The New York Times (4/9/18) calls Syria “a crucial test for Mr. Trump, who has shirked America’s traditional leadership role.”
Western governments accuse the Syrian government of carrying out a chemical weapon attack in Douma, a suburb of Damascus. The World Health Organization says that, of 70 deceased persons they examined in the area, 43 had signs of being exposed to “highly toxic chemicals,” though whether the government carried out the attack has not been confirmed, and even the US—despite its public stance—was reportedly “still assessing the evidence of the attack” and “did not know which chemical was used, or whether it was launched by the Syrian government or forces supporting the government” (New York Times, 4/11/18).
President Donald Trump is threatening to escalate the Syrian war, as are France and the United Kingdom, while Israel apparently bombed Syria three days ago. In this context, major “liberal” media outlets are writing that Trump should attack Syria further.
Clamoring for Catastrophe
A New York Times editorial (4/9/18) used rather weaselly language to call for more war on Syria. “The president should know by now that tough talk without a coherent strategy or follow-through is dangerous,” the paper wrote. Saying that Trump should “follow through” on his “tough talk” is a way of saying that he should carry out his threats against Syria and its allies. In the bizarro world where the paper evidently operates, it’s not dropping bombs that is “dangerous,” even though the bombs are presumably unsafe for the Syrians beneath them. Another air attack on Syria could provoke a wider war in the Middle East, as well as risk direct confrontation with Russia and possibly even China (National Interest, 4/4/18).
The editorial opened by saying that the world had “grown numb to the slaughter of civilians in Syria” until it saw pictures from Douma. The cognitive dissonance is astounding: The paper notes the emotional potency of pictures of dead and wounded Syrians while saying that the US should ratchet up the war in Syria, a move that is guaranteed—as we know from the results of US attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria itself—to produce victims who are just as dead and injured as the ones in the photos described.
“One feel-good bomb-fest does not a strategy make,” writes the Guardian‘s Simon Tisdall (4/9/18)–a strategy is making your enemies “feel the pain.”
A Guardian article by Simon Tisdall (4/9/18) article suffers from the same affliction. He demands Western military action and explains that this recommendation
means destroying Assad’s combat planes, bombers, helicopters and ground facilities from the air. It means challenging Assad’s and Russia’s control of Syrian airspace. It means taking out Iranian military bases and batteries in Syria if they are used to prosecute the war. And it means keeping up the pressure when they push back, which they will, until Putin, his Damascene partner-in-war-crimes, and Iran’s cocky Revolutionary Guard commanders get the message, feel the pain, count the escalating cost, and stop trying to kill civilians.
Even if one accepts that the US has the right to do such things, which it doesn’t, such actions cannot be undertaken without killing the very civilians that Tisdall claims he wants to save. The “destroying” and “taking out” he mentions happen through bombing. In Afghanistan, to take one of many possible comparisons, American bombing killed 1,000–1,300 civilians in the first three months alone, and that war will turn 17 in October.
The answer to Tisdall’s question, “Can we no longer distinguish between right and wrong?” is apparently that it is “right” to kill thousands of Syrians and provoke the governments of Syria, Russia and Iran. He laments the “merciless attacks” he attributes to the governments of Syria and Russia, leaving readers to conclude that when America inevitably kills further civilians in Syria, those attacks will be merciful.
The Washington Post (4/9/18) also encourages the US to risk World War III and kill Syrians in what would almost certainly be enormous numbers, because “President Trump will deal another blow to US global leadership if he does not follow through” on his declaration “that Syria will pay a ‘big price’” for its alleged use of chemical weapons.
Crime Is Law
The New York Times contends that “if a Russian veto prevents Security Council action, then Mr. Trump needs to work with our allies, through NATO or otherwise.” Wars are illegal under international if they lack UN authorization, but the Times argues that the US should nonetheless ramp up its war on Syria without UN approval. (The reference to NATO incorrectly implies that NATO, a military alliance, has some kind of legal authority.) Yet in the next paragraph, the paper notes that “the use of poison gas,” which it accuses the Syrian government of doing, is “a war crime under international law.” Thus the editorial invokes international law to legitimize an attack on Syria immediately after urging the US to violate international law.
Tisdall also argues that the US needs to break international law so as to uphold international law, writing that “allied military intervention, better late than never,” would uphold “international law.” In other words, international law is vitally important, but it only applies to Washington’s enemies.
The Washington Post (4/9/18) warns that if Trump doesn’t do what he tweeted, it will “deal another blow to US global leadership.”
These articles rest on the assumption that the United States has a right to control Syria, and should kill Syrians and drive them from their homes to assert that right. The Post editorial says, “What’s really needed is a concerted strategy for protecting the vital American interests wrapped up in the multi-sided Syrian war.” The paper then wrote that
the reality Mr. Trump has not yet faced is that as long as the dictator he called “Animal Assad” remains in place, Syria’s wars will continue, breeding Islamist terrorists and propelling refugees toward Europe. Mr. Trump does have an advantage that Mr. Obama lacked: Thanks to the capture by US and allied forces of a large part of eastern Syria, the United States has the capacity to stabilize at least part of the country and has leverage in demanding an acceptable outcome to the war.
The first sentence of this paragraph indicates that the Post thinks the only “acceptable outcome to the war” is the overthrow of the Syrian government. The passage suffers not only from its unfounded assumption that the US has a right to decide who governs Syria and to enforce that with arms, but also from its failure to consider what will happen should Washington attempt to do so. An escalation of America’s war on Syria will almost certainly mean that “Syria’s wars will continue,” since the Syrian government and its partners from Iran, Russia, Iraq and Hezbollah can be expected to fight back against US efforts to dominate the country. In that scenario, refugees will indeed be “propel[led] toward Europe,” as they will if the US ousts the Syrian government and ushers in total social collapse, as it did in Libya (FAIR.org, 11/28/17). Thus what the paper purports to be worried about is virtually guaranteed to result from the course it recommends.
The Times, meanwhile, says that
to have any chance of success, any international retaliatory action must be part of a coherent diplomatic strategy for stabilizing Syria and putting a political settlement in place…. The conflict has allowed Russia, Iran, Turkey and the Islamic State, now degraded by an American-led coalition, to gain a foothold in Syria.
Notably absent from this list of actors are the United States and its proxy Israel, both of whom have “footholds” in Syria: The US controls “about one-third [of Syria], including most of its oil wealth” (New York Times, 3/8/18). Israel, meanwhile, has illegally annexed Syria’s Golan Heights, and has sought to expand its control of Syrian territory throughout the country’s war (FAIR.org, 2/21/18). These “footholds,” however, are supposedly legitimate, as would be any further “foothold” America and its partners would gain from escalating their war on Syria.
This style of coverage—enthusiastic about the moral need for violence but oblivious to its obvious consequences—inhibits the public’s capacity to make sense of the extremely dangerous moment in which we are living.
Did you expect anything different from American media? Everything is a game to these people (the elite). They kill hundreds of thousands at will (Libya, Iraq, Yemen) and nothing ever happens. The Russians apparently don’t consider it a game but that hasn’t sunk through their thick skulls yet. It’s kind of hard to believe really. Mrs. Clinton made clear her intention to escalate the Syria war in the debates. Trump said the opposite but is now doing the same. That’s why I voted for Gary Johnson. Problem is, voting apparently makes no difference. I guess being criminally insane is just a qualification for the job which used to be the argument of those who supported hereditary monarchies. The way they put it was, “Anyone who wants to be King, shouldn’t.”
Did you expect anything different from American media? Everything is a game to these people (the elite). They kill hundreds of thousands at will (Libya, Iraq, Yemen) and nothing ever happens. The Russians apparently don’t consider it a game but that hasn’t sunk through their thick skulls yet. It’s kind of hard to believe really. Mrs. Clinton made clear her intention to escalate the Syria war in the debates. Trump said the opposite but is now doing the same. That’s why I voted for Gary Johnson. Problem is, voting apparently makes no difference. I guess being criminally insane is just a qualification for the job which used to be the argument of those who supported hereditary monarchies. The way they put it was, “Anyone who wants to be King, shouldn’t.”
The corpress never met a war it didn’t hike
Thing that really pisses me off is the moronic acceptance of the idea that chemical weapons are worse than bullets or bombs. All of these munitions kill and maim in a most horrible way. However chemical weapons do less damage to infrastructure and housing….
I think the underlying intention of international agreements banning chemical weapons is because they do much to level the playing field between the military capabilities of rich and poor countries.
Rich countries can afford enormously expensive air and naval forces. Poor countries cannot afford such hardware, but with much cheaper chemical weapons delivered by cheap surplus artillery, they can inflict major damage. And of course the superpowers would like to maintain their hegemony.
The current beating of war drums is – imho – basically at the behest of the supporters of Syria’s chief enemy.
Which includes the ownership of much of the Western press.
Finally the press has an excuse to call for a serious Western attack on Assad’s regime. All on the ridiculous pretext that killing with poison is worse than killing with bullets and explosives. All of these weapons are cruel and dreadful. And it is the U.S. which has so assiduously fed the civil war in Syria. On the ludicrous pretext that the Assad regime is so much more brutal than those in Egypt, Algeria, and numerous other countries whose brutally oppressive regimes we cheerfully tolerate.
Great summary. One should also note, that by accepting the official western narrative that Assad is always the one responsible for any chemical attack in Syria, and that action must follow against the government following such attacks, the dominant Liberal media are not only legitimizing illegal wars of aggression by the West, but also actively encouraging desperate Jihadi militia groups to sacrifice some innocent civilians under their control to create a credible case. By their seemingly impulsive, yet probably cynical and calculated response to chemical atrocities, they are actively producing more such atrocities, and their role in this should not be forgotten in any future war crimes trial.
Great summary. One should also note, that by accepting the official western narrative that Assad is always the one responsible for any chemical attack in Syria, and that action must follow against the government following such attacks, the dominant Liberal media are not only legitimizing illegal wars of aggression by the West, but also actively encouraging desperate Jihadi militia groups to sacrifice some innocent civilians under their control to create a credible case. By their seemingly impulsive, yet probably cynical and calculated response to chemical atrocities, they are actively producing more such atrocities, and their role in this should not be forgotten in any future war crimes trial.
Even notice how the most enthusiastic hawks are those that had a Vietnam War draft deferment?
This cannot be a coincidence.
”The World Health Organization says that, of 70 deceased persons they examined in the area,”
The WHO has not examined any deceased in the area, they are referring to reports from the ”White Helmets”, a terrorist organisation closely linked to Al Qaeda.
If the WHO relies on the White Helmets and SAMS for reliable data , I’m afraid we can write off the WHO as another once-venerable institution that has fallen prey to the West’s propaganda machine , just like Amnesty Int’l and HRW. I’m left to wonder if there are any large humanitarian institutions remaining that haven’t succumbed.
Thank you for some words of wisdom in a crazy word, where US Democrats and Republicans compete over who’s the most hawkish, UK is its usual high brow crook and all Western media are competing over the best idea to start WWIII and to distroy any form of life more complex than bacteria.
Have you all seen the latest news explaining how the ‘attack’ happened and that London was behind it? Medical witness and remarkable documentation of how a false-flag chemical attack was filmed in Douma, and has almost brought about WW3. The Russian Defense Ministry has presented what it says is proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged. It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.” Originally published at https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement/ We have republished this at our site https://candobetter.net/node/5472, which is a website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy.
I forget… What compelling national interest does the United States of America have in Syria? Can someone please remind me?
In his statement about the bombings in Syria General Mad Dog Mattis referred to the use of chemical weapons as uncivilised … WOW … how does anyone with the reputation of this man that earned him the “Mad Dog” moniker have the right to make distinctions between civilised and uncivilised ways of slaughtering people … there is nothing civilised about any sort of violence and especially violence that occurs before an irrefutable justification has been provided through hard evidence.
More confirmation that Trump is one of the symptoms, not the heart of the problem.
This is how MSM work. They take lines fed to them by the military and CIA, which for two generations have been ingratiating if not intimidating publishers, editors and reporters not to question official stories in national security matters. Given that the entire corporate media establishment is embedded, as Paul B said, what else do you expect? What we need are more reports and books showing how this comfy state of affairs came to be and get that word out. A revealing and solidly researched primer is David Talbot’s “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government” (Harper, 2015).
Dear Gregory:
Thank you for your concern about the Syrian people, it is important to look for the human dimension in any act of war :
BUT:
You have not lived under a tyrant that has been attacking his own people for 7 years with all forms of arms : you have not endured death by chemical weapon, Cluster bombs, Phosphorus bombs, Barrel bombs , and Napalm bombs. You have not tasted death under the rubble of your home, in the market while buying food for your family, your child did not die in his school while trying to get his education , your father did not die in the hospital while he was being treated for a heart attack , you have not tasted the sorrow of seeing five of your children die in front of your eyes, the loss of your wife when she dies burning from napalm between your hands, your grand mother suffocating from chlorine gas , both of your parents dying leaving you and two or three young children behind them with no family support. you have not been in one of Assad’s prisons being tortured to death, where you will cry and ask for death and somewhat is laughing at your suffering, where 150,000 or more are dwelling in continuous pain , or where your wife or sister is raped in front of your eyes, as a form of punishment, for demonstrating against these cruelties.
For 7 long years the Syrians have suffered all these forms of death and more, were killed by Assad militias, Iranian militias, Iraqi militias and other foreign militias,in addition to the Russian killing machine. At least about 1,000,000 innocent civilians were killed, 3,000,000 were injured, many disabled for life, about 14,000,000 people were displaced,( from a total of 23-24 millions ) of which at least 6,000,000 became refugees in different countries throughout the world. Syria is now the second Palestine multiplied 10 times.
Assad and Russia have been attacking civilians and civilian neighborhoods and infrastructure with airplanes causing immeasurable destruction and suffering.
During those long seven years of death and destruction I have not heard you voicing concern about the lives of innocent Syrian civilians , so I do not trust your concern about them now . Your anti imperialist sense has dazed your vision from seeing the true picture in Syria .
Please wake up to the facts on the ground and stand with the oppressed people against their oppressor .
Listen to the interviews of people in towns that were cleared of the “moderate rebels” , like E. Ghouta and E. Aleppo. The residents are overjoyed that they’ve been freed from the oppressive rule of the jihadists , and always share stories about how the rebel militants hoarded the food and medicine provided by the aid agencies , making the residents pay extravagant sums for their allotments , if any. Mistreatment of women , often brutal , is also commonly reported. These scenes were not covered by the MSM , but you can find them readily on the web.
Now , where did the rebels and their families go after these towns were cleared? They were taken by bus to Idlib province , so if you want a preview of what Syrian society would look like if the rebels got their way , that’s where you should look. Luckily , Al Jazeera ( no friend of Assad ) has done just that , which you can see in the video linked below. I assure you , the vast majority of Syrians – refugees or not – want nothing to do with any society that looks like that of Idlib , and neither would the people of the West. So why do Western governments and their advocates – like yourself – try to force this on the people of Syria ? Leave Syria alone. Let the people of Syria decide how they wish to live and be governed :
Dear Peaace for ever,
Your personal losses grieve me deeply. I mourn the fate of your country every time I read a news account of the situation there.
I had great hopes for the revolution. I cheered for the overthrow of the Assad regime, and a peaceful transition to a democratic government that would be respectful of human rights.
I grew worried when the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, stepped out of his place and began touring Syria in support the opposition. He joined an early chorus of U.S. officials, including President Obama, demanding that “Assad must go”. This stance surely emboldened the violent opposition, and sure enough, it wasn’t long before we learned that America was providing arms and other lethal assistance to groups it had chosen to succeed Assad.
I think it’s unfair to say that Mr. Shapuk’s concern for innocent Syrian civilians should not be trusted. It has been shown over and over again, that American military intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations leads to more suffering, not less. I believe humanitarian war to be an oxymoron.
I applaud Mr. Shapuk’s call for adherence to international law. It is the best framework in the world right now to achieve justice and maintain peace. I call on the United States to sign the Rome Statute and recognize the International Criminal Court. If it did so, it would have a collective, non-violent, and lawful avenue pursue justice for the people of Syria. It would have additional benefit of exposing our own war criminals to prosecution.
excellent mythbusting Gregory, its saddens me that people can read wastes of ink like the Guardian, Post and the Times either New York, LA, Sunday Times and think they are getting informed reading this. By the way I can’t find Gregory’s book on Israel and the media at Amazon, is the Bezo punishing you for calling out his journalism outlet? hehe! And let’s not forget Democracy Now, most of Pacifica Mother Jones, and the Intercept also endorse “we can’t do nothing” and propaganda coming from Qatar, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty and Netflix & CNN’s White Helmets.