Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

September 21, 2019

Scathing review of Max Blumenthal’s “Management of Savagery” and Verso’s standards

Filed under: Syria — louisproyect @ 1:17 pm

From the September 20, 2019 Times Literary Supplement

Apparently, the jpeg below is difficult to read. Therefore, I am posting text beneath it that should be clear.

Blame game
A problematic approach to the modern Middle East

Max Blumenthal
THE MANAGEMENT OF SAVAGERY How America’s national security state fueled the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump
400pp. Verso. £18.99. 978 I 78873 229 1

It is easy to blame the United States for many of the world’s ills: easy because of the availability of evidence. It is also easy to overstate your case, with misleading or one-sided examples —the trap that Max Blumenthal falls into in The Management of Savagery. Fortunately, what many will see as propaganda, sketching the role of the US in the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, tips sufficiently and with enough regularity into full-scale conspiracy to allow any careful reader to dismiss it. A spot of fact-checking quickly furthers the case against it. Less happily, this book raises serious questions about the reputation of its publisher, Verso. Did no one care to send the manuscript out for checking?

Detailed analysis of all the errors would require a short book in itself, so a small sample will have to suffice. Charles Lister is a researcher of Syrian opposition groups; he is seemingly targeted in these pages, and the following mistakes all occur over just four pages dedicated to him. The Amnesty report Blumenthal quotes, “revealing” Lister’s apparent knowledge in 2015 of an extremist sheikh’s actions, is from 2016 and not 2014 (ie he didn’t know). Blumenthal claims David Cameron relied on an article written by Lister in the Spectator (in November 2017), despite the fact the article came out after Cameron’s speech. There is a mistake in the order of events between the US sending anti-tank weapons to opponents of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and the US Democrats asking Congress for money to do so. The money was actually authorized for training, not weapons. There is the author’s reporting of an argument Lister made for sup-plying weapons to groups “like Zinki” —though Zinki had been removed from the approved list by Lister by this point. Blumenthal uncritically reports the claims by a Pentagon spokesman that Aleppo had been held by Jabhat al-Nusra, despite the fact this was corrected later by CENTCOM (US Central Command). There is the claim, made twice, that Lister did his research in Riyadh (he is at one point described as being at “a luxury hotel in Riyadh”): in fact the first and only time Lister went to Saudi Arabia was in 2017, many years after the research detailed by Blumenthal.

Then there is the author’s treatment of opinions he disagrees with, his tendency to attack the person rather than the content of what they are saying. At one point he refers to the “vehemently anti-Russian Washington Post correspondent, Anne Applebaum” — surely in order to impugn the credibility of Applebaum’s husband (Rudoslaw Sikorski). He appears less demanding of his own sources, by contrast, neglecting, for example, to mention that Kevork Almasian, who claims that the rural protests in Syria were from the beginning dominated by Islamists, works for the far-right party AfD in Germany and for the Kremlin-backed think tank Katehon, created by the fascist ideologue Aleksandr Dugin; in fact, Almasian’s name is buried in footnotes, as are many others who agree with Blumenthal. They do not receive the same level of scrutiny in the text.

Blumenthal’s portrayal of the notorious chemical attack on East Ghouta in Syria in 2013 uses long-debunked myths — emanating from both the Syrian regime and Russia — to claim that Assad did not carry out the attack; the author apparently ignores all the evidence amassed to counter his claim. When he does praise the US, it is for the wrong reasons. He calls President Obama’s response to East Ghouta, brokered by Russia, of backing down from military intervention in return for Assad’s promise to dispose of Syria’s stock-pile of chemical weapons, a “rare example of de-escalation in a war zone”. This ignores the fact that killings by Assad’s regime went up when it became clear that the US was wary of intervention, not even in the face of war crimes and Obama’s own “red line”. Blumenthal’s take on the chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun in 2017, which prompted a rare intervention by Western powers, assumes a different line: he simply sketches a conspiracy almost by innu-endo, referring airily to “an unusual procedure for the treatment of sarin victims” (“splashing water on writhing children … White Helmets treating victims without gloves”), rather than directly meeting the challenge of refuting the abundant evidence of the attack.

Perhaps the most absurd position Blumenthal forces himself into is his vilification of those seeking to intervene for humanitarian reasons, a standpoint “enabling them to mask imperial designs behind a patina of ‘genocide prevention”‘. How terrible it must be to be the kind of person who wants to prevent genocide, or, in the case of Syria, the “crime of extermination” according to the UN (because genocide is against one specific group of people and Assad was found guilty —by the Human Rights Council — of targeting a whole country). Blumenthal continues: “With this neat tactic, they [the interventionists] effectively neutralized progressive anti-war elements and tarred those who dared to protest their wars as dictator apologists”. This description extends to the late Labour MP Jo Cox, a “self-proclaimed feminist”, in Blumenthal’s description, who, with this position of “military humanism”, fuelled the civil war and thus the refugee crisis and thus the far right, which, the author almost seems to imply, gave rise to her own murder. What we should say about dictators is an awk-ward question for Blumenthal, who, in his lengthy analysis of Syria, neglects to analyse Assad’s role in the carnage (over 90 per cent of civilian deaths in Syria over the past eight years have been attributed to the Syrian president’s forces and his allies). Further, he omits to discuss the champions of this dictator: there is barely a mention of Russia’s and Iran’s bolstering of the brutal regime, let alone their direct participation in the civil war, despite Syria occupying the majority of The Management of Savagery (a rare example comes when Russia is praised for “rolling back jihadist insurgents” — Assad’s own excuse for the interminable violence). For Blumenthal, it would seem, intervention is only bad when conducted by the US and its allies; the US alone destabilized the Middle East, and no one else bears any responsibility at all.

A major weak point in the argument, even on Blumenthal’s own terms, is the lack of coherent explanation for this thirst for foreign invasion. Why does the endless parade of Americans in this book, from across the political spectrum, hunger so insatiably for war? The confusion partly arises out of the author’s failure to define the blanket terms he uses: “imperialist” and “neoconservative” (even “neocon democrat”) ambitions are bandied around as if these in themselves were powerful enough concepts to explain everything.

Another mistake Blumenthal falls into in every aspect of his analysis is more common to Western commentaries on the Middle East: denying any agency to the people on the ground. There is no credence given to the fact that Syrians themselves protested and took up arms against Assad for their own reasons, and not just to fulfil America’s foreign policy agenda (Blumenthal takes care to refer to the “Western-backed opposition to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad”). Similarly, in his analysis of Libya, Blumenthal’s denial of the rebels’ stated aims of gaining basic democratic rights leads him to rely on evidence from the Gaddafi family to depict the apparent stability and harmony of the country before Western arrogance took a hand. He seems blind to the motivations of the millions of Arabs desperate to see the back of the Libyan dictator.

Publishers, especially those with illustrious histories, have a responsibility for what they put their stamp on, and with this book Verso has torn a hole in its reputation. The overarching argument shoehorns history into unrecognizable shapes; the fact-checking has clearly not been as it should; even the copy-editing seems to have been skimped on, judging by the number of typos. But even more worrying than these basic failures in publishing a meaty, non-fiction book is the apparent lack of concern about the controversy surrounding the author himself. As the NYRB Daily noted last year (October 16, 2018), Blumenthal’s views on Syria “completely flipped” in 2015. Having previously been critical of Assad’s Russia-sponsored regime, he seemed to have performed a volte-face. Blumenthal now regularly retweets pro-Kremlin sources. Targets of his Twitter comments include an eight-year-old girl (Bana Alabed) living in rebel-held Aleppo, who ran an account of the siege with her mother. According to Blumenthal: “Alabed & the White Helmets [were building] on a grand tradition of pro-war psy-ops” in their first-hand reports.

A comprehensive list of rebuttals to an earlier article of Blumenthal’s with similar views was collected at the blog Hummus for Thought (October 5, 2016). It began with an impassioned plea from the Syrian Marcell Shehwara for readers to start listening to Syrians themselves, rather than dismissing them as stooges, as Blumenthal does. There are many similar take-downs of Blumenthal’s work online. It doesn’t take much digging to realize how many people question the author’s work.

Verso’s choice to continue to publish Max Blumenthal (see also the Verso-published The 51 Day War: Resistance and ruin in Gaza, 2015) therefore seems perverse, casting doubt on the entire stable of authors in this field. There are also the moral implications of this book: there is the danger that such arguments can be used by others to legitimize violence against secular and humanitarian actors in a number of theatres of conflict, thus fuelling the conflicts themselves.



  1. Louis, Hope you are well. I couldn’t read your review because the reproduction is too out-of-focus.

    Thanks John

    On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 6:18 AM Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist wrote:

    > louisproyect posted: “” >

    Comment by levin1944 — September 21, 2019 @ 3:54 pm

  2. Verso’s claim to being the world’s premier radical publisher becomes more of a joke every month.

    Comment by Michael D Yates — September 21, 2019 @ 11:52 pm

  3. Ever since I read the book “How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read”, by Pierre Bayard, a professor of French literature at the University of Paris, I approach book reviews differently. Quite simply, reviewers do not read the books they review. At most, they skim. When the person skimming is doing so for the chief propaganda organ of the United States government, it’s not even important that the book wasn’t read. Then they throw in an attack on Verso, just for good measure. And all of this gets posted on a blog ostensibly about Marxism. It’s a strange world we live in.

    Comment by Robert Green — September 22, 2019 @ 11:47 am

  4. And have you read Blumenthal’s book? I have and the TLS review is accurate.

    Comment by louisproyect — September 22, 2019 @ 12:18 pm

  5. You read a book, and now you know reviewers don’t read the books. Well Philip Larkin reviewed books (and jazz records), and you want me to believe he hadn’t read them? Well, I don’t believe you. And Max Blumenthal is a disgrace. What do you think is Marxist exactly about espousing the cause of a mass murdering tyrant and kleptocrat. I don’t know about reviewers but I bet you don’t read many books Robert.

    Comment by Matthew Jackson — September 22, 2019 @ 2:40 pm

  6. Given the horrors I find it hard to read books about Syria, and I simply do not want to read another Blame the West, the US at the Head, one.

    This, however, which I am half way through, can be recommended, Operation Caesar : at the heart of the Syrian death machine. Garance Le Caisne, 2018.

    “The Assad regime, too, has created irrefutable evidence of its crimes, though these images may be less familiar. This is the subject of Operation Caesar: At the Heart of the Syrian Death Machine, by Garance Le Caisne, an independent French journalist who has been reporting in the Middle East for the past three decades.”

    “The protests continued; the bodies piled up; Caesar’s work became more gruesome. “I had never seen this before,” he recalled. “Before the Revolution, the regime would torture people to extract information. Now they were simply torturing people to death. I saw the candle burns… Some people had deep knife wounds, eyeballs ripped out, broken teeth, whip marks… There were bruises filled with pus… Sometimes, the bodies were covered in blood, and the blood was still fresh.” Each body was carefully photographed several times: one picture “of the face, one of the whole body, one from the side, one of the head and shoulders, one of the legs.” Every corpse was classified according to which arm of the intelligence services had jurisdiction over the victim in question. Medical examiners would issue a report for each body, typically ascribing the deaths to a “respiratory problem” or “cardiac arrest.”

    The process was structured, scrupulous, precise, and hideous. “This time it is the state itself telling the story of the terror it is inflicting,” Le Caisne observes. “As opposed to the amateur films, full of emotion, that the activists for freedom shot in the streets of the cities, these official documents chill the blood.” In addition to physical agony, the photographs speak of psychic anguish, too. The victims, Caesar said, “knew they were going to die… They had their mouths open in pain, and you could sense the humiliation they had suffered.”

    Review in the NYRB. Syria’s Torture Photos: Witness to Atrocity Susie Linfield


    Comment by Andrew Coates — September 23, 2019 @ 3:26 pm

  7. When people first thoroughly oppose a certain tyrant (as Blue-Mental did regarding Assad) and then turn and become apologists and supporters for the same tyrant, I usually wonder: What did the tyrant (or his allies) have on him (and presented to him) that got him to take such a blatant about-face?

    Wrong ideology doesn’t explain Blue-Mental’s about-face. You don’t change your ideology so drastically and so quickly virtually over night. Likewise, I don’t think money is the answer. He could have made money (even get published by Verso) with his previous positions on Assad. He did come from a family well-connected to the Democratic Party establishment, and he held left-friendly positions on Palestine. He was pretty secure as a writer (even if not a deep thinker by any measure). So, money doesn’t explain the whole thing either.

    Whatever it was, it worked pretty well. But, rest assured that, shortly after his death, the minders of several levels of hell will have a fierce argument over which level of hell he should be housed at.

    As for Verso, I stopped my subscription to NLR almost a couple of decades ago. I don’t even wish them well any more than I have any well wishes for Yoshie Furuhashi. They are prime examples of the rot that can exist among our own ranks. All the good they do (or did at some point) is undone pretty massively by the garbage they produce; they just become a huge source of confusion, exactly because they are operating out of institutions with good names on the left. They are well past their ‘use by’ date. The sooner they go bankrupt the better, IMHO.

    Comment by Reza — September 24, 2019 @ 12:11 am

  8. I agree that Verso is unqualified to publish actually useful and factual material that will assist workers and communists in their struggles and in the radical reconstruction of society. A more rigorous and useful publication org is needed. It is weird that they would publish Blumenthal at all and I wonder who gave the ok.

    Comment by Djamil Lakhdar-Hamina — September 24, 2019 @ 7:28 pm

  9. Was AID a typo for AFD? I tried to look up AID using Google and I could only find AFD, so I suppose that’s who you meant.

    Comment by Jason Pike — September 24, 2019 @ 8:25 pm

  10. Yes, AfD. Thanks.

    Comment by louisproyect — September 24, 2019 @ 8:37 pm

  11. Matthew Jackson: “Philip Larkin reviewed books (and jazz records), and you want me to believe he hadn’t read them?”

    Everyone just assumes that reviewers read the books they’re reviewing. It makes sense, but what assurances do we have that they do? None. You should check out Bayard’s book. You don’t even have to read the whole thing, just read the chapter on book reviews.

    Comment by Robert Green — September 27, 2019 @ 11:29 am

  12. Thank you so much Ryan for posting the above link — a necessary corrective to the unbounded histrionics of Louis “The Unrepentant Distortionist” Proyect.

    Comment by Jay — December 12, 2019 @ 11:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: