Frankly, judging from what I've found about this Mark Curtis guy, he's let his politics(anti capitalist, West= bad) bleed into his historical work, never a good idea.
You mean what you've learned in a 5 mins google ? Never mind
I keep trying to get you to think about this objectivity concept and seeing as it's raised it's head again.
No author/commentator I have ever come across has been able to keep their politics/biases out of their work. We can't be perfectly objective due to our inherent biases founded in our life experiences, personal insecurities, in short our isms
Why it's pointed out in MCs work , like the others , is that it runs contrary to the prevailing narrative . If he were praising western actions nobody but a tiny group of dissident types would question whether his politics had entered into his work.
If you support the narrative as defined by the ruling elites you will be lauded for it, if you dare to question it ( outside of acceptable parameters ) , or worse still try to undermine it , you will be castigated. It's a historical universal
For example, he's classified the War in Kosovo as "immoral". Why, exactly, he thinks stopping Slobo's thugs from killing every Muslim they could catch is "immoral" is unknown.
Well it's not unknown if you are familiar with his work or the work of a few others on this subject
You , unsurprisingly , wish to believe the prevailing narrative that the attack on Serbia was founded on and evolved around a humanitarian concern for the people of Kosovo . Which is in keeping with the image of our leaderships that has been carefully nurtured in the West.
I'll provide another scenario that I think goes some way to explaining why the same event can and is seen as immoral by others and no doubt is most likely what colours MC view. And this is not some fantastical conspiracy theory , the view has a whole raft of facts , numerous reports by various organisations , to support it.
The humanitarian crisis in Kosovo massively increased as a result of the NATO bombing of Serbia and was an expected outcome that intelligence people had predicted. Prior to the NATO bombing most of the killings in Kosovo were carried out by the KLA. Their MO was to attack Serbian police and Serbian civilians , as well as unsupportive Albanian Kosovans , so as to ramp up the Serbian response enough to help NATO leaders justify their armed forces involvement.
And why would NATO leaders be so keen to get involved with an attack on Serbia ?
Because the former FRY ( yugoslavia ) had been digging its heels in to resist the flood to westernized/western led free market policies in all of the countries of the former eastern bloc. In short Serbia had been a thorn in the side.
So here's the angle on why it is seen as immoral
NATO leaders knew the bombing would cause the very situation they claimed to be working against IE a massive humanitarian disaster and ethnic cleansing. But not because of concern for the people of Kosovo , but for their own agenda against Serbia.
In short conspiring to create a humanitarian disaster in order to attack/undermine Serbia.
If that were true , would you think the whole affair was immoral ?
The US isn't supporting Al Qaeda. Contrary to Syrian state propaganda, the rebels aren't all Islamic radicals.
Look at the words you have had to use to try to convince yourself there is no credence to what I said................." aren't all " confirms that some are , correct ? Would it be easier if we just all stated jihadist groups ?
There's a lot of **** being spouted about the conflict in Syria but what isn't in doubt is that the feudal monarchies of Saudi and Qatar etc along with Western powers ARE arming and assisting jihadists fighting in Syria
