COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY NICK COHEN IN THE GUARDIAN
"Who, on the left
or right, will stand up for Syria?'
A truly confused bit of writing, Mr. Cohen, but I do believe
the intention here is to confuse rather than inform.
"...the practical effect of Nato policy has been to
give Russia a free pass, as Corbyn does."
Free pass? What on earth is that supposed to mean?
And why is decent Jeremy Corbyn thrown in? Seems to me a
gratuitous little kick at a man Guardian editors and a number of its columnists
have never ceased accusing and abusing?
Permit me to remind readers of the most basic fact of this
situation. Russia was invited by a legitimate, elected government to help fight
a literal explosion of genuine terror, terror financed and supported from
outside the country.
All the murderous efforts destroying the beautiful and
previously peaceful land of Syria by several countries takes place under the
auspices and blessing of the United States.
It pretends that President Assad is a terrible man who
cannot “be allowed” to continue ruling his own country, although just when or
why God delegated to the United States the task of designating what is evil is
unknown. The people of Syria, in any event, say otherwise, with every poll
supporting him and the army remaining faithful.
Why does the United States do this? Essentially it is
because Assad is an intelligent and independent-minded leader who keeps the
interests of his own people foremost. But there are two very specific reasons
intensifying the dislike of Assad’s independent-mindedness.
One, is a gas pipeline the United States wants built across
Syria. Assad doesn’t agree with the project, and not agreeing with the United
States can prove a very dangerous thing, even in your own country.
Second, Israel hates Assad and wants him gone, and in the
politics of the United States the wishes of Israel play an outsized role.
To my mind, almost all fair-minded people and all true
liberals would agree those make a pretty contemptible reason to tear a country
apart and kill 300,000 people. How is it different to the worst war crimes?
It’s not.
And how is NATO involved, unless you advocate it invading a
country where it is not welcome?
Of course, what you are really saying is that you are upset
that America's ugly plans for the region appear to have been thwarted, and all
I can say - a genuine liberal, not a notional one - is a heartfelt hurray.
I'm sorry to disagree with your words about liberalism, but
the word means a great deal to me, reflecting the culmination of a long and
often painful history in Europe.
