[Marxism] Should all reporting in imperialist media about Libya be dismissed? (Was:Re: U.S. Helps “Rebels” Murdering Black Libyans)
ffeldman at verizon.net
Tue Jul 12 03:16:52 MDT 2011
I think Mark's suggestion that this article should be given the
brush-off because it appeared in the Wall Street Journal are specious,
unless he considers the NATO-backed, armed, and funded (though not
initiated) "revolution" in Libya to be the equivalent of the Sandinistas
as a threat to US imperialist interests.
Note for one thing that the WSJ supports the NATO war in Libya, whereas
it has long bitterly opposed the popular revolts in Latin America, none
of which have won this kind of support from the US government and NATO.
Greg McDonald and I separately posted the same article a few weeks ago.
At that time, it tended to be dismissed because the reporter interpreted
the divisions he saw as "tribal." Nonetheless, his report tended to
undermine the claims of , rather than the claims of universal
opposition to the Gadhafi regime (a claim which had been used to sell
the NATO war). None of those he interviewed, as I recall now, described
these conflicts as tribal or racial.
I noted that the fact that the Misrata region, previously presented as
a seamlessly united stronghold of the opposition, was actually in sharp
civil conflict was an important signal of the reasons why the NATO war
has run into problems achieving its goals and the rebels, in spite of
the support of some 50 bombing raids a day (as well as arms and money
and advisers), seem to be basically stalemated.
I also speculated that the divisions might be deepening because of a
loss of some support by the rebels since the opening of the NATO war of
aggression. ( Almost all of us seem to be agreed now that a "war of
aggression" is what the NATO war is.)
Mark may think that the WSJ only publishes (and, on his assumption,
makes up) this story because they believe the Libyan opposition are
revolutionaries, a type which the WSJ has always tended to view with dismay.
I suggested that the reason might stem from the fact that the
imperialist war to topple the Gadhafi regime has turned out not to be a
pushover, as we were assured when it started ("days, not weeks") and
that the NATO alliance is clearly showing the strain. I think the
Guardian, the WSJ, and some others are beginning to see an interest in
providing facts about the conflict in Libya that indicate the fact that
it is not the pure and simple liberation war of the whole people that it
was sold as being.
At any rate, I think Mark is off-base in suggesting that any indications
of this that appear in the imperialist media should be dismissed out of
hand because these media are known to lie quite often.
More information about the Marxism