This Washington Post op-ed (4/11/18) was one of several that promoted the myth that “the world did nothing” to Syria.
The curators of American public opinion at the three most influential broadsheets in the United States have decided that dissent from the build-up to new airstrikes on Syria is not really an opinion worth hearing. Of 16 columns leveling an opinion about “fresh” airstrikes on the Syrian regime in the coming days, only two—both in the Washington Post (4/12/18, 4/12/18)—opposed the airstrikes. No New York Times or Wall Street Journal opinion piece came out against a renewed attack on Syria.
Ten expressly supported the airstrikes (three in the Times, five in the Post and two in the Journal), two did so by implication (both in the Times, both lamenting the US “doing nothing” in Syria), two were ambiguous and two were opposed to the airstrikes. A complete list of the columns can be reviewed here.
This is slightly less unanimous than the level of support Trump’s airstrikes on Syrian air bases received from the media last year, when only one out of 47 editorial boards failed to back the escalation (FAIR.org, 4/11/17).
On the issue of launching airstrikes against the Assad government, robust debate is nonexistent. Major publications take the bulk of the premises for war for granted—namely the US’s legal and moral right to wage it—and simply parse over the details (FAIR.org, 4/12/18). The Washington Post editorial board (4/9/18), unsatisfied with what they view as token airstrikes, calls for Trump to not just launch “a few cruise missiles,” but for a “concerted strategy” of open-ended “US military initiatives.” This, of course, includes additional permanent military bases scattered throughout Syria.
As Trump and leaders from France and Britain gear up for war in the coming days, if not hours, perhaps opinion editors could make a little more space for those who oppose the possible opening up of a whole new theater of war.
The French Empire and the British Empire are going out to the bar with the American Empire in the hopes that if the American Empire screws the Russian Empire, they might have a chance to screw the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire respectively, but not respectfully.
The French Empire and the British Empire are going out to the bar with the American Empire in the hopes that if the American Empire screws the Russian Empire, they might have a chance to screw the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire respectively, but not respectfully.
COMMENT
And if it is determined by ‘objective’ investigators that the Assad regime used poison gas on the people of Douma, what right does the U.S. have to “punish” Syria for that? Waging an illegal war of aggression was the “supreme international crime” prosecuted against Nazi Germany at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals after World War II. Causing even more bloodshed and destruction will not help anyone except the War Whores: the war profiteers and their greedy Congressional servants.
Meanwhile, do these warmongers, including media, expect Russia to not retaliate if Russians are killed by U.S. missiles in Syria? Russia has said they will strike the launchers of any such attack, meaning the U.S. ships which would fire the missiles. What will happen if Russian submarines, already in the Mediterranean Sea, sink the U.S. warships which launched those missiles?
COMMENT
And if it is determined by ‘objective’ investigators that the Assad regime used poison gas on the people of Douma, what right does the U.S. have to “punish” Syria for that? Waging an illegal war of aggression was the “supreme international crime” prosecuted against Nazi Germany at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals after World War II. Causing even more bloodshed and destruction will not help anyone except the War Whores: the war profiteers and their greedy Congressional servants.
Meanwhile, do these warmongers, including media, expect Russia to not retaliate if Russians are killed by U.S. missiles in Syria? Russia has said they will strike the launchers of any such attack, meaning the U.S. ships which would fire the missiles. What will happen if Russian submarines, already in the Mediterranean Sea, sink the U.S. warships which launched those missiles?
Bravo ! Well stated.
As I stated in a previous post, why is killing with poison gas any worse than killing with bullets or bombs ? All of them are horrible. I
This beating of war drums has nothing to do with punishing brutal behavior. It has everything to do with finding a pretext for attempting to remove an enemy of Israel, an enterprise started back in 2011 by Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, under the pretext of protecting civilians.
And the mainstream media has gone along with this.
You are absolutely one hundred percent correct… Well said…..
Isn’t the timing of this “Wag the Dog” event interesting?
Just as the promotion for Comey’s book is going into high gear…
Gee, color me surprised…NOT!
Isn’t the timing of this “Wag the Dog” event interesting?
Just as the promotion for Comey’s book is going into high gear…
Gee, color me surprised…NOT!
Now all of Trump’s transgressions will be forgiven. The neoliberals will welcome him with open arms, almost.
Maybe Trump can go on TV and in an authoritarian voice, say, “This will not stand.”
So much then, for “liberal media”. But really, should anyone have expected the Wall S Journal to feature any opposition to the air strikes? Let’s remember who profits from war.
What’s so surprising? Children will die but the profits will fly.
This piece disturbed me because it implicitly endorsed the idea that a presumably limited strike on Assad’s chemical munitions capabilities is a bad idea. Assuming that Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons against the rebels what alternatives would you suggest? How would you curtail the use of banned weapons? Or do you believe that no such weapons were used?
So violence is the first approach? How about letting an independent investigation by OPCW take place first. And isn’t congress supposed to approve such war actions? How about a debate in Congress if Assad’s government is found guilty by the OPCW? There wasn’t any imminent threat at all to this country. If you really think about it rationally you might question what kind of motive would Assad have, because he doesn’t need chemical weapons to win his war, and doing so only puts him in a negative light with the world. I don’t think he’s that stupid. Now the different factions of rebels have a motive to do this because it helps them put Assad in a bad light and possibly get attacked, which happened. I’m basically saying war is a bad thing and bombing kills many innocent people, it should be the last resort not the first.
Well said! The neocon trolls are everywhere.
Of course violence should not the first approach. This is a proxy war with Sunnis from ISIS and the Gulf States and Iran, Turkey, Israel Russia and the Kurds involved (I’m sure I left out some players). How do you stop the violence? Assad is a monster, Erdogan is a monster. ISIS fighters are monsters. But sitting idly by while monsters are free to decimate civilian populations is also monstrous. I haven’t heard a single constructive idea from you — OPCW has no teeth, and Russia consistently blocks UN action. Every option looks bad. What is the least awful policy?
The point you make about Congress is valid. Obama sought Congressional approval in 2012, and Congress refused to grant him that power. Trump doesn’t give a damn about legalities, and his use of military power is probably illegal. This situation is the result of neocons destabilizing the Middle East, but now that there is general acknowledgement that Bushes’ wars were fiascos there still is no real push-back in Congress. We have no State Department, and an autocrat wannabe as a president. So please, tell me what we ought to do.
“Assad is a monster, Erdogan is a monster. ISIS fighters are monsters. But sitting idly by while monsters are free to decimate civilian populations is also monstrous.”
And to the rest of the world, watching as the US rains bombs on civilians, the US is a monster. The American public likes to think of the country as the world’s police, but how can defending international law require REPEATEDLY disregarding international law?
The least-awful policy is not going to be having the United States impose its will on the other side of the world.
If you put yourself on the other side of the equation what do you see. You see the intelligence services of the U.S., Britain and France arming and paying the salaries of these “rebels.” Then you see limited chemical attacks in the past (probably done by the rebels) and a completely fabricated attack this time. After each attack, real or imagined, these powers bomb the capitol city. So basically anytime they feel they need a pretext to bomb the capitol and support their rebels, or other states in the region, they either initiate or fabricate a chemical attack. Ready, blame, bomb is the order of the day. Everyone either knows or should know this by now.
So the governments know it, the media knows it, the populations know it (at some level), the international community knows it and yet the bombings continue. The problem this creates is if you’re on the other side and you want to stop these bombings your only avenue with any probability of success is to escalate the situation to the point where it gets the attention of the respective populations. The government, the press and the opinion makers don’t care so if you want to change the situation you have to do something they can’t ignore. Sink a ship. Destroy a coalition airbase. Attack the foreign military personnel in the area. Call their bluff. See if they are willing to fight a full scale regional war.
Now they don’t want to do that but if we keep it up with this ready, blame bomb, motif sooner or later they are going to have no choice. This is probably what the west wants because we think we would “win” an all out fight and the militarists need some action like that to start an all out fight. Personally I think we would “win” but only because of larger force levels and our losses would be so heavy it would be truly shocking to the public and destroy the myth of our invincibility. So that’s what’s on the table.
Is Syria worth that trade? Maybe, maybe not. But if we at all increase pressure in the Ukraine or somewhere close to the Russian border then they would much rather fight it out and display the weapons capability in Syria and the calculus changes. It’s belligerent, dangerous, cruel and immoral to do what we are doing on our side and nobody (or very few people) care. If you’re on the other side you have to make us, the populations of the west, force us to care, and that entails a large scale, hot, regional war. The problem with wars though is once they get started they generalize and the destruction always far exceeds what the original argument was about and neither side will admit defeat until it uses all the weapons it has and these days we have nuclear weapons. Either our leaders are so stupid they don’t understand this (the dialectic of war) or their evil. Take your pick.
ITs not just neo-liberal corporate press but many on the Intercept, Democracy Now which should be called Theocracy Now since they support a defacto Saudi/Qatari/Turkish Wahabi/Salafist/Takfiri rebels and front groups like the White Helmets and are going along with the “cruise missile/drone deaf” liberals and faux socialists. its shocking that just RT outlets and Spuntik are airing truthtellings, The Real News, Consortium News, Shadowproof, Jimmy Dore, Black Agenda Report, Global Research CA, David Swanson, Ron Paul Liberty Report and Mint Press News are the few voices of reason but even more shocking to see the idlibs support Trump bombing Syria while right-wing shock jocks from Ezra Levant, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, Mike cernowich, Laura Ingraham or Fox’s flagship nightly program Tucker Carlons are the ones decrying and being truthtellers whereas the Qatari funded Al Jazeera, Mother Jones, Democracy Now, Vice, and the Intercept are endorsing lies and deceiving their viewers and readers.
Yeah, I like the canard about “world did nothing” in Syria. The “world” ganged up on Syria like a pack of wolves. The “world” did plenty.