******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Proyect via Marxism
Subject: [Marxism] Pro-Assad President Trump makes anti-Assad retired
general Secretary of Defense
.....................................
Anti-Assad? Anti-Iran perhaps. Either way, that's an article from 2012!
Even at that time, he made clear he was opposed to intervention against
Assad, opposed to a no fly zone, he questioned whether having anything
to do with Syria was in US interests at all, yes, he was anti-Iran, and
did say Assad's defeat would be a defeat for Iran, but opposed any
measures hastening it. Even in relation to Iran, he opposed military
action (as this article says), and though he subsequently opposed the
details of Obama's Iran deal (as does pro-Putin/Assad Trump), even at
that time he insisted that Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions can only be
dealt with via diplomacy. All of this was still his line as outlined
clearly in this article from 2013
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/21/former-commander-of-us-central-command-cautions-against-u-s-military-involvement-in-syria-without-an-endgame/.
The only thing he said back then in 2013 about aiding Syrian rebels was
nothing other than a cautious semi-endorsement of what became the Obama
line:
"The retired general also said the administration’s plan to supply arms
to the rebels is not without risk, as the weapons could get into the
wrong hands. But that risk can be mitigated by thorough training,
employing the secret services of surrounding countries and using U.S.
special ops to monitor the situation. “There's a way to do it, but it’s
a commitment, not a donation,” Mattis said. “This is significant for a
country that is once more going to find itself at odds in the midst of a
very, very confusing situation on the ground in the Middle East.” "
Hardly a ringing endorsement, let alone a harder line.
But more importantly, he has since dropped that - here is from 2015:
"Mattis raised concerns about strategy in Syria, saying U.S. political
objectives remains unclear. He also said *the time to support moderate
rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime as well as the
Islamic State had “passed.”*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/01/27/retired-generals-u-s-set-for-failure-in-iraq-and-syria-without-clear-strategy/.
Clear enough? The Obama/Trump line: fight only ISIS (and Nusra). Seems
perfect for Trump.
On the other hand, he is still called an "Iran hawk", because of his
opposition to the Iran deal. It is true that this is a contradiction in
"Trumpism" in general - Putin and Assad are good, Iran is bad (kind of
the Netanyahu line, in rhetoric). However, also like Trump, he knows the
difference between oppositionist rhetoric and pragmatism: "But while
Mattis has in the past attacked the deal, since its signing by the Obama
administration he’s called the agreement a fait accompli that must be
accepted.“We are going to have to recognize that we have an imperfect
arms control agreement,” he said. “What we achieved was a nuclear pause,
not a nuclear halt. We're going to have to plan for the worst.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/220577.
On the plus side, Mattis is less pro-Netanyahu than Trump; compared to
Trump's ringing endorsement of more Israeli colonisation, Mattis
actually warned that this could lead to "apartheid" (lead to - these
guys are slow, but anyway); and unlike Trump he is opposed to torture,
though only on pragmatic grounds.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
