The NewsHour‘s Margaret Warner
PBS NewsHour correspondent Margaret Warner (11/18/14) had on the US Treasury official, David Cohen, who’s in charge of trying to counter ISIS by cutting off its finances. But it seems like it’s hard to talk to an elite media host for very long before they start fantasizing about blowing things up.
WARNER: These are essentially fixed assets, the oil fields they have taken over, the refineries they have taken over, in Iraq and Syria. Why can’t you just bomb them out completely?
COHEN: I’m not a military targeter, so I don’t…
WARNER: You have enough on your plate.
COHEN: I have enough on my plate without selecting specific targets to hit. But it is absolutely the case that we’re working very closely with the Department of Defense and—in thinking about going after some of their oil resources.
Now, it’s very easy for a TV host to use a phrase like “bomb them out completely”; there’s no requirement, in your studio, to think about what that would look like for oil fields that contain billions of barrels of oil to be completely bombed out. Nor do you have to think about what happens to the people on the receiving end of those bombs—as the New York Times‘ Kareem Fahim (11/13/14) did in an exceptional piece that looked at how US airstrikes were (predictably) making the population of the Syrian city of Raqqa more sympathetic to ISIS. “Ten civilians were killed in a coalition airstrike on Sunday that hit one of the oil facilities run by the Islamic State, where many people had found work,” Fahim wrote. No word on whether the facility had been bombed out “completely” or only partially in the course of killing the ten workers.
P redilection to
B omb
S hit
Yep, between Margaret Warner and Judy Woodruff, there’s about 187 years of journalistic broadcast experience, and about 3 minutes of concern for those of us NewsHour viewers who believe unending American militarism is not the answer.
You’d think the Petroleum Broadcasting System would be wary of destroying petroleum installations. Or do the oil wells belong to a competitor?
“You have enough on your plate.” The financial schemes of the US Treasury against people in Iraq and Syria currently leaves no space on the plate for plans to bomb those people. Bombing must be desert. Margaret Warner’s statements provided above are nauseating, and I am not being facetious. This mindset of elite media institutions of the U.S, exemplified by Magaret Warner in the above transcript, needs to stop. We need to take more action to put an end to this.
good we can always turn to public television for responsible journalism
Here are some excerpts from that NYT article that you suggest so repudiates the case for airstrikes:
“Acceptance of the Islamic State in northern Syria contrasts sharply with Iraq, where the group’s ascendance has been more contested and its response more brutal. Many Iraqis clamor for a return of the government, despite its unpopularity, especially in Sunni regions.
In other regions of Syria, like the Kurdish city of Kobani, people have welcomed the American airstrikes, perhaps in the hope that the city would return to its experiment in self-rule that had followed the Syrian government’s withdrawal.”
AND
“Another resident, Abu Abdullah, 37, a fuel distributor, said that he saw a woman receive 30 lashes in the street, after she lifted her face covering, for an instant, to wipe away some sweat. He expressed horror but said he had avoided any trouble.”
AND
“Many headed to Kobani and never returned. At first, the Islamic State sent its hardened fighters, including foreign jihadists, to fight in the Kurdish town, but as they have been killed in growing numbers, it has also sent local Syrians who had taken jobs as police officers in Raqqa because of the generous benefits package, which in some cases included a hefty salary and a sport utility vehicle.
Those fighters included Abu Omar, 28, who said in a recent interview in Raqqa that he had been given the order to “join the Mujahedeen in Ayn al-Islam,” using the Islamic State’s name for Kobani. “I put myself in a hard position,” he said, saying he would be killed if he refused the order. “I have no other choice.””
That’s it: accept the rule of ISIS, because it scared thousands away, slaughtered those in defiance, brutally punishes people for phony offenses, and conscripts and bribes people to fight on behalf of the caliphate. What is there to oppose here, right?
FAIR, you need to develop a more robust argument than “it’s just more militarism!” That’s lazy sloganeering – exactly the kind of stuff you rightly impale the media for.
When it comes to ISIS, the media seems to have forgotten that bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
Broadcasts of public beheadings, bombings, and public defecation on desktops arouse feelings of disgust.
I have no doubt that Margaret Warner defecates but good taste demands that she not do it on television. In keeping with her sense of propriety, her defecation and the bloody results of her joy of bombing remain off screen so as to not arouse immediate feelings of disgust in the viewing audience.
My sense of propriety demands she not present publicly either her defecation or her propensity and indifference to murder by bomb.
The sociopath denizens of the media, once again, on the national quest to carve from a flesh and blood block of humanity a monument to democracy, using the crude chisels of high power explosives and guns.
PBS equals Corporate mainstream media outlook. Bombing is so easy just like the many computer games where you don’t get to see all the blood and gore. And just which ones are ISIS or ISIL or are they somehow connected to the CIA or Mossad?????? The people being beheaded are not conservative republican types. Journalists are being killed all over the world.
” “FAIR, you need to develop a more robust argument than “it’s just more militarism!” That’s lazy sloganeering – exactly the kind of stuff you rightly impale the media for.” ”
And so you show up, look at one article and claim they are simple doing the same thing as the competitors? You must work for Fux Snooze, the folks who think Fair and Balanced means whatever they say must be accepted at face value even it’s a flat out lie Prima facie.
Maybe you missed these:
Drone-Strike Feminism
Using the oppression of women to sell another Iraq War
http : //fair.org/extra-online-articles/drone-strike-feminism/
————————-
Drones, the Media and Malala’s Message
In a statement released after the meeting, Malala said she was honored to meet with Obama, but that she told him she’s worried about the effect of US drone strikes. (The White House statement didn’t mention that part.)
“I thanked President Obama for the United States’ work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees,” she said in the statement.
“I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education, it will make a big impact.”
——————————————-
Or perhaps you missed this one:
War Works–So Why Isn’t It Working?By Peter Hart
On November 16, ABC World News anchor Cecilia Vega asked this question:
” “Martha, these numbers they are absolutely staggering: About 800 airstrikes so far against ISIS. Why isn’t this working?” ”
What makes a seemingly innocuous question like that noteworthy is the assumption that airstrikes are supposed to “work” in the first place.
One doesn’t need to have a deep understanding of military history to know that this assumption is flawed, to say the least. There were more than 29,000 bombs dropped on Iraq in just the first month of the invasion in 2003, along with a massive ground invasion. Yet this devastating violence did not “work” to eliminate resistance to the US occupation. The same could be said for Afghanistan.
________________
To all that, add the fact that is these Strike, and the War’s in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, et al that caused their ISIS to come into existence.
So, lets add one more Idea to pile: “You can’t solve the problems by using the same flawed thinking that caused those problems in the First place.” And your idea is very flawed.
I’m tempted to just make fun of @Drew for demanding FAIR provide more nuance, by quoting an article FAIR provided him. But I’m also curious: what solution does he recommend? Does he have any criticisms of a policy we have excuted Nazis for attempting? If so, what gives the US the authority to impose it on others when we excecuted others for attempting it on us?
In response to Drew comment I re list my previous comment on (no debate on War ) :
I am still amazed how we are have been debating for at least 3 years whether we should intervene to stop the war crimes of Assad and his allies that include an organization considered a terrorist organization ” Hezbollah”, these war crimes were documented by UN, and include the death of at least 200,000 people over the last 3 1/2 years, ( an average of 145 citizens killed every single day of the year for the last three and a half years), using chemical weapons and many other forbidden arms, not to mention, about 500,00 injured and disabled, 250,000 in Assad’s prisons, about 12 million displaced from their homes, (6-7 million displaced internally and 5-6 million refugees in neighboring countries and throughout the world, including 2.5 million children) about 6 million houses destructed, (Syrian population is about 20-22 million ), hospitals, mosques, churches, bakeries, water and electricity plants, destructed, continued daily bombing by planes and heavy artillery throughout the country, and we went to intervene after a by- product of his violence, without any meaningful debate, within few weeks, leaving Assad, to continue the killing as he was doing for the past 3 years.
most Syrians are amazed at what we are trying to achieve, and see us, and Assad, as allies, sharing the responsibility for his war crimes, they dislike ISIS, and majority still stand against it, but more people are starting to see ISIS as the least of the two evils: Assad, supported by our (intentional?) persistence on inaction, and( intentionally?) ignoring the active support by Iran, Hezbollah and Maliki’s militias, as compared to ISIS and their craze .
Isn’t this exactly the opposite of what we are looking for?( or is it actually not ! )
Please see the article:
Is Washington, purposely bleeding Syria, The Nation, April, 25,2014,
Is Washington Purposely Bleeding Syria? | The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/…/washington-purposely-bleeding-syria
The Nation Apr 25, 2014
What on earth would possess even the most idiotic and craven news journalist to ask a treasury official who’s in charge of cutting off funds for a terrorist group “Why can’t YOU just bomb them?” That’s too much cognitive dissonance for any educated person to have.
She should be fired for making NPR an even bigger laughingstock than it has already become.
Our bombings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. did not “cause” ISIS?
What will it take to convince people that these groups (ISIS, AQAP, AQIM, TTP, etc.) actually have their own agency? In Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, the U.S. has been devoting lives and resources to making them stable and independent democracies.
Just now, we heard that 45 people were killed in a volleyball game in Afghanistan because of a suicide attack.
Can one honestly argue that that is the U.S.’s fault?? Just think of the life of the person who committed this atrocity. He could have lived his life in many ways. He could have participated in a local school to help educate young girls. He could have joined the police force. He could have started a small business. No, instead, by his own volition, he decided the best use of his life would be to kill normal people who wanted to play a sport in a country that is bravely trying to maintain normalcy during a transition to democracy and during a ruthless jihadist insurgency. Let’s not forget whose side the U.S. is on, and why.
The same is true of Iraq and ISIS. These ISIS members have their own agency. And they have their own ideology that is not the creation of the U.S. They too could push for the creation of liberal, tolerant, democratic societies. But instead they attack infidels and try to recreate the caliphate.
These people clearly have plans that are at odds with the what the people in the region and the world want. It is not evil to oppose them – and to join forces with those who already are. I don’t expect to change any minds of FAIR readers, and I applaud much of FAIR’s media criticism.
But I simply cannot tolerate such cynicism and self-hatred of the likes I see in threads such as these.
It is a neocolonialists mindset that seeks to Dominate, rule, and control the military-industrial complex so that the will and the agenda of the rich and the super-rich is perpetually sustained no matter what the human, economic, social, or political costs….
In response to Drew’s most recent comment, no one is claiming that the this atrocity is the U.S.’s “fault”. Rather, the issue here is that U.S. and the Pakistani government are implicated in the actions taken by those who commit these atrocities. There is a context at work that impacts the options some persons believe they can take, including who the U.S. supports and who it opposes — and how it does either of these — and for what purpose.
This article in The Guardian is a great place to start, if it is one’s goal to find out how a crime like this can happen: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/suicide-bomber-kills-at-least-40-volleyball-match-afghanistan
It is not the job of persons to seek some means of political action that meet with the tender sensibilities of comfy and cozy Westerners that benefit from the acts and alliances of empire. Your listing them is a pointless project and the person you claim could have lived his now lost life differently could not and likely would not have cared less.
Wake up and see the world as it is, and not as a choices for others to make but that you get to pass judgment over. As long as we drone them, and do so in shadowy cahoots with the government that allows us to do so in their country, for example, we or our “allies” (including innocent civilians who wanted nothing more than to cheer at a soccer game) will pay for it.
My error: I meant to type “Afghani government”, and not “Pakistani government”. I happened to hear a news report regarding events in Pakistan this morning and mistyped my reply.
But I defend the thesis as applying to both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, the U.S. has been devoting lives and resources to making them stable and independent democracies.
And how does A) bombing/droning the hell out of them and B) continuously interfering in their government do that.
Lets make this simple. Russia comes over and decides that we don’t our president or Congress; so we all get rid of them because they Russians say so. Then they decide that some of our folks are terrorists and decide to start droning them, or drop bombs on our cities, blowing the back to the Stone Age. Then they decide that the “need boots on the Ground” to help us become more civilized and send 500,000 troops over to take control of our out of control government.
And your going to sit there and accept it right?
When are people like you going to learn the U.S. is not God, is not wanted in many places, and the rest of the world doesn’t want a Damned McD’s shoved up their butts because the Lords and Masters want another dollar for their pockets. Forcing them to accept our Ways and Actions are not ‘helping’ them.
The ISIS is the indirect result of our continuous meddling in the governments over there. And please explain just how the hell we are going to set up a “Fair and Democratic” government when we have no clue what one is, nor do we practice democracy. Every stupid group over there that has come into existence has been due to our (and some of Europe’s) meddling.
Here is a hint, YOU CAN’T
And to finish up, since the keyboard and computer are now deciding to do things on their own.
You Can’t bomb them into “Loving and Accepting us”.