The Bricmont and Johnstone Faux Pas: Wrongly Blaming Israel for US Policy on Syria

Not only does their analysis of the situation fall pathetically short, the motives of Bricmont and Johnstone are indeed questionable. Whose interests do they serve (poorly) by publishing their article? Thanks to Mr. Gowans for sorting things out for the rest of us.

what's left

By Stephen Gowans

In a counterpunch.org article titled “The People Against the 800 Pound Gorilla” Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone argue that “genuine, material or economic U.S. interests in going to war [against Syria] are … hard to find”; that US foreign policy is not based on moral concerns; and that the real basis for war—ruling out the former two explanations—must therefore be pressure from Israel.

They dismiss as unsatisfying the explanations of “many” of their Marxist friends who, they say, “ insist that every war is driven by economic interests,” and that “this latest war [is] to be waged because big bad capitalists want to exploit Syrian gas, or use Syrian territory for a gas pipeline, or open up the Syrian economy to foreign investments…”

In place of this Marxist straw man (which friend of theirs believes that every war is driven by economic interests?) they offer…

View original post 2,465 more words

Advertisements

About Prole Center

Workers of the World, Unite!
This entry was posted in Class War Chronicle. Bookmark the permalink.