Corporate Media Celebrates a New Beautiful War in Their Quest for Ratings!
Well Fuck. Let's Just Have a Do Over and Just End It Already. Merchants of Death Ready to Profit from the Blood and Tears of the Brown People We are Going to Liberate.
Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria
Exclusive: The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry.
With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.
Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.
Even as basic facts were still being assembled about Tuesday’s incident, we, the public, were prepped to disbelieve the Syrian government’s response that the poison gas may have come from rebel stockpiles that could have been released either accidentally or intentionally causing the civilian deaths in a town in Idlib Province.
One possible scenario was that Syrian warplanes bombed a rebel weapons depot where the poison gas was stored, causing the containers to rupture. Another possibility was a staged event by increasingly desperate Al Qaeda jihadists who are known for their disregard for innocent human life.
While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.
Reporting by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and statements by some Turkish police and opposition politicians linked Turkish intelligence and Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus that killed hundreds, although the Times and other major U.S. news outlets continue to blame that incident on Assad’s regime.
Seasoned Propagandists
On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.
Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.
Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Gordon’s co-author, Judith Miller, became the only U.S. journalist known to have lost a job over the reckless and shoddy reporting that contributed to the Iraq disaster. For his part, Gordon continued serving as a respected Pentagon correspondent.
Gordon’s name also showed up in a supporting role on the Times’ botched “vector analysis,” which supposedly proved that the Syrian military was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas attack. The “vector analysis” story of Sept. 17, 2013, traced the flight paths of two rockets, recovered in suburbs of Damascus back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.
The article became the “slam-dunk” evidence that the Syrian government was lying when it denied launching the sarin attack. However, like the aluminum tube story, the Times’ ”vector analysis” ignored contrary evidence, such as the unreliability of one azimuth from a rocket that landed in Moadamiya because it had struck a building in its descent. That rocket also was found to contain no sarin, so it’s inclusion in the vectoring of two sarin-laden rockets made no sense.
But the Times’ story ultimately fell apart when rocket scientists analyzed the one sarin-laden rocket that had landed in the Zamalka area and determined that it had a maximum range of about two kilometers, meaning that it could not have originated from the Syrian military base. C.J. Chivers, one of the co-authors of the article, waited until Dec. 28, 2013, to publish a halfhearted semi-retraction. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis.”]
Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers - first photographed in Russia - had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.
However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]
Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain - and if someone important raises a question about your story - you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct.
No Skepticism Allowed
Anne Barnard, Gordon’s co-author on Tuesday’s Syrian poison-gas story, has consistently reported on the Syrian conflict as if she were a press agent for the rebels, playing up their anti-government claims even when there’s no evidence.
For instance, on June 2, 2015, Barnard, who is based in Beirut, Lebanon, authored a front-page story that pushed the rebels’ propaganda theme that the Syrian government was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State though even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that it had no confirmation of the rebels’ claims.
When Gordon and Barnard teamed up to report on the latest Syrian tragedy, they again showed no skepticism about early U.S. government and Syrian rebel claims that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally deploying poison gas.
Perhaps for the first time, The New York Times cited President Trump as a reliable source because he and his press secretary were saying what the Times wanted to hear - that Assad must be guilty.
Gordon and Barnard also cited the controversial White Helmets, the rebels’ Western-financed civil defense group that has worked in close proximity with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and has come under suspicion of staging heroic “rescues” but is nevertheless treated as a fount of truth-telling by the mainstream U.S. news media.
In early online versions of the Times’ story, a reaction from the Syrian military was buried deep in the article around the 27th paragraph, noting: “The government denies that it has used chemical weapons, arguing that insurgents and Islamic State fighters use toxins to frame the government or that the attacks are staged.”
The following paragraph mentioned the possibility that a Syrian bombing raid had struck a rebel warehouse where poison-gas was stored, thus releasing it unintentionally.
But the placement of the response was a clear message that the Times disbelieved whatever the Assad government said. At least in the version of the story that appeared in the morning newspaper, a government statement was moved up to the sixth paragraph although still surrounded by comments meant to signal the Times’ acceptance of the rebel version.
After noting the Assad government’s denial, Gordon and Barnard added, “But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.”
But they again ignored the alternative possibilities. One was that a bombing raid ruptured containers for chemicals that the rebels were planning to use in some future attack, and the other was that Al Qaeda’s jihadists staged the incident to elicit precisely the international outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.
Gordon and Barnard also could be wrong about Assad being the only one with a motive to deploy poison gas. Since Assad’s forces have gained a decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons deployment as a last-minute game-changer.
Pressure to Prejudge
None of this means that Assad’s forces are innocent, but a serious investigation ascertains the facts and then reaches a conclusion, not the other way around.
However, to suggest these other possibilities will, I suppose, draw the usual accusations about “Assad apologist,” but refusing to prejudge an investigation is what journalism is supposed to be about.
The Times, however, apparently has no concern anymore for letting the facts be assembled and then letting them speak for themselves. The Times weighed in on Wednesday with an editorial entitled “A New Level of Depravity From Mr. Assad.”
Another problem with the behavior of the Times and the mainstream media is that by jumping to a conclusion they pressure other important people to join in the condemnations and that, in turn, can prejudice the investigation while also generating a dangerous momentum toward war.
Once the political leadership pronounces judgment, it becomes career-threatening for lower-level officials to disagree with those conclusions. We’ve seen that already with how United Nations investigators accepted rebel claims about the Syrian government’s use of chlorine gas, a set of accusations that the Times and other media now report simply as flat-fact.
Yet, the claims about the Syrian military mixing in canisters of chlorine in supposed “barrel bombs” make little sense because chlorine deployed in that fashion is ineffective as a lethal weapon but it has become an important element of the rebels’ propaganda campaign.
U.N. investigators, who were under intense pressure from the United States and Western nations to give them something to use against Assad, did support rebel claims about the government using chlorine in a couple of cases, but the investigators also received testimony from residents in one area who described the staging of a chlorine attack for propaganda purposes.
One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]
Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?
Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria
The War in Syria Cannot Be Won. But It Can Be Ended.
The left is profoundly divided over the conflict, but we should at least agree on a set of principles to end it.
We need a powerful movement demanding an end to the war in Syria. The United States and to some extent the global antiwar movements remain largely paralyzed. There are some campaigns responding to specific congressional and other war moves, with some particularly good work against US support for Saudi Arabia. But as a movement, we seem unable to sort through the complexity of the multi-layered wars raging across Syria, and unable to respond to our internal divisions to create the kind of powerful movement we need to challenge the escalating conflict.
It was easier during earlier wars. Transforming public consciousness, changing US policy-those were all hard. But understanding the wars, building movements based on that understanding, that was easier. Our job was to oppose US military interventions, and to support anti-colonial, anti-imperialist challenges to those wars and interventions.
In Vietnam, and later during the Central American wars, that meant we all understood that it was the US side that was wrong, that the proxy armies and militias Washington supported were wrong, and that we wanted US troops and warplanes and Special Forces out. In all those wars, within the core of our movement, many of us not only wanted US troops out but we supported the social program of the other side-we wanted the Vietnamese, led by the North Vietnamese government and the National Liberation Front in the South, to win. In Nicaragua and El Salvador, we wanted US troops and advisers out and also victory for, respectively, the Sandinistas and the FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front). In South Africa we wanted an end to US support for apartheid and we also wanted the African National Congress to win.
The solidarity part got much harder in Afghanistan and especially in the Iraq wars. We stood in solidarity with ordinary Afghans and Iraqis suffering through US sanctions and wars, and some of our organizations built powerful ties with counterparts, such as US Labor Against the War’s links with the Iraqi oil workers union. And we recognized the right under international law for an invaded and occupied people to resist. But as to the various militias actually fighting against the United States, there were none we affirmatively supported, no political-military force whose social program we wanted to see victorious. So it was more complicated. Some things remained clear, however-the US war was still wrong and illegal, we still recognized the role of racism and imperialism in those wars, we still demanded that US troops get out.
Now, in Syria, even that is uncertain. Left and progressive forces, antiwar and solidarity activists, Syrian and non-Syrian, are profoundly divided. Among those who consider themselves progressive today, there is a significant though relatively small segment of activists who want their side to “win” the war in Syria. Only a few (thankfully, from my vantage point) support victory for what they often refer to as “Syrian sovereignty,” sometimes adding a reference to international law, and only sometimes acknowledging that that means supporting the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. (It should be noted that international recognition does not necessarily equal legitimacy; the South African apartheid regime was internationally recognized for decades.) A larger cohort wants to “win” the war for the Syrian revolution, the description they give to the post-Arab Spring efforts by Syrian activists to continue protesting the regime’s repression and working for a more democratic future. There is a deep divide.
Among those who want the Syrian regime to remain in power and the anti-regime opposition to be defeated, some base their position on the belief that Syria leads an “arc of resistance” in the Middle East-a claim long debunked by the actual history of the Assad family’s rule. From its 1976 enabling of a murderous attack on the Palestinian refugee camp of Tel al-Zataar in Beirut by right-wing Lebanese backed by Israel, to sending warplanes to join the US coalition bombing Iraq in 1991, to guaranteeing Israel a largely quiet border and quiescent population in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, to its role in interrogating and torturing outsourced US detainees in the “global war on terror,” Syria has never been a consistent anti-imperialist or resistance center.
Others in our movement want the opposition, or at least some part of it, to win against the regime. They support the independent, often progressive and indeed heroic activists who first challenged Damascus in nonviolent protests in 2011 and who continue to try to survive and build civil society amid war and terror. Their position, however, often ignores the enormous gap between those truly brave and amazing activists, on the one hand, and on the other hand the array of mostly not-very-progressive, indeed mostly reactionary and rarely heroic militias doing the actual fighting-against Assad’s forces, sometimes against ISIS, and often against civilians across the bloody Syrian battlefield. Those opposition fighters-including those deemed “moderate” by the United States and its allies as well as those acknowledged to be extremists or worse-are armed by Washington and its regional allies, and few appear interested in supporting any of the progressive goals the Syrian revolutionaries are working for. In our movement, this group is further divided between those backing a US-imposed no-fly zone or other military action to support the opposition, in the name of some version of “humanitarian intervention,” and those who oppose further US intervention.
We’ve certainly faced internal division before. During the 1998-99 Kosovo war, many on the left supported the US-NATO military involvement in one of the earlier versions of Western “humanitarian intervention.” Regarding Iraq, from 1991 through 12 years of crippling sanctions-genocidal in their impact-and both Iraq wars, differences rose sharply. They divided those who saw Saddam Hussein as the enemy of the United States and therefore inherently worthy of support, and those capable of understanding that we could fight to end illegal US wars and sanctions and still refuse to support a ruthless dictator (who happened to have been a longtime Washington client himself), even if he now opposed the United States. But even in those difficult times, there was unity (however unacknowledged) in our opposition to the US war-there were two competing national antiwar marches, but they were both against the war. In the case of Syria today, even that is uncertain.
As it stands now, parts of our movement don’t just disagree on how to achieve the same goal, they actually want different results. Some in our movement support the side armed and backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and some European countries; others defend the side armed and backed by Russia and Iran. It’s further complicated by those who appear to be hoping for a victory by the progressive non-military forces of the Arab Spring’s Syrian revolution, while others look to Rojava, the Syrian Kurdish enclave of progressive, feminist fighters, affiliated with the Turkey-based guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), as their target of solidarity. Most of the intervening governments-including the United States, Russia, Europe, and Iran (though Saudi Arabia and Turkey remain uncertain at best)-want ISIS to lose.
The paralysis these divides have created in our movement is exacerbated by the fact that what we call “the war in Syria” is not one civil war. It is a complicated chessboard of players, with multiple wars being waged by outside forces fighting each other alongside the Syrian civil war still raging between the regime and its domestic opponents. Those outside forces are fighting for various regional, sectarian, and global interests that have little or nothing to do with Syria-except that it is Syrians doing the dying. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting for regional hegemony and for Sunni versus Shi’a dominance; the United States and Russia are fighting for global and regional positioning, military bases, and control of resources; secular versus Islamist forces fight for dominance of the anti-Assad front; Turkey was fighting Russia (until recently, when it seemed to settle its differences with Russia before invading northern Syria, where now it is primarily going after the Kurds); the United States and Israel are fighting Iran (unlike in Iraq, where the United States and the Iranian-backed militias are on the same side in a broad anti-ISIS front); Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar vie for dominance among the Sunni monarchies; and while Turkey is fighting the Kurds, progressive Syrian Kurds are challenging the more traditional peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurdish regional government.
And then there’s ISIS fighting the Syrian regime and some of the regime’s opponents, while seeking to impose its brutal dominance over Syrian and Iraqi land and populations, while the United States, Russia, and a number of European countries, along with the Syrian and Iraqi governments, wage a lethal and increasingly global war against ISIS. And all of them fighting to the last Syrian.
Ending the War
Given all of that, it is important to recognize that by far the largest contingent of antiwar activists and progressives are not fighting to win the war for any side, but are committed to ending the war. And that can and does include many who also stand in solidarity with the incredibly brave activists who continue to struggle, the men and women who work beneath the bombs, beneath the mortar attacks, trying to maintain life in their besieged cities and towns.
But that part gets complicated too. Some of the civil-society groups working in opposition-held areas are supporting, one way or another, various armed factions backed by the United States and its allies that are fighting against the regime. Some-including some of the best-known humanitarian organizations-are supported financially and politically by the United States, Europe and/or their regional allies, who promote them as part of their propaganda war against the Assad regime. Some of them are mobilizing support for greater US military intervention. The exposés of some of these organizations’ backing, now being published by some of the best progressive journalists around, show important realities, helping us to understand how mainstream media coverage endorses and builds on the US government’s strategic goals. But many of those exposés also leave out crucial factors-including the often-wide gap between the goals of US imperialist policymakers and their ability to implement those goals.
Some sectors of the US establishment have long recognized how the Syrian regime, despite (and sometimes because of) its legacy of repression, often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests. Conversely, some powerful US elements-neoconservatives and beyond-clearly want regime change in Syria. But that reality doesn’t mean that ordinary Syrians, many of whom were challenging the repressive regime in Damascus long before the infamous list of seven US regime-change targets in the Arab world was ever created, didn’t have their own entirely different and entirely legitimate reasons for opposing Assad. They are not all Syrian versions of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi criminal anointed by Washington neocons to lead their “liberation” of Iraq in 2003.
Neocon dreams of regime change in Syria do not make those neocon forces all-powerful. And they do not negate the legitimacy of the earlier indigenous political opposition movements that erupted in Syria in the context of the 2010-11 Arab Spring, just as they did in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere, or that of the continuing political opposition. The question of agency is far too often ignored or sidelined by even the most thorough investigations of nefarious US intentions. The fact that a humanitarian organization may be funded by official US institutions because it is deemed useful for Washington’s goals, or even created with the hope that it would help achieve those goals, does not mean that every activist within that organization is a tool of US imperialism.
The White Helmets (aka Civil Defense), for instance, clearly are getting money from the US State Department and have now (likely with encouragement and/or pressure from their US-government friends) officially called for a no-fly zone in Syria. Reporting and acknowledging that fact is important, but obviously their support for such a US military escalation does not make that demand legitimate for US or global antiwar forces any more than it did when some political activists in Libya called for the same kind of escalation there. A no-fly zone, as acknowledged by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, is an act of war. But it is crucial to simultaneously recognize and appreciate that the White Helmets are doing vital, indeed often heroic, humanitarian work, as first responders in opposition-held areas subject to murderous military assault. In the absence of state institutions or even sufficient international humanitarian organizations, such local initiatives, however compromised in the political/propaganda arena, play a crucial human role. Understanding those separate roles-the humanitarian and the propaganda-and recognizing they can exist simultaneously in a single organization, is important as we struggle to build a movement to end the war.
Over the long term, and regardless of who is elected president, we need to build a powerful movement to end the “global war on terror” and the militarization of US foreign policy that that war reflects. Right now, the centerpiece of that war is Syria. So we cannot put aside building such a movement because the divisions among our forces make it difficult. Those who recognize the need to focus on building a movement to end the war should be able to unite around some combination of these demands of the US government:
The War in Syria Cannot Be Won. But It Can Be Ended.
No Country for Peaceful Men: The United States Covets War, and Syria is a Convenient Enemy
Well, you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Yes, Donald Trump, with cratering poll numbers, has seen an opportunity to become the great big American hero he so desperately wants to be: he can start a war. There is little doubt that Trump wants to become a war president, wants to board an air force carrier while giving that ridiculous smile of his, saying how he used America’s military and he succeeded big league. And, as a whole, America will allow its president to do this. Don’t believe me? Go turn on the news. MSNBC is bringing on Democrats like Adam Schiff and supposed human rights activist Nicholas Kristoff to say that while they have worries about the way Trump is taking action, an attack on Syria is the appropriate response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Left out of these discussions is that questions about who used the chemical weapons still linger.
Guest after guest is gushing. From MSNBC to CNN, Trump is receiving his best night of press so far. And all he had to do was start a war.
- Sam Sacks (@SamSacks) April 7, 2017
The bombing of Syria is a bipartisan event. Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been salivating at the thought of attacking Syria for years. Neither of them has met a country they did not want to bomb. If either of them bothered to look at the science of climate change their answer would be to advocate for war against Greenland. Sadly, the opposition part is not offering up much of an alternative. During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton advocated for the irresponsible policy of starting a no-fly zone over Syria. Then, on the day Trump would end up bombing Syria, Clinton endorsed the idea of blowing up Syrian airports due to Assad’s actions. How this will stop Assad from carrying out further atrocities is unclear. Once the bombing commenced, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a statement endorsing the attacks. Senators on the left, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, either released fairly tepid statements or said nothing at all.
This bipartisan consensus for meaningless military action goes back decades. The reason why Trump can get away with unleashing missiles without Congress’ approval is because Barack Obama did the same. During Obama’s tenure as president, Democrats waved away concerns about the way Obama handled drone usage and intervention in the Middle East. He knows what he’s doing, we were told. It’s better than using ground troops, Democrats said. Well, now that the personification of a drunken frat boy’s id is president, it has become clear that Obama’s actions opened a door for even more horrific United States imperialist tactics, many of which can be done solely by the executive branch. The fact that both political parties have abused the executive branch leaves the United States with no political entity that is against imperialism, a stunning, tragic, and dangerous reality for both the United States and the world. The Republicans range from neoconservative to genocidal; the Democrats range from neoconservative to uninterested.
Even now, with hatred towards Trump at an all-time high among centrists and Democrats, prominent pundits and politicians are saying Trump made the right call. How can Schumer or Schiff claim that Trump is evil incarnate and also give him a pat on the back when it comes to bombing Syria? In what world does that make sense? Why would you want to give the Donald the idea that he should be using military action? Nothing in his history says he will use it in a responsible way. This means the Democrats and pundits who are endorsing Trumps actions are lying when they claim he’s an unstable lunatic or they are so blinded by the belief in America’s superiority that they do not understand what they are allowing to unfold.
The media has played its part, too. For all the talk that the media is left-wing, the news has a long history of justifying the United States’ violence in the Middle East. During the build up to the Iraq War, network and cable news had an overwhelming number of pro-war pundits speak out, while giving the anti-war platform little to no voice. In general, the media treated those who questioned the Iraq War like they were Colonel Kurtz, naïve people who were out of touch with the world. Fair has a lengthy chronology that describes how the media, both print and television, botched the Iraq War.
If you were expecting better from the media today, you will only be letdown. Cable news will trot out every elderly general who wants to see one last war before they shuffle off this mortal coil. They will repeat talking points about “proportional responses” and “precision strikes.” Much will be said about how the United States’ military action is done out of humanitarian concern, yet there will be little discussion on how Yemen is facing a similar crisis because Saudi Arabia, using United States weapons and acting with the United States’ approval, reigns hell down on innocent men, women, and children. No, not a single word will be said about the war crimes committed by the United States in that country because it is an inconvenient narrative, one that will not prep American for war, for yet another exercise that will keep the military industrial complex rolling right along. No one on the news will speak up for the 7 million in Yemen who are at risk of starving thanks to Saudi Arabia’s bombings, bombings that the United States could restrict if it so desired. It could, after all, simply stop supplying Saudi Arabia with the arms to slaughter the people of Yemen.
But that won’t be talked about, which is why you should not, not even for a second, believe that the United States’ attack on Syria has anything to do with humanitarian reasons. Its purpose is to remind the world that the United States still has vast military power, to remind the Middle East that the United States is not backing out of the business of regime change, to keep other countries scared, to keep money flowing to defense contractors, and to help Donald Trump feel like he’s a Big Boy. You can tell this is not a humanitarian mission because the idea that destroying airports will somehow stop Assad from unleashing chemical weapons makes not the slightest bit of sense.
The American citizens share some of the blame for this debacle, too. After all, they have rewarded leaders who have destabilized the Middle East time and again. When George W. Bush ran for reelection after invading Iraq using bullshit claims, Americans shrugged and said, “Fuck it, let’s give him four more years and see what happens.” When it came time to nominate a candidate after more than a decade of the useless War on Terror, the Democratic donors put their monetary weight behind a candidate who did not feel like Obama was hawkish enough. Even the left’s candidate, Bernie Sanders, was never able to articulate a clear anti-imperialist argument. And then, when November 2016 arrived, Americans voted for a candidate who had the emotional maturity of not just a three year old, but a three year old who had an unhealthy fascination with nuclear weapons.
There is no simple solution to the Syrian crisis. Assad is a despicable person who should be rotting in a prison cell after receiving a lifetime sentence for crimes against humanity. However, it should be clear by now that unilateral American military action will not make the situation in Syria better; Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vietnam, and Korea (I could go on) have taught us that. American military action will, in all likelihood, make the situation much worse through collateral damage, either by the bombs themselves or the bombs setting off chemical weapons on the ground. Then factor in who could benefit should an American bomb obliterate Assad. Both ISIS and Al Qaeda operate in Syria in the hopes of taking advantage of a vacuum that will form if Assad falls from power. To prevent this, America would have to install a government itself. Take a look at Iraq and the rise of ISIS to see how that panned out. There is no military solution that will work, no regime change that will bring sudden stability to Syria.
There is an action the United States could take if it wants to help the Syrian citizens. The United States could open its doors to refugees and it could tell the Syrians that it will welcome those who want to come. Trump has made clear that he won’t do this and that racist promise was one of the factors that landed him the presidency. The Democrats have offered a few words about how refugees should be brought in, but it has been a half measure, at best. There is no serious argument in the current American discourse about allowing refugees in even though it was the United States’ actions in the 2000s that helped lead to the crisis in the first place. Why?
Because America is not a country interested in peaceful solutions. Those who want peace are viewed as cowards, as people with their heads in the clouds, as people who simply don’t understand reality. War has long been the business of the United States. Leaders note that it tends to unify the population, at least for a time, and that it keeps defense companies productive. When more than half of the United States’ budget is spent on the military, well, it has to do something with all that hardware, doesn’t it? You can only blow up Bikini Island so many times.
A truly humanitarian solution has not been found because it was never on the table. Military options aren’t just the first option for the United States; they are the only option. So far, the American people have yet to pushback enough against their government to stop this. The people either do not care or still buy into the idea of America’s Manifest Destiny. There remains little hope that Trump’s current excursion will change that reality. More bombs will drop, more chaos will unfold, and the cycle will continue. Calls for changing tactics will be ignored. It’s the American way.
No Country for Peaceful Men: The United States Covets War, and Syria is a Convenient Enemy
Hours before U.S. missile launch against Syria, Hillary Clinton called for strikes against the country's airfields. https://t.co/ViS9ngkKCwpic.twitter.com/41vndiF6JV
- ABC News (@ABC) April 7, 2017
Click to viewAnother Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria
Exclusive: The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry.
With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.
Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.
Even as basic facts were still being assembled about Tuesday’s incident, we, the public, were prepped to disbelieve the Syrian government’s response that the poison gas may have come from rebel stockpiles that could have been released either accidentally or intentionally causing the civilian deaths in a town in Idlib Province.
One possible scenario was that Syrian warplanes bombed a rebel weapons depot where the poison gas was stored, causing the containers to rupture. Another possibility was a staged event by increasingly desperate Al Qaeda jihadists who are known for their disregard for innocent human life.
While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.
Reporting by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and statements by some Turkish police and opposition politicians linked Turkish intelligence and Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus that killed hundreds, although the Times and other major U.S. news outlets continue to blame that incident on Assad’s regime.
Seasoned Propagandists
On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.
Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.
Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Gordon’s co-author, Judith Miller, became the only U.S. journalist known to have lost a job over the reckless and shoddy reporting that contributed to the Iraq disaster. For his part, Gordon continued serving as a respected Pentagon correspondent.
Gordon’s name also showed up in a supporting role on the Times’ botched “vector analysis,” which supposedly proved that the Syrian military was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas attack. The “vector analysis” story of Sept. 17, 2013, traced the flight paths of two rockets, recovered in suburbs of Damascus back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.
The article became the “slam-dunk” evidence that the Syrian government was lying when it denied launching the sarin attack. However, like the aluminum tube story, the Times’ ”vector analysis” ignored contrary evidence, such as the unreliability of one azimuth from a rocket that landed in Moadamiya because it had struck a building in its descent. That rocket also was found to contain no sarin, so it’s inclusion in the vectoring of two sarin-laden rockets made no sense.
But the Times’ story ultimately fell apart when rocket scientists analyzed the one sarin-laden rocket that had landed in the Zamalka area and determined that it had a maximum range of about two kilometers, meaning that it could not have originated from the Syrian military base. C.J. Chivers, one of the co-authors of the article, waited until Dec. 28, 2013, to publish a halfhearted semi-retraction. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis.”]
Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers - first photographed in Russia - had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.
However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]
Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain - and if someone important raises a question about your story - you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct.
No Skepticism Allowed
Anne Barnard, Gordon’s co-author on Tuesday’s Syrian poison-gas story, has consistently reported on the Syrian conflict as if she were a press agent for the rebels, playing up their anti-government claims even when there’s no evidence.
For instance, on June 2, 2015, Barnard, who is based in Beirut, Lebanon, authored a front-page story that pushed the rebels’ propaganda theme that the Syrian government was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State though even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that it had no confirmation of the rebels’ claims.
When Gordon and Barnard teamed up to report on the latest Syrian tragedy, they again showed no skepticism about early U.S. government and Syrian rebel claims that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally deploying poison gas.
Perhaps for the first time, The New York Times cited President Trump as a reliable source because he and his press secretary were saying what the Times wanted to hear - that Assad must be guilty.
Gordon and Barnard also cited the controversial White Helmets, the rebels’ Western-financed civil defense group that has worked in close proximity with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and has come under suspicion of staging heroic “rescues” but is nevertheless treated as a fount of truth-telling by the mainstream U.S. news media.
In early online versions of the Times’ story, a reaction from the Syrian military was buried deep in the article around the 27th paragraph, noting: “The government denies that it has used chemical weapons, arguing that insurgents and Islamic State fighters use toxins to frame the government or that the attacks are staged.”
The following paragraph mentioned the possibility that a Syrian bombing raid had struck a rebel warehouse where poison-gas was stored, thus releasing it unintentionally.
But the placement of the response was a clear message that the Times disbelieved whatever the Assad government said. At least in the version of the story that appeared in the morning newspaper, a government statement was moved up to the sixth paragraph although still surrounded by comments meant to signal the Times’ acceptance of the rebel version.
After noting the Assad government’s denial, Gordon and Barnard added, “But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.”
But they again ignored the alternative possibilities. One was that a bombing raid ruptured containers for chemicals that the rebels were planning to use in some future attack, and the other was that Al Qaeda’s jihadists staged the incident to elicit precisely the international outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.
Gordon and Barnard also could be wrong about Assad being the only one with a motive to deploy poison gas. Since Assad’s forces have gained a decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons deployment as a last-minute game-changer.
Pressure to Prejudge
None of this means that Assad’s forces are innocent, but a serious investigation ascertains the facts and then reaches a conclusion, not the other way around.
However, to suggest these other possibilities will, I suppose, draw the usual accusations about “Assad apologist,” but refusing to prejudge an investigation is what journalism is supposed to be about.
The Times, however, apparently has no concern anymore for letting the facts be assembled and then letting them speak for themselves. The Times weighed in on Wednesday with an editorial entitled “A New Level of Depravity From Mr. Assad.”
Another problem with the behavior of the Times and the mainstream media is that by jumping to a conclusion they pressure other important people to join in the condemnations and that, in turn, can prejudice the investigation while also generating a dangerous momentum toward war.
Once the political leadership pronounces judgment, it becomes career-threatening for lower-level officials to disagree with those conclusions. We’ve seen that already with how United Nations investigators accepted rebel claims about the Syrian government’s use of chlorine gas, a set of accusations that the Times and other media now report simply as flat-fact.
Yet, the claims about the Syrian military mixing in canisters of chlorine in supposed “barrel bombs” make little sense because chlorine deployed in that fashion is ineffective as a lethal weapon but it has become an important element of the rebels’ propaganda campaign.
U.N. investigators, who were under intense pressure from the United States and Western nations to give them something to use against Assad, did support rebel claims about the government using chlorine in a couple of cases, but the investigators also received testimony from residents in one area who described the staging of a chlorine attack for propaganda purposes.
One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]
Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?
Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria
The War in Syria Cannot Be Won. But It Can Be Ended.
The left is profoundly divided over the conflict, but we should at least agree on a set of principles to end it.
We need a powerful movement demanding an end to the war in Syria. The United States and to some extent the global antiwar movements remain largely paralyzed. There are some campaigns responding to specific congressional and other war moves, with some particularly good work against US support for Saudi Arabia. But as a movement, we seem unable to sort through the complexity of the multi-layered wars raging across Syria, and unable to respond to our internal divisions to create the kind of powerful movement we need to challenge the escalating conflict.
It was easier during earlier wars. Transforming public consciousness, changing US policy-those were all hard. But understanding the wars, building movements based on that understanding, that was easier. Our job was to oppose US military interventions, and to support anti-colonial, anti-imperialist challenges to those wars and interventions.
In Vietnam, and later during the Central American wars, that meant we all understood that it was the US side that was wrong, that the proxy armies and militias Washington supported were wrong, and that we wanted US troops and warplanes and Special Forces out. In all those wars, within the core of our movement, many of us not only wanted US troops out but we supported the social program of the other side-we wanted the Vietnamese, led by the North Vietnamese government and the National Liberation Front in the South, to win. In Nicaragua and El Salvador, we wanted US troops and advisers out and also victory for, respectively, the Sandinistas and the FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front). In South Africa we wanted an end to US support for apartheid and we also wanted the African National Congress to win.
The solidarity part got much harder in Afghanistan and especially in the Iraq wars. We stood in solidarity with ordinary Afghans and Iraqis suffering through US sanctions and wars, and some of our organizations built powerful ties with counterparts, such as US Labor Against the War’s links with the Iraqi oil workers union. And we recognized the right under international law for an invaded and occupied people to resist. But as to the various militias actually fighting against the United States, there were none we affirmatively supported, no political-military force whose social program we wanted to see victorious. So it was more complicated. Some things remained clear, however-the US war was still wrong and illegal, we still recognized the role of racism and imperialism in those wars, we still demanded that US troops get out.
Now, in Syria, even that is uncertain. Left and progressive forces, antiwar and solidarity activists, Syrian and non-Syrian, are profoundly divided. Among those who consider themselves progressive today, there is a significant though relatively small segment of activists who want their side to “win” the war in Syria. Only a few (thankfully, from my vantage point) support victory for what they often refer to as “Syrian sovereignty,” sometimes adding a reference to international law, and only sometimes acknowledging that that means supporting the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. (It should be noted that international recognition does not necessarily equal legitimacy; the South African apartheid regime was internationally recognized for decades.) A larger cohort wants to “win” the war for the Syrian revolution, the description they give to the post-Arab Spring efforts by Syrian activists to continue protesting the regime’s repression and working for a more democratic future. There is a deep divide.
Among those who want the Syrian regime to remain in power and the anti-regime opposition to be defeated, some base their position on the belief that Syria leads an “arc of resistance” in the Middle East-a claim long debunked by the actual history of the Assad family’s rule. From its 1976 enabling of a murderous attack on the Palestinian refugee camp of Tel al-Zataar in Beirut by right-wing Lebanese backed by Israel, to sending warplanes to join the US coalition bombing Iraq in 1991, to guaranteeing Israel a largely quiet border and quiescent population in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, to its role in interrogating and torturing outsourced US detainees in the “global war on terror,” Syria has never been a consistent anti-imperialist or resistance center.
Others in our movement want the opposition, or at least some part of it, to win against the regime. They support the independent, often progressive and indeed heroic activists who first challenged Damascus in nonviolent protests in 2011 and who continue to try to survive and build civil society amid war and terror. Their position, however, often ignores the enormous gap between those truly brave and amazing activists, on the one hand, and on the other hand the array of mostly not-very-progressive, indeed mostly reactionary and rarely heroic militias doing the actual fighting-against Assad’s forces, sometimes against ISIS, and often against civilians across the bloody Syrian battlefield. Those opposition fighters-including those deemed “moderate” by the United States and its allies as well as those acknowledged to be extremists or worse-are armed by Washington and its regional allies, and few appear interested in supporting any of the progressive goals the Syrian revolutionaries are working for. In our movement, this group is further divided between those backing a US-imposed no-fly zone or other military action to support the opposition, in the name of some version of “humanitarian intervention,” and those who oppose further US intervention.
We’ve certainly faced internal division before. During the 1998-99 Kosovo war, many on the left supported the US-NATO military involvement in one of the earlier versions of Western “humanitarian intervention.” Regarding Iraq, from 1991 through 12 years of crippling sanctions-genocidal in their impact-and both Iraq wars, differences rose sharply. They divided those who saw Saddam Hussein as the enemy of the United States and therefore inherently worthy of support, and those capable of understanding that we could fight to end illegal US wars and sanctions and still refuse to support a ruthless dictator (who happened to have been a longtime Washington client himself), even if he now opposed the United States. But even in those difficult times, there was unity (however unacknowledged) in our opposition to the US war-there were two competing national antiwar marches, but they were both against the war. In the case of Syria today, even that is uncertain.
As it stands now, parts of our movement don’t just disagree on how to achieve the same goal, they actually want different results. Some in our movement support the side armed and backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and some European countries; others defend the side armed and backed by Russia and Iran. It’s further complicated by those who appear to be hoping for a victory by the progressive non-military forces of the Arab Spring’s Syrian revolution, while others look to Rojava, the Syrian Kurdish enclave of progressive, feminist fighters, affiliated with the Turkey-based guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), as their target of solidarity. Most of the intervening governments-including the United States, Russia, Europe, and Iran (though Saudi Arabia and Turkey remain uncertain at best)-want ISIS to lose.
The paralysis these divides have created in our movement is exacerbated by the fact that what we call “the war in Syria” is not one civil war. It is a complicated chessboard of players, with multiple wars being waged by outside forces fighting each other alongside the Syrian civil war still raging between the regime and its domestic opponents. Those outside forces are fighting for various regional, sectarian, and global interests that have little or nothing to do with Syria-except that it is Syrians doing the dying. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting for regional hegemony and for Sunni versus Shi’a dominance; the United States and Russia are fighting for global and regional positioning, military bases, and control of resources; secular versus Islamist forces fight for dominance of the anti-Assad front; Turkey was fighting Russia (until recently, when it seemed to settle its differences with Russia before invading northern Syria, where now it is primarily going after the Kurds); the United States and Israel are fighting Iran (unlike in Iraq, where the United States and the Iranian-backed militias are on the same side in a broad anti-ISIS front); Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar vie for dominance among the Sunni monarchies; and while Turkey is fighting the Kurds, progressive Syrian Kurds are challenging the more traditional peshmerga of the Iraqi Kurdish regional government.
And then there’s ISIS fighting the Syrian regime and some of the regime’s opponents, while seeking to impose its brutal dominance over Syrian and Iraqi land and populations, while the United States, Russia, and a number of European countries, along with the Syrian and Iraqi governments, wage a lethal and increasingly global war against ISIS. And all of them fighting to the last Syrian.
Ending the War
Given all of that, it is important to recognize that by far the largest contingent of antiwar activists and progressives are not fighting to win the war for any side, but are committed to ending the war. And that can and does include many who also stand in solidarity with the incredibly brave activists who continue to struggle, the men and women who work beneath the bombs, beneath the mortar attacks, trying to maintain life in their besieged cities and towns.
But that part gets complicated too. Some of the civil-society groups working in opposition-held areas are supporting, one way or another, various armed factions backed by the United States and its allies that are fighting against the regime. Some-including some of the best-known humanitarian organizations-are supported financially and politically by the United States, Europe and/or their regional allies, who promote them as part of their propaganda war against the Assad regime. Some of them are mobilizing support for greater US military intervention. The exposés of some of these organizations’ backing, now being published by some of the best progressive journalists around, show important realities, helping us to understand how mainstream media coverage endorses and builds on the US government’s strategic goals. But many of those exposés also leave out crucial factors-including the often-wide gap between the goals of US imperialist policymakers and their ability to implement those goals.
Some sectors of the US establishment have long recognized how the Syrian regime, despite (and sometimes because of) its legacy of repression, often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests. Conversely, some powerful US elements-neoconservatives and beyond-clearly want regime change in Syria. But that reality doesn’t mean that ordinary Syrians, many of whom were challenging the repressive regime in Damascus long before the infamous list of seven US regime-change targets in the Arab world was ever created, didn’t have their own entirely different and entirely legitimate reasons for opposing Assad. They are not all Syrian versions of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi criminal anointed by Washington neocons to lead their “liberation” of Iraq in 2003.
Neocon dreams of regime change in Syria do not make those neocon forces all-powerful. And they do not negate the legitimacy of the earlier indigenous political opposition movements that erupted in Syria in the context of the 2010-11 Arab Spring, just as they did in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere, or that of the continuing political opposition. The question of agency is far too often ignored or sidelined by even the most thorough investigations of nefarious US intentions. The fact that a humanitarian organization may be funded by official US institutions because it is deemed useful for Washington’s goals, or even created with the hope that it would help achieve those goals, does not mean that every activist within that organization is a tool of US imperialism.
The White Helmets (aka Civil Defense), for instance, clearly are getting money from the US State Department and have now (likely with encouragement and/or pressure from their US-government friends) officially called for a no-fly zone in Syria. Reporting and acknowledging that fact is important, but obviously their support for such a US military escalation does not make that demand legitimate for US or global antiwar forces any more than it did when some political activists in Libya called for the same kind of escalation there. A no-fly zone, as acknowledged by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, is an act of war. But it is crucial to simultaneously recognize and appreciate that the White Helmets are doing vital, indeed often heroic, humanitarian work, as first responders in opposition-held areas subject to murderous military assault. In the absence of state institutions or even sufficient international humanitarian organizations, such local initiatives, however compromised in the political/propaganda arena, play a crucial human role. Understanding those separate roles-the humanitarian and the propaganda-and recognizing they can exist simultaneously in a single organization, is important as we struggle to build a movement to end the war.
Over the long term, and regardless of who is elected president, we need to build a powerful movement to end the “global war on terror” and the militarization of US foreign policy that that war reflects. Right now, the centerpiece of that war is Syria. So we cannot put aside building such a movement because the divisions among our forces make it difficult. Those who recognize the need to focus on building a movement to end the war should be able to unite around some combination of these demands of the US government:
- You can’t defeat terrorism with war, so stop killing people and destroying cities in the name of stopping others from killing people-that means stop the airstrikes and bombing, withdraw the troops and Special Forces, make “no boots on the ground” real.
- Work to achieve a full arms embargo on all sides, challenging the US and global arms industry. Stop the train-and-equip programs. Stop allowing US allies to send weapons into Syria, making clear that if they continue they will lose all access to US arms sales. Convincing Russia and Iran to stop arming the Syrian regime will become more realistic when the United States and its allies stop arming the other side.
- Create new diplomatic, not military, partnerships involving outside powers and those inside Syria, including regional governments and other actors. Real diplomacy for ending war must be at center stage, not fake diplomacy designed to enable joint bombing campaigns. All must be at the table, including Syrian civil society, women, and the nonviolent opposition as well as armed actors. Support UN efforts toward local cease-fires and new diplomacy.
- Increase US support for refugees and other regional humanitarian needs. Make good on all pledges to UN funds, and vastly increase money and aid to UN agencies as well as the number of refugees welcomed for resettlement in the United States.
The War in Syria Cannot Be Won. But It Can Be Ended.
No Country for Peaceful Men: The United States Covets War, and Syria is a Convenient Enemy
Well, you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Yes, Donald Trump, with cratering poll numbers, has seen an opportunity to become the great big American hero he so desperately wants to be: he can start a war. There is little doubt that Trump wants to become a war president, wants to board an air force carrier while giving that ridiculous smile of his, saying how he used America’s military and he succeeded big league. And, as a whole, America will allow its president to do this. Don’t believe me? Go turn on the news. MSNBC is bringing on Democrats like Adam Schiff and supposed human rights activist Nicholas Kristoff to say that while they have worries about the way Trump is taking action, an attack on Syria is the appropriate response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Left out of these discussions is that questions about who used the chemical weapons still linger.
Guest after guest is gushing. From MSNBC to CNN, Trump is receiving his best night of press so far. And all he had to do was start a war.
- Sam Sacks (@SamSacks) April 7, 2017
The bombing of Syria is a bipartisan event. Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been salivating at the thought of attacking Syria for years. Neither of them has met a country they did not want to bomb. If either of them bothered to look at the science of climate change their answer would be to advocate for war against Greenland. Sadly, the opposition part is not offering up much of an alternative. During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton advocated for the irresponsible policy of starting a no-fly zone over Syria. Then, on the day Trump would end up bombing Syria, Clinton endorsed the idea of blowing up Syrian airports due to Assad’s actions. How this will stop Assad from carrying out further atrocities is unclear. Once the bombing commenced, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a statement endorsing the attacks. Senators on the left, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, either released fairly tepid statements or said nothing at all.
This bipartisan consensus for meaningless military action goes back decades. The reason why Trump can get away with unleashing missiles without Congress’ approval is because Barack Obama did the same. During Obama’s tenure as president, Democrats waved away concerns about the way Obama handled drone usage and intervention in the Middle East. He knows what he’s doing, we were told. It’s better than using ground troops, Democrats said. Well, now that the personification of a drunken frat boy’s id is president, it has become clear that Obama’s actions opened a door for even more horrific United States imperialist tactics, many of which can be done solely by the executive branch. The fact that both political parties have abused the executive branch leaves the United States with no political entity that is against imperialism, a stunning, tragic, and dangerous reality for both the United States and the world. The Republicans range from neoconservative to genocidal; the Democrats range from neoconservative to uninterested.
Even now, with hatred towards Trump at an all-time high among centrists and Democrats, prominent pundits and politicians are saying Trump made the right call. How can Schumer or Schiff claim that Trump is evil incarnate and also give him a pat on the back when it comes to bombing Syria? In what world does that make sense? Why would you want to give the Donald the idea that he should be using military action? Nothing in his history says he will use it in a responsible way. This means the Democrats and pundits who are endorsing Trumps actions are lying when they claim he’s an unstable lunatic or they are so blinded by the belief in America’s superiority that they do not understand what they are allowing to unfold.
The media has played its part, too. For all the talk that the media is left-wing, the news has a long history of justifying the United States’ violence in the Middle East. During the build up to the Iraq War, network and cable news had an overwhelming number of pro-war pundits speak out, while giving the anti-war platform little to no voice. In general, the media treated those who questioned the Iraq War like they were Colonel Kurtz, naïve people who were out of touch with the world. Fair has a lengthy chronology that describes how the media, both print and television, botched the Iraq War.
If you were expecting better from the media today, you will only be letdown. Cable news will trot out every elderly general who wants to see one last war before they shuffle off this mortal coil. They will repeat talking points about “proportional responses” and “precision strikes.” Much will be said about how the United States’ military action is done out of humanitarian concern, yet there will be little discussion on how Yemen is facing a similar crisis because Saudi Arabia, using United States weapons and acting with the United States’ approval, reigns hell down on innocent men, women, and children. No, not a single word will be said about the war crimes committed by the United States in that country because it is an inconvenient narrative, one that will not prep American for war, for yet another exercise that will keep the military industrial complex rolling right along. No one on the news will speak up for the 7 million in Yemen who are at risk of starving thanks to Saudi Arabia’s bombings, bombings that the United States could restrict if it so desired. It could, after all, simply stop supplying Saudi Arabia with the arms to slaughter the people of Yemen.
But that won’t be talked about, which is why you should not, not even for a second, believe that the United States’ attack on Syria has anything to do with humanitarian reasons. Its purpose is to remind the world that the United States still has vast military power, to remind the Middle East that the United States is not backing out of the business of regime change, to keep other countries scared, to keep money flowing to defense contractors, and to help Donald Trump feel like he’s a Big Boy. You can tell this is not a humanitarian mission because the idea that destroying airports will somehow stop Assad from unleashing chemical weapons makes not the slightest bit of sense.
The American citizens share some of the blame for this debacle, too. After all, they have rewarded leaders who have destabilized the Middle East time and again. When George W. Bush ran for reelection after invading Iraq using bullshit claims, Americans shrugged and said, “Fuck it, let’s give him four more years and see what happens.” When it came time to nominate a candidate after more than a decade of the useless War on Terror, the Democratic donors put their monetary weight behind a candidate who did not feel like Obama was hawkish enough. Even the left’s candidate, Bernie Sanders, was never able to articulate a clear anti-imperialist argument. And then, when November 2016 arrived, Americans voted for a candidate who had the emotional maturity of not just a three year old, but a three year old who had an unhealthy fascination with nuclear weapons.
There is no simple solution to the Syrian crisis. Assad is a despicable person who should be rotting in a prison cell after receiving a lifetime sentence for crimes against humanity. However, it should be clear by now that unilateral American military action will not make the situation in Syria better; Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vietnam, and Korea (I could go on) have taught us that. American military action will, in all likelihood, make the situation much worse through collateral damage, either by the bombs themselves or the bombs setting off chemical weapons on the ground. Then factor in who could benefit should an American bomb obliterate Assad. Both ISIS and Al Qaeda operate in Syria in the hopes of taking advantage of a vacuum that will form if Assad falls from power. To prevent this, America would have to install a government itself. Take a look at Iraq and the rise of ISIS to see how that panned out. There is no military solution that will work, no regime change that will bring sudden stability to Syria.
There is an action the United States could take if it wants to help the Syrian citizens. The United States could open its doors to refugees and it could tell the Syrians that it will welcome those who want to come. Trump has made clear that he won’t do this and that racist promise was one of the factors that landed him the presidency. The Democrats have offered a few words about how refugees should be brought in, but it has been a half measure, at best. There is no serious argument in the current American discourse about allowing refugees in even though it was the United States’ actions in the 2000s that helped lead to the crisis in the first place. Why?
Because America is not a country interested in peaceful solutions. Those who want peace are viewed as cowards, as people with their heads in the clouds, as people who simply don’t understand reality. War has long been the business of the United States. Leaders note that it tends to unify the population, at least for a time, and that it keeps defense companies productive. When more than half of the United States’ budget is spent on the military, well, it has to do something with all that hardware, doesn’t it? You can only blow up Bikini Island so many times.
A truly humanitarian solution has not been found because it was never on the table. Military options aren’t just the first option for the United States; they are the only option. So far, the American people have yet to pushback enough against their government to stop this. The people either do not care or still buy into the idea of America’s Manifest Destiny. There remains little hope that Trump’s current excursion will change that reality. More bombs will drop, more chaos will unfold, and the cycle will continue. Calls for changing tactics will be ignored. It’s the American way.
No Country for Peaceful Men: The United States Covets War, and Syria is a Convenient Enemy
Hours before U.S. missile launch against Syria, Hillary Clinton called for strikes against the country's airfields. https://t.co/ViS9ngkKCwpic.twitter.com/41vndiF6JV
- ABC News (@ABC) April 7, 2017