Syria's a battle zone.
Western generated violence is to blame, not Assad. America's media scoundrels
claim otherwise. They want him ousted by any means, including war.
An April 9 Wall Street Journal commentary said "Syrian government forces
(keep) bombing and killing...." Assad "reneged on (his) promises to
end the bloodshed."
Washington "and its allies (are) doing little or nothing to depose (his)
regime. (The) illusion of diplomatic progress serves as cover for the
Assads of the world to do more killing. Your move, President Obama."
Like all scoundrel media commentators, Journal contributors blame victims,
not villains. Their readers are betrayed, not informed.
Wall Street Journal contributor Fouad Ajami long ago sold out to imperial
interests for whatever he gets in return. He showed it in an op-ed headlined,
"A Kosovo Model for Syria," saying:
"In the Obama world, the tendency to wait has become official policy:
It is either boots on the ground or head in the sand."
He'd "be wise to consider the way Bill Clinton dealt with the crisis
of Kosovo in 1999. He authorized a NATO air campaign against Serbia
that began on March 23, 1999, the very same day a bipartisan majority
in both houses of Congress voted to support it."
Bombing Yugoslavia for 78 days violated international law, as well as
US constitutional and statute laws. It was also humanitarian hypocrisy.
Congress didn't declare war. The Security Council didn't authorize it.
Yugoslavia didn't threaten America, other NATO members or neighboring
states. Nonetheless, Clinton got the war he wanted.
It was lawless, premeditated aggression. Ajami thinks it's a good thing.
So do other scoundrel media contributors like him. Yale Law Professor
Bruce Ackerman said America "suffered one casualty in the (Serbia/Kosovo)
war. (The) rule of law (was) blown to pieces."
While Congress appropriated funds for the war, it never authorized it.
Presidents can't do it on their own. It hasn't stopped them since WW
II. Roosevelt's war was the last one Congress declared. Failure to do
so made others following it illegal, Obama's wars included.
Ajami claimed Clinton acted responsibly. Obama "has a similar opportunity"
to oust Assad "without a massive American commitment." Failure leaves
"only the shame of averting our eyes from Syrian massacres."
Shamefully, many others agree with him.
On April 21, a Washington Post editorial said it's time for "Plan B."
"THE ONLY good news about Syria since the Obama administrationís embrace
of an unworkable United Nations peace plan is the hints that it is beginning
to consider alternatives."
Assad "will never be induced by diplomacy to end his assaults on Syrian
cities, allow peaceful demonstrations or release political prisoners...."
Obama has "to recognize these realities and embrace options that actually
can advance its stated goal of ending Mr. Assadís rule."
"Mr. Assad will fall only when his attacks are blocked and countered;
it follows that U.S. policy should aim at that."
The Post urges "feckless diplomacy" ended in favor of immediate military
action. Hawkish throughout the conflict, its position heads toward boiling
over. Can war be far behind?
Hillary Clinton's notoriously hawkish. So is UN envoy Susan Rice. Critics
call her "Rice-a-phony." She's an over-ambitious zealot angling for
Clinton's job. Her rhetoric makes some observers gasp. It gives diplomacy
a bad name and then some.
After Security Council Resolution 2043 passed, authorizing up to 300
unarmed military Syrian monitors, she couldn't hold back.
She said "300 or even 3,000 (won't halt Assad) from waging (his) barbaric
campaign of violence against the Syrian people." Only "intensified external
pressure (can halt his) murderous rampage."
She suggested tough measures are coming, saying "let there be no doubt:
we, our allies and others in this body are planning and preparing for
those actions....if the Assad regime persists in the slaughter of the
The Post also wants tough talk followed by tougher action. Minimally
it supports "modest military force." Perhaps it considers Serbia/Kosovo
a template. Perhaps it needs brushing up on US and international law,
as well as who initiated lawless conflict and who confronted it responsibly.
Syria was calm and peaceful until Washington unleashed its dogs. US
Special Forces direct them on the ground. So do UK ones. They attack
hard and soft targets alike. They have Turkish safe haven sanctuaries.
Post and other media scoundrels omit what's most important.
Ignoring Obama administration lies and its own, a New York Times editorial
headlined "Assad's Lies," saying:
Assad "reneged on nearly every promise made. (So-called) "activists
reported that Syrian troops fired tear gas and bullets on thousands
of protesters....Ban Ki-moon (claims he's) failing to provide needed
food and medicine to 230,000 displaced people, and refusing to allow
outside agencies to help."
"Activists" cited are stooges for power. Throughout the conflict, Times
articles, op-eds, and editorials shamelessly blamed Assad for Western
generated crimes. Ban Ki-moon does the same thing. Kofi Annan did it
Both have shameless records of failure and betrayal. Assurance it would
turn out that way got them their jobs. Only imperial loyalists qualify.
Only media scoundrels claim otherwise or say nothing about their support
for lawless wars and inaction to stop them.
Although Western generated violence displaced thousands of Syrians,
no one has precise counts how many. ICRC officials report Assad cooperates
delivering aid. Only areas plagued by insurgent violence makes it hard.
When security forces quell it, residents thank Assad. They'd be helpless
The Times said his "cruelty and blindness were predictable. What is
unfathomable is why Russia and China continue to support him....Even
now, Russian officials put much of the blame for the bloodshed on the
fractured, mostly peaceful opposition forces, not the Syrian Army with
its heavy weapons."
"Russia sells arms to Syria....China seems determined to deny the West
another 'win....' "
Times opinion writers mock truth and full disclosure. Anyone trying
better find another line of work. Only imperial loyalty matters. Facts
are sacrificed to support it.
In response to insurgent violence, Assad confronts it responsibly. Syrians
count on him. He's their only means of defense. Russia and China are
the only permanent Security Council members preventing Washington from
getting another war trophy - so far.
Hopefully Russia does supply Assad arms and other aid. Washington, NATO
partners, and regional despots like Saudi Arabia and Qatar do it. Turkey
provides safe haven sanctuaries. Rule of law inviolability's a non-starter.
Only imperial dominance matters.
Unless stopped, the entire Mediterranean Basin to Russia and China's
borders will be US controlled territory. If achieved, their sovereignty
is next. Both countries know it. They're not about to back off and do
nothing. Hopefully, they've drawn red lines they'll challenge if crossed.
The Times accused both countries of "tarnishing their global reputations."
It claims they're "alienating governments and people throughout the
region....And when (Assad) falls - and he will - the people of Syria
will blame them for their complicity in this bloodbath. Their enabling
just gives (Assad) more time to kill....(A) wider war (is) more likely."
The last statement's the only true one. The Arab street depends on whatever
help Russia and China provide. Brutal despots oppress them - notably
in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. They're perhaps Washington's closest allies.
In return, they're free to commit unspeakable crimes and atrocities.
The Times stopped only short of urging war. Perhaps it's coming in time.
It supports all imperial wars. Watch for a future editorial calling
for another couched in humanitarian intervention language.
Scoundrel media never report truths. They never get it right. They never
apologize after the fact. They support power and privilege only. No
matter the huge body count, one war after another is cheerled in an
endless cycle of violence, destruction, and human misery.
How long before Obama launches another one. Scoundrel media support
smooths the way. Increasingly it looks likely. Syria tops the queue.
Can Iran be far behind?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News
Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy