Contras (was Re: Why NATO simultaneously arms trains and denounces the KLA)

Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at SPAMarnet.com.ar
Mon Mar 5 21:51:44 MST 2001


En relación a Re: Why NATO simultaneously arms trains and denou,
el 5 Mar 01, a las 15:53, Borba100 at aol.com dijo:

> In a message dated 03/05/2001 11:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> lnp3 at panix.com writes:
>
> << The KLA was never just a puppet,
>  in the same fashion that the Afghan, Angolan or Nicaraguan contras were
>  never totally controlled by the CIA. I >>
>
> Dear Lou,
>
> If the contras weren't total puppets this sets the requirements of
> total-puppet-hood pretty high.

On this, Jared is wrong IMHO. The contras DID have a mass following, which was
not something dissociated with serious mistakes by the Sandinists. A case such
as that of Batista was an absolute originality. Non bis in idem.

Now, a general comment that the above has set in motion in my mind.

It is important not to downplay the reactionary tendencies that exist, partly
out of local history, partly out of deformation by ideological colonization, in
semicolonial countries. And even this deformation, an apparently
superstructural phenomenon, is an expression of the economic dependency towards
the core.

The semicolonial world is less plentiful of heroes than many in the First World
would like to admit. When we organize around a clear set of banners, of course
we can be heroic. But this is true of any people in the world.

I always tend to ask comrades in the core to respect our own identities and our
own tempos, as much as we respect theirs. This may be understood as an one-
sided proposition that we be left alone because we have all the energies we
need within ourselves. In fact, what this is really meaning is that the only
way we who are trying to push history forward in these wretched corners of the
globe can be succesful is by allowing us to deal with the strong, not weak,
repeat, the STRONG currents that hinder that movement by ourselves, without
trying to impose lessons on us.

Whatever some comrades in the First World may imagine, misery does not engender
heroism.


But OK, none of these guys are ever totally
> controlled; humans can't be.
>
> But we need not speculate at least about certain facts: I have spoken to
> eyewitnesses who were doing support work for the Yugoslav forces in the war zone
> and they observed NATO helicopters flying cover for the KLA.  The BBC says NATO
> continues to train the 'guerillas' attacking inner Serbia and Former Macedonia.
> The KLA is carrying heavy weapons in full view of NATO troops, and so on.  The
> KLA is NOT a formidable army - but they are usable for terror and harassment;
> and they provide NATO with a provocative situation justifying further
> intervention if needed. That is, with tactical flexibility.
>
> I agree with Lou that NATO would LIKE to "turn" the Yugoslav army  and that is
> one of the reasons for NATO's current maneuvering. But NATO's  problem is the
> politics of much of the army which are different from Kostunitsa.  So, does NATO
> believe they can turn the army? Or are they just trying to make as much headway
> as possible, weaken it, demoralize it as much as possible before a
> confrontation?  We shall see.
>
> Jared
>
>
>



Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list