Below,  is the forward of some comments that Jared Israel made on the
marxism LIST re: The Wars in the Caucasus.    It relates to US
involvement in these conflicts.

Emperors-clothes has become the principal Left site on the WEB opposing
the continuation of NATO's wars.      As such, they deserve our support
(including financially) in their efforts to continue to oppose our
government's future and present aggressions.    
.........................................................
Forwarded message:
From:    [log in to unmask] Date:    Mon, Jan 10, 2000, 2:37pm
(CST+1) Subject:

Re: Who are the US allies in the Caucasus? To:   
[log in to unmask] Sender:    [log in to unmask]
Reply to:    [log in to unmask]

In a message dated 01/10/2000 1:23:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Nevertheless, facts can be difficult things. For example,
CounterPunch--which did not skimp on opposition to the war against
Serbia and expertly dissected the lying premises behind it--reported
some months ago that the FBI was offering assistance to the Russians in
Chechnya. >>

  Counterpunch is an excellent website. Actually, I wrote some of
their pieces which specifically attacked the lies about the war -
particularly Lies, Damn Lies and Maps and THIS PEACE MEANS WAR. On the
other hand, Cockburn goes all over the map - brilliant, but hardly a
compass. His piece criticizing the lies about mass graves, posted a
month or so ago in the LA Times was grievously guilty of using the
OBLIGATORY BASH (for a discussion of which see "WHY DO YOU SAY 'OF
Course' Mr. Hume?" at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/hume.htm.

The US has indeed offered to help Russia in many ways. So does the fox
offer his courtesy to the hen. They wanna help everyone...

You say:
"   This seems to me to be the latest dismaying tendency towards
side-taking on the part of the left, with the social-democrats and the
leninists merely lining up on opposite sides and virtually no one taking
a principled internationalist position. If we can recognize the
reactionary brutality of the Yeltsinites as illustrated in their assault
on Parliament in 1993, for example, why can't we recognize their
viciousness toward an Islamic minority within their country? "

Progressive voices have often supported less than perfect states. C. DAY
LEWIS wrote: "It is the logic of our times
No subject for immortal verse,
that we who live by honest dreams
defend the bad against the worse."
In this case, against the INFINITELY worse. What the "rebels" want to do
in Russia has been vividly demonstrated. AFGHANISTAN. The living tomb of
fascist Islamism. The main victim is of course: Muslims.

You may recall that Marx supported Lincoln - indeed, called for much
harsher measures, in fact was publicly ruthless in his call for more
ruthlessness. He supported Sherman's most ruthless march to the sea. Do
you think the Union army was a paradigm of virtue? It wasn't even
officially antislavery, let alone antiracist, until the end.
Nevertheless, Marx looked at the bigger picture: he wanted the power of
the slave owners (read: today's US elite) destroyed. He was not fooled
by atrocity stories - which, by the way, were sometimes real. Not to
mention racism on the part of Union troops.

Ditto progressives supported reactionary-led Ethiopia - and correctly so
- against Mussolini. Ditto Argentina (run by the generals) vs. England.
Counter punch aside, we know extremely little factually about the
brutality, so called, of Russian forces. If they are brutal,
unnecessarily, that is wrong, and if there is racism, it should be
opposed. But remember: the strategy of imperialism is to destroy Russia
through proxy Islamic fundamentalists and it is these fundamentalists
who use the tactics of provocative terror - INTENDED to provoke reaction
which can then be damned as brutal. If Imperialism is successful in
breaking Russia into pieces, next stop: China.

The MAIN danger is the disastrous error "progressives" made about
Yugoslavia
- falling for the brutality stories (which were often the reverse of the
truth), indeed seeing brutality as the issue rather than looking at
actual class forces involved - wasn't it the left that was supposed to
do class analysis? This makes progressives the tail of the media dog -
it is most easy for the media to create an impression in our minds of
one side's brutality - which is what they are now doing about Russia -
and then it becomes a given and we are all whipped with it. Thus did
Australia take over East Timor.

Actually, the Yeltsin policy was to LOSE in Chechnya. Putin at least
does not appear to want to lose. As for the imperialist aims of Russia's
tinhorn capitalists - does Russia have to be broken into tiny bits, its
population devastated and its ability to function as a modern nation
completely (rather than just partially) obliterated before it can engage
in a war which we sanctify as "just"?

Does this mean Russians and Chechnyans should not unite on a class
basis. Of course they suhould. And one key point in that unity should
be: the necessity of destroying these fascists and preserving as much as
possible of a unitary Russian state.

Putin says he is for destroying these fundamentalists - whose "movement"
was a creation, by the way, of the CIA, to the tune of $6 billion plus
in Afghanistan. The danger is that the forces he represents don't really
mean it.

Jared Israel