“Escalating Tensions”: After the US shot down a Syrian plane, MSNBC‘s Andrea Mitchell asserted, “The criticism is that the president is reluctant to go after Russia.”
If we’re heading toward World War III, let’s hope that some episodes of MSNBC‘s Andrea Mitchell Reports survive the nuclear winter to provide future civilizations with some clues as to how we got there.
Mitchell’s June 19 show was a typical example of the current mentality of the US security state. A short segment in the show featured Jeremy Bash, currently a military consultant and formerly the chief of staff for both the Department of Defense and the CIA under Leon Panetta in the Obama administration.
In just over four-and-a-half minutes, Bash recited an alarming number of pro-war propaganda talking points that went unchallenged (and were even egged on) by Mitchell.
Bash and Mitchell began their conversation by addressing Monday’s escalation of the Syrian War, when US forces shot down a Syrian government warplane. Mitchell wondered if taking the action was “basically getting us into a conflict with Russia,” while Bash blamed the whole thing on the Russians refusing to tell Assad to stand down.
Presenting military conflict in a way that shows the US to be the hard-luck victim of good intentions is of course not unique to MSNBC, or even cable news. As FAIR’s Adam Johnson pointed out on Twitter on Tuesday afternoon, the US shooting down an Iranian drone in southern Syria was blamed on the unmanned robot’s apparent display of “hostile intent”— reasoning that was then uncritically repeated in the headline of British newspaper the Independent.
man this drone has a lot of agency, it’s for Assad and has malicious intent pic.twitter.com/9mLl3wDORl
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) June 20, 2017
Mitchell asked Bash if the dispute could result in all-out war. From there, the conversation devolved into Bash and Mitchell doing everything short of calling for war between the US and Russia, countries with stockpiles of around 7,000 nuclear weapons each.
Provoking a war with Russia: What’s the worst that could happen?
The US hasn’t done “a very good job pushing Russia out of the way,” said Bash, implying it would be a good idea to target a country that only months ago was reported by Newsweek to have a bomb that could flatten Texas. Bash added that “we’ve let Russia have too free a hand, in my view, in the skies over Syria.”
That the US should have full control over the skies in Syria is not a position unique to Bash. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton expressed support for no-fly-zones over the country during the presidential campaign. But to hear it stated so openly in the context of “pushing” a major nuclear power “out of the way” is still startling.
Mitchell replied that “the criticism is that the president is reluctant to go after Russia.” Of course, that’s largely in line with the marching orders from her colleagues at MSNBC, who see Russian conspiracies and machinations everywhere, presenting the imperial rival as an existential threat.
Bash agreed, telling Mitchell that “the big issue here has been an inexplicable lack of resolve regarding Russia,” lamenting that “we have not been willing to take them on.”
It wasn’t all Russia and Syria; other Mideast conflicts were topics of discussion as well during the segment. Mitchell and Bash placed resolving the Israeli/Palestinian “way down the list” of things for US diplomacy to do in the region, far below the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and the latter’s perceived closeness to Iran.
Solving that crisis, Bash said, was a top priority, tying all the continuing conflicts in the Middle East together in one neat package—with Russia in the middle, naturally.
“If you look at the regional dynamics,” said Bash, “Russia has been providing cover for Syria, for the Assad regime and for their friends in Iran, and that is a dangerous development.”
“Jeremy Bash,” Mitchell said as the show cut to commercial. “Not a reassuring Monday message.”
“A lot to worry about,” Bash agreed.
A lot to worry about indeed, if Bash and Mitchell are indicative of corporate media’s enthusiasm for going to war with another nuclear-armed nation.
First the ratings
Then the rubble
Some editing of Bash’s statement is in order:
“Solving that crisis, Bash said, was a top priority, tying all the continuing conflicts in the Middle East together in one neat package—with [United States] in the middle, naturally.
That’s the clue of how we got to here from there. We blundered profoundly into Iraq and the continuing conflicts are our neat little gift package;consider it a gift to defense contractors, hawks and perpetual wars.
Our blundering into Iraq was not as hapless as you seem to suggest; we were there at the behest of Tel Aviv, participating in a project to create a Greater Israel; removing a non-secular state, whose non-secularism threatened the secularity of Israel. Israel has a right to exist. Part of that right includes removing perceived threats. Hence, Iraq is to be drawn up into competing principalities, competing secular entities that, while they may in some generic way be hostile to the notion of an Israel, will also be hostile to each other, and hence more convenient to manage.
Libya is gone, too, and so soon Syria will be history. Almost done.
“War, war, war, war, war, war, war… Oh, and war.” It won’t be long before this is all we hear or see when we turn on the TV or open a newspaper. Gotta keep that MIC gravy train rolling along, dontcha know. Disgusting.
This stuff just makes me sick to the stomach. It’s why I’m so ambivalent about the so-called “resistance.” The constant diet of neo- McCarthyism makes me feel that all of our energies are being channeled into supporting people who are looking to incinerate us all.
Don’t criticize Russia! We might start WWIII!
When did we get to this point? Yeah, US polices in Syria (and the Middle East in general) are counter-productive and incoherent most of the time, but I doubt that Russia’s motives for being there are benevolent either. But are we really at a point where sites like this are seriously suggesting no one should criticize a state-actor (not a race, not a ethnicity, or a religion) for its foreign policy?
I agree. Russia is our friend and should be our ally. America and Russia have deep and abiding cultural affinity, elective affinity. It is absolute nonsense to impose sanctions on Russia. Russia is correct in their Middle Eastern Policy, America is wrong. Nuclear threat or not, the U.S. and NATO should desist in their attempts to warmonger. We owe Russia an apology. We owe ourselves a good talking to.
I am an American who was raised during the Cold War.America has always been Russophobia during and after the Cold War.I am a native Oregonian.Growing up out here I seen and heard everything that had nothing to do with communist regime,but the most negative things about Russians and anything Russian.They were not considered as human beings.I got to know the Russian people and they are amazing.What is interesting is that the Nazis,Japanese and Turks committed genocide against other races and no stigmas.If it is Russians then you know the narrative.I can go on and on
Why is it rhat all the dtaft evader presidents want to go to war?I think that the last pressident who actually fought in a war, Bush the 1st fought in WW 2 and he went into kuwait and fought and left. Then Clinton had his Bosnia/ Croatia war and Afghanistan thing too, and Bush the 2nd started the unending Irag war and moving ever larger what with all the secret black sites all over the world—–and then Obama , the Peace prize guy, and Hillary added the demise of Libya and Syria, and all of them including the UK have continued to let Israel destroy Palestine.
Maybe if a leader wanted to go to war, he or she should have to go too and Congress would have to suit up also. if they supported war, We would have a very peaceful world if supporting.boots on the ground, meant putting their own congressional asses on the firing Line in the same nation they wanted others to invade. This would probably make government more thoughtful and pleaceful
Right now, the United States is not explaining itself well when it comes to the country’s interference in Syria.
As a citizen of this country, I would prefer that we actually stay out of these silly wars in the Middle East. And other areas, too.
Most of the ISIS fighters come from countries that are supposed to be friends of ours. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the main sources. And this government says we are fighting against ISIS? Give me a break! We have seen the evidence of Sen. John McCain meeting with the acknowledged leaders of ISIS.
Our actions in Syria amount to an undeclared war. Like it or not, Bashir al-Assad is the leader of a government that is situated in Damascus, the recognized capital of Syria. The United States has said we are fighting against Assad’s government, and also fighting against ISIS, while ISIS is saying they are fighting against Assad. Either this puts us in the middle of a three-way situation, or someone’s not coming clean.
Our fight against Assad’s government is an undeclared war against a sovereign state. If they want to continue, they should make it official and declare war against Syria (Congress won’t do this, for good reason).
Is Bash another one of those brilliant chicken hawks?