[Marxism] Fwd: In the Middle East, our enemy's enemy must be our friend - Voices - The Independent
amithrgupta at gmail.com
Sun Apr 12 14:33:11 MDT 2015
My impression (without doing too close of a reading) is that he is saying
that the US drone campaign elsewhere is being fought on false pretenses
(duh) because if they really cared about fighting AQ/ISIS they would be
using the drones to back up the Syrian regime (even though that seems to be
increasingly what they are doing).
I am weary of trying to read too much into anti-imperialist writing. It is
difficult to find an appropriate position re: Syria. If you go too far in
one direction, you're "pro-Assad". If you go too far in the other, you're
an imperialist. Reminds me of the space (or lack thereof) prior to the US
invasion of Iraq, wherein you were either with the war or with the regime.
"Neither" never appears to be an option with articulate spokespeople.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/15 4:00 PM, A.R. G wrote:
>> If Cockburn was making the arguments Louis is accusing him of making,
>> then I am with Louis.
>> But I did not get that reading. It sounds less like he's calling for
>> drone attacks against ISIS and more like he's calling for an end to US
>> collaboration with Saudi Arabia, something perfectly valid.
> That is because he is using circumlocutions such as this:
> "But if we have decided that US air power is not to be used against Isis
> or Jabhat al-Nusra when they are fighting the Syrian army because we want
> to get rid of President Bashar al-Assad, then this is a decision that
> benefits Isis, Jabhat al-Nusra and extreme jihadis."
> A less weaselly formulation would be:
> "The United States would be wise to bomb jihadists in Syria at all times
> and under all conditions since the Baathists are a lesser evil than them."
>> Also, I do not know where Louis got the notion that Electronic Intifada
>> supports Assad.
> My mistake. I meant Al Akhbar.
More information about the Marxism