[Marxism] Fwd: The left can oppose Russian intervention in Syria without capitulating to our own rulers | REDFLAG

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Wed Oct 14 20:31:47 MDT 2015


On 10/14/15 9:10 PM, Stuart Munckton wrote:
> It mention Russia more through out it. You can disagree with what Green
> Left says about Russia's intervention,  but you cannot -- without being
> utterly dishonest -- pretend it has said nothing about it! Perhaps the
> reason is Green Left's attitude to Russia's intervention doesn't fit Red
> Flag's cookie cutter approach that likes to deal with grossly offensive
> defences of Russia's actions by the likes of Mike Whitney or Socialist
> Unity (does anyone still pay attention to that site?)

I accept that SAlt lied about what Tony Iltis wrote (weird that they 
didn't even include a link to the article.)

But there are huge problems with the article.

As I stated when I first read it, this is nonsense: "The evolution of 
this uprising into a civil war was largely the result of Western 
interference." That is baloney. It evolved into a civil war because the 
Baathists began killing peaceful protestors.

Tony writes immediately afterwards:

"After Assad resorted to military force to crush the uprising and some 
officers in his army defected to the opposition, the West began arming 
opposition militias. This took place directly through the CIA and 
indirectly by US allies in the region, in particular via Saudi Arabia, 
Qatar and Turkey."

In fact throughout the early stages of the war, the FSA got its weapons 
from armories it overran, on the black market, or they made them 
wherever there were machine tools and welding equipment as C.J. Chivers 
reported in the NYT on August 28, 2012:

	As the midsummer sun blazed over this partially deserted Syrian city 
one recent afternoon, two young men appeared in a pickup truck in an 
alley near several auto repair workshops. Protruding from the truck’s 
bed was a steel pipe about three feet long and two and a half inches 
wide, resting on a simple frame.

	The pipe was not for plumbing. It was a locally made mortar that had 
been used in July in the battle for Azaz, a city in northern Syria where 
antigovernment fighters drove away the army of President Bashar al-Assad.

	Now we have three or four of these, but we need to make more,” said 
Mustafa, one of the men who had assembled the weapons in small machine 
shops where since last year a key aspect of the revolution against 
Syria’s government has been waged by men who do not themselves often 
carry guns.

In explaining Hizbollah's entry into the war, Tony has this novel 
explanation:

	Hezbollah can no longer rely on Syria as a source of weapons and 
logistical support against Israel. Instead, the Shia-based group has 
been increasingly drawn into the Syrian conflict in defence of the 
regime, largely because many of the Sunni armed groups in Syria have 
links with Hezbollah's Sunni opponents in Lebanon.

Do you comrades really believe that it was motivated to intervene 
because of Lebanese politics? The least you can do is provide some 
documentation to back up this far-fetched theory.

This one is really the corker, however:

	Russia's entry into the “War on ISIS” in Syria, however, is legitimised 
by an invitation from the Assad regime, which is still recognised by the 
United Nations.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this idiocy.





More information about the Marxism mailing list