[Marxism] a particularly slimy critique of Achcar
lnp3 at panix.com
Sun Dec 27 07:19:51 MST 2015
On 12/27/15 5:50 AM, Lüko Willms wrote:
> We may agree that those regimes are useless, but then we should also
> both agree that they have not to be replaced by a government with the
> Empire's blessing, but by a leadership which can unite not only their
> country as gerrymandered by the British and French colonialists, but the
> whole Arab nation in a liberation war against the USA and the minor
> imperialist powers.
This is our difference. You are describing what has been happening over
the past four years in terms of Bush's designs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is dead wrong. Let me extract the part of my article that should
make that clear:
In fact there was zero interest in a large-scale intervention in Syria
in either civilian or military quarters. All this is documented in a NY
Times article from October 22nd 2013, written when the alarums over a
looming war with Syria were at their loudest, that stated “from the
beginning, Mr. Obama made it clear to his aides that he did not envision
an American military intervention, even as public calls mounted that
year for a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians from bombings.” The
article stressed the role of White House Chief of Staff Dennis
McDonough, who had frequently clashed with the hawkish Samantha Power.
In contrast to Power and others with a more overtly “humanitarian
intervention” perspective, McDonough “who had perhaps the closest ties
to Mr. Obama, remained skeptical. He questioned how much it was in
America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria.” In other words,
the White House policy was and is allowing the Baathists and the rebels
to exhaust each other in an endless war, just as was White House policy
during the Iran-Iraq conflict.
More information about the Marxism