broadly speaking, he's got the right idea. but i think this is a good example of how you can get lost in something and lose perspective. it's been a plank on the left for a while now to defer to voices within a conflict. and, there's certainly value in ensuring those voices don't get lost. but, if you were to do a survey on global conflicts - that is, look at this empirically - i think you'd find it's more often the case that being outside it allows for a broader perspective.

the blame everything on israel thing is easy, and they're certainly rarely "good guys". but, what's happening here is bigger than israel. he points out that turkey and the gulf states are proxies for nato, and they have their own interests. he's able to see the conflict for what it is, but is lost in the battle on the ground.

the commonality with countries that america has attacked since yugoslavia is that they are all former soviet allies or puppets. it's clear as day when you look at it from a cold war perspective: yugoslavia, afghanistan, libya, syria. egypt and iraq are somewhere in between, but let's not forget the history of the baath party and it's connection to "arab socialism". now, sure, it's a long time ago in some cases. but the key point is that these are not "our guys" in power. and, now ukraine - tomorrow it'll be kazakhstan.

the meta level analysis is that all these conflicts are about prying states away from russian influence at what is perceived in the west as the end of the cold war. russia is defeated. it's time to clean up. israel doesn't play much of a role in that, besides providing for the odd air strike - because it can't. anybody can get involved except israel.

what that does is open up a power vacuum. or, at least, it would if it were a correct analysis. if you're stuck in this hegelian unfolding of history with liberal democracies as the end point, you assume that assad evaporates on contact. then, the power vacuum opens up, and you get these american allies jockeying for influence.

but i also wanted to say something about kosovo, because i think he has the exact wrong idea with that. kosovo happened when the west was hooking up to the internet, which broke the state's media monopoly and allowed for a wider cross-section of news to get out. as a young person at the time, i remember the war against serbia as the moment that i stopped trusting the state. i had access to that information. my parents didn't, and didn't quite understand; they thought i was reading pravda or something. but, there's no turning back from that point. and, i think that story is widely shared.

iraq produced a massive backlash. that required a shift in approach. the american-backed wars of the future are going to look like the funding of the contras or the mujahideen in afghanistan - or indeed of isis in the levant. secret wars. wars beyond critique.

that's of course what happened after vietnam, but that neo-con clique thought it had an answer. that failed to generate the support they were hoping for. so, it's back to the cia ops.

and, that's why it's useful to get that outside perspective. standing from where i am, all i see is a lot of co-option by state interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEX05-7IGaA