian revolution, written from a progressive/left point of view.

This is similar to what George Orwell might have written, if he had been born Spanish and bothered to write a detailed history of an ongoing Spanish Civil War, as opposed to the quasi-gonzo-journalism of Homage to Catalonia.

Yassin-Kassab makes a strong case for the essentially democratic, revolutionary and secular nature of the early revolution, which filled with hope for a better society after years for brutal oppression by the Assad family, was ultimately let down by global power politics (in particular by Obama's desire not to anger the Iranians in the lead up to a nuclear deal).

Reading this is to feel real shame as to the West failed to offer real aid to democratic forces in the Syria when they needed it, leading to the downward cycle of hell that this country has become.

Necessary reading for all progressives.

4-stars.

[Anand Gopal · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book on the Syrian revolution.

[Gabriel Embrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have two major critiques of 'Burning Country' the first of which is not the fault of the author, That being as a reader in 2023 having the story of the Syrian Civil War end in early 2015 makes the text highly incomplete. As of the end of the book, the YGP counter-offensive in the north, the Turkish intervention in Afrin and the border region, the siege and recapture of Aleppo by the SAA, the collapse of Daesh, the Assad-Kurdish detente, and the indeterminate Salafi mercenary occupation of Idlib make this book a very incomplete resource. For this reason alone I wouldn't recommend it as at this point there has been more Syrian Civil War after the publication of 'Burning Country' than before it.

The second critique is the text is less a total recounting of the Civil War but instead a recounting of the popular resistance to the Ba'ath government of Syria and the crushing of that resistance. However, the broader context of the conflict is often ignored and much activity is ascribed to the grassroots that in actuality was well-organized militias sponsored by the Gulf states or Turkey. The general regional/ international context is probably the greatest weak point of the book. On the whole, the text is organized as a Revolution and Counterrevolution which led to the disintegration of the country as opposed to a popular uprising that was instrumentalized by regional powers and the US/NATO to topple another secular strongman in the region. The information the authors cite and the story they tell of violent repression by the authoritarian Syrian government isn't a falsification as some of this book other detractors may claim, yet it's not an even-handed historical account given the large omissions.

Burning Country is really of its moment when there was a good deal of well-meaning and ill-informed interest in the Syrian Civil War in the Anglophone world. There was a sizable market for a snappy journalistic text that emphasized the "Assad the Buther" and decenters the Gulf states and NATO backing sectarian militias in a proxy war. However, 8 years out from the book's publication the proxy war nature of the conflict is obvious to all, and foreign affairs minded liberals have newer wars to read about. Only read 'Burning Country' if you are interested in the Historiography of the Syrian Civil War and how the framing of the conflict has changed over time.

[baby · Rating 3 out of 5]

for radicals who were excited by events in rojava but have little understanding of the context in syria this book seems like a really good place to start. al-shami and kassab tell individual stories of lived revolt and brutal counter revolution in beautiful, tragic, nuanced ways, and situate them well in the larger warring parties. i generally get confused and bored by texts dealing with history, unable to keep track of names, dates, and groups, but this book was an engaging read that i was able to focus on even when there were other things going on around me.

sometimes the authors liberalism creeps in when they speak of people desiring "democracy" often failing to examine the many, many desirable, undesirable, and conflicting goals that could be expressed with the same buzzwords, and the way they write of continuation of governance (specifically the creation of police forces) in 'liberated' areas as obviously Good, am example of success. however, they clearly have a strong complex understanding of the conflict in syria and do a good job of letting it be complicated. they mostly resist ascribing ideologies to people acting in this conflict for myriads of particular reasons and do not simplify organizations and alliances under a false united vision. i definitely feel like i have a good foundational understanding to be able to critically read and understand more about syria.

[Mujda · Rating 5 out of 5]

A perfectly composed encapsulation of the Syrian narrative – nothing comes close to reading the personal thoughts and words of the Syrian revolutionaries themselves. Anecdotes have been seriously undermined, and this book revives this issue. Split into ten chapters, the book explains and analyses all aspects of the revolution – what I liked most was the clear chronology. It took you through from the beginning right through to the present, and it was truly fascinating to see how the revolution evolved over time.

One aspect that I particularly commend is the inclusion of the Kurds in the Syrian narrative. I’ve read a number of books now on Syria that have frustratingly overlooked the Kurdish question, and it is only this that has integrated it. More so, the tone is (as is with the rest of the book) honest and objective. The details, figures and numbers used accentuate its analytical precision, and concise conclusions the authors make.

It goes to say that narratives of any conflict should be written by those who have experienced it first hand – if you want to understand what is happening in Syria, take it from those who have lived through and experienced the conflict. This book gives you that.

[Brian Bean · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Videos of tens of thousands of people demonstrating against tyranny gave way to the images of deserted streets in derelict towns. Of tanks driving up main streets and planes bombing villages. The cynics who didn’t bat an eyelid for the thousands of innocents who were shot like dogs now nod their heads knowingly and speak of a revolution ‘hijacked’. They can go to hell. This revolution was not about an ideology or a religion, and it wasn’t about grand political scheming, it was about normal people who stopped what they were doing to stand up for what they believed in, and what they did that even though they were afraid and, in many cases, would lose their lives. Injustice can only sustain itself through fear, and on that day we broke fear forever." Wasiim al-Adl.

[Maxy.kai · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is such a necessary book. Highly recommended to anyone who is interested in reading about Syria. It's an easy to read, well written and succinct account of the Syrian regime, the revolution and the current situation. In badiouian terms it's a heartbreaking plea to maintain fidelity to the event of the syrian revolution and for western leftists to understand the situation based on grassroots voices rather than through 'anti-imperialist' dogma. Really good.

[Joey Ayoub · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading it this morning and I'm halfway through. I had already read the first edition so I was familiar with Robin and Leila's great and important work, but they've truly managed to turn an already-important book into one which must join the increasing numbers of books written by Syrians about Syria to counter the toxic environment that has engulfed the Right and the Left into competing conspiracy wormholes. I hope this book finds its way to classrooms.

[Westward Woess · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really hard-hitting and thorough book. The authors attempt to elucidate an extremely complex situation, sketching out the Syrian Revolution from the ground up. It is hard to summarize it, as there is so much information and it takes time to read and absorb. Regardless, I absolutely recommend this book. It pulls no punches when it comes to Assad and it completely humanizes the Syrians across the board. I don’t know you, but I think you should read this book.

[Daniel Simmons · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hands-down the single best thing I have read about the Syrian revolution. The authors eschew, in their own words, "the usual grand narratives to attend to voices from the ground", and in so doing they shed light on and bring reason to an enormously complex and upsettingly misunderstood conflict. Superb.

[Max · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are searching for something like a 'people's history of the Syrian revolution', you don't have to look any further, this is it.

[Sina Tahmasbi · Rating 4 out of 5]

۱۸/۴/۱۴۰۴

«خاورمیانه جاییه که ماهی‌ها زندگی توی خشکی رو قبل از اینکه آخرین قطره‌ی آب از روی پوستشون بخار بشه یاد میگیرن.».

روز اولی که کتاب رو شروع کردم توی خاورمیانه‌ای بودم که با خاورمیانه‌ی وقت اتمام کتاب متفاوت بود، سرعت وقوع اتفاقات توی این بخش همیشه غوغای زمین انقدر بالاست که احتمالاً قبل از اینکه فرصت شوکه شدن پیدا کنی خودت رو باهاش هماهنگ کردی.
من از یک سال و سنی به بعد از اینکه متعجب بشم خجالت می‌کشیدم. در واقع فکر می‌کردم تعجب کردن از نا آگاهی نسبت به محیط میاد و اگر فارسی بلدید و دارید این متن رو می‌خونید احتمالا درک خواهید کرد که متعجب نشدن برای ما چقدر سخته. و این سختی خنده دار داره هرروز شدیدتر میشه.
و این سخت بودن به تعجب نکردن محدود نمیشه، من میترسم از یک سری کلمات استفاده کنم و این ترس طوری هرروز بیشتر رشد میکنه که گاهی از خودم میپرسم اصلا دوباره میتونم چهارتا جمله رو بدون اینکه واقعا بهشون مشکوک باشم بیان کنم؟
اینکه استفاده از یک کلمه من رو در دسته‌ی آدم‌هایی قرار بده که در تمام زندگیم حالم ازشون بهم میخورده من رو میترسونه. از همون «ما» که به بهانه‌ی فارسی توی جمله آوردم تا «وطن» که امروز داغ پیشانی هر ناکسی شده میترسم، از «من» از «غرور» از «استقلال»، از تمام حروفی که بی‌ مهابا برای «حفظ ارز‌ش‌ها» و «وحدت» توی کلام ریخته میشن میترسم، و این برای کسی که الفبا تنها دوستیه که براش باقی مونده شبیه کابوسه.


----

«کشور سوزان: سوریه در انقلاب و جنگ» همون ‌طور که از عنوانش مشخصه انقلاب به ثمر *ننشسته‌ی سوریه رو روایت میکنه. بخش‌های کتاب بر اساس زوایای مختلف این جنبش و پیشینه‌ی اون از به قدرت رسیدن حافظ اسد تا سال ۲۰۱۶(سال انتشار کتاب) دسته بندی شدن، بخش جالب برای من فصول مربوط به خودسازماندهی‌های کوچک و بزرگی بود که طی انقلاب در بخش‌های مختلف سوریه شکل گرفته بود. پیش از این دید من محدود به سازمان‌‌دهی‌های کلانی بود که در اکثرا در بخش شمال و شرق سوریه متمرکز شده بودن. اما در واقعیت این مدیریت‌ خودجوش در ابعاد روستایی و حتی محله‌ای و خانوادگی طی یک بازه‌ی زمانی تقریبا طولانی در انقلاب سوریه ایجاد شد و به نظرم الگوی جالب و قابل توجهی رو برای موقعیت‌های این چنینی ارائه میده.
از سمت دیگه بررسی انقلاب بر اساس خط زمانی باعث شده که تصویر کلی اما مناسبی از دو نکته‌ی مهم «چرایی» و «چگونگی» این جنبش ایجاد بشه.
اما مهم ترین نکته‌ای که به نظرم کتاب رو ارزشمند و قابل استناد می‌کنه روایت از داخل و بطن واقعه‌ست که گستره‌ی متنوعی از شاهدین رو در بر میگیره و این از هر منبع خارجی معتبری هم قابل اعتماد تره.

* میدونم اسد رفته و میدونم چه کسانی به جاش اومدند. چه کنم که معتقدم هیولا با کراوات هم هیولاست. ولی امید دارم که حق با امیدواران باشه!

[Bronwen Griffiths · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to understand the terrible crisis that is Syria. The authors quote from Syrians on the ground, and shows how the revolution was brutally repressed by the regime, resulting in the disintegration of the country. It is not an impartial book but I fail to see how it could be, and for me it is all the better for this. It also made me think more deeply about my own society. As the book was written in 2015 there is however little discussion on the implications of Russia's involvement in the war (except for a short epilogue). Besides that, which is inevitable due to the way world events move quickly, in my opinion the book cannot be faulted. I can't recommend this book more highly. Read it! Buy it, beg, borrow or steal it.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

A seriously comprehensive/thorough study of the Syrian revolution, given the fairly short length. It covers everything really well: Syrian history (including the crucial colonizal era), cultural resistance, the Kurdish "side" of the conflict, the role of the myriad international actors, and so on, while remaining critical of "mainstream" narratives throughout. In other words, you'll learn what these mainstream narratives are but also what contradictory "facts on the ground" are important to look at, so that you can remain critical when new narratives are trotted out by Western media. I've now read a couple of books+articles about the revolution, and this one definitely seems to be the best one for people (like myself) with little prior knowledge.

[Muhammad Ahmad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is more than just a people's history of the Syrian revolution, it is also a concise history of the country, a catalogue of the deliberate strategies and unwitting mistakes that brought on the counter-revolution, and an indictment of the international community and the western left for their abandonment of a people facing genocide. Above all, it is a necessary corrective to all the crypto-fascist apologia issuing from the Fisk, Cockburn, Glass quarters.

[Rocio · Rating 5 out of 5]

I stopped & started this book over 2 years because it has such a wealth of information and very glad I finally finished it. The book armed me with so many facts to counter Islamophobic rhetoric about Syrians.

[Stella · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a load of rubbish. Looking at al-Qaeda through rose coloured glasses! You should state which Syrian people are represented. A tiny slice of the pie that suits your agenda, obviously!

[Tess · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding book. I'm always hesitant of using the term 'must-read', but the Syrian revolution is so important to the world's politics today that I think everyone really should read this.

[Miroku Nemeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Newly relevant with incisive insights seven years after its publishing with the success of the revolution in Syria, which is deeply misunderstood by all except those who know Syrians closely and know how much they have suffered and how much this means to them. Alhumdulillah, may Allah free all of the people of Sham in total from dictators, colonizers, and oppressors. Recent interviews with Robin Yassin-Kassab have been excellent, and I highly recommend looking them up. Too many voices out there on the American and British "Left" are bought and paid for and extremely misleading on Syria.

[dana · Rating 5 out of 5]

ughhhhh