One must remember that Achcar was for the U.S./NATO intervention in Libya, and swallowed whole the stories about the horror/massacre that Gadaffi was going to inflict upon people in Bengazi. He is now leaning in the same direction, albeit more slyly and discreetly, with respect to Syria. He says that the U.S./NATO has no intention—does not want—to intervene directly in Syria, but Achcar proposes that weapons be supplied to the rebels there, as if they dont have any of consequence. He omits the facts that NATO, via Turkey, has been clearly helping the rebels, at the least factions of them. Moreover, he knows well that the Saudis and Bahreinis who are supplying arms, and perhaps more, to the rebels are doing so with the blessing of the U.S.
Ashcar also willfully ignores the fact that not all, or perhaps not even most, Syrians are in the rebel camp. Bashar supporters are not restricted by far to the 10% Alawites he cites. He fails to mention the now Shia-Sunni aspect to the civil war there.
He mentions the terrors of Bashad, e.g., in Homs early on, but omits like terrors of the opposition.
Finally, he discounts what the true interests of the Empire are with respect to Syria, not only Israel, but especially the Bashar regime's friendliness to Iran and Hezbollah. Meanwhille, there are now reports that the Golan will be probed for oil/gas resources by Israel.
Although not everything Ashcar says should be discounted, in view of his past "analyses" with respect to Libya, I fear his "humanitarian" tendency for intervention in Syria, despite his present denial of same.
Yes, with his facile denigration of "Campism", he fails to acknowledge the geopolitical aspects of who will control Syria.
ZNet Articles
ZAudios
ZVideos
Achcar on Syria
By Brussel, Morton k. at Feb 22, 2013 23:46 PM
Ashcar also willfully ignores the fact that not all, or perhaps not even most, Syrians are in the rebel camp. Bashar supporters are not restricted by far to the 10% Alawites he cites. He fails to mention the now Shia-Sunni aspect to the civil war there.
He mentions the terrors of Bashad, e.g., in Homs early on, but omits like terrors of the opposition.
Finally, he discounts what the true interests of the Empire are with respect to Syria, not only Israel, but especially the Bashar regime's friendliness to Iran and Hezbollah. Meanwhille, there are now reports that the Golan will be probed for oil/gas resources by Israel.
Although not everything Ashcar says should be discounted, in view of his past "analyses" with respect to Libya, I fear his "humanitarian" tendency for intervention in Syria, despite his present denial of same.
Yes, with his facile denigration of "Campism", he fails to acknowledge the geopolitical aspects of who will control Syria.
Reply this comment