<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div id="outer"><p align=""><b>Progressives Embrace Humanitarian Imperialism – Again</b></p><p align=""><b>DemocracyNow! Hosts a Non-debate on Syria</b></p><p align="">by John V. Walsh,
February 25, 2012</p><p align=""><br></p><p align="">"Foreign Intervention in Syria? A Debate with Joshua Landis and Karam Nachar." promised the headline on DemocracyNow! of 2/22. Eagerly I tuned in, hoping to hear a thorough exposé of the machinations of the US Empire in Syria on its march to Iran.</p></div><div><p align="">But this was neither exposé nor debate. Both sides, Landis and
Nachar, were pro-intervention for "humanitarian" reasons. Nor did the
host Amy Goodman or her co-host take these worthies to task for their
retrograde views on imperial military action against a sovereign nation
that had made no attack on the US. It was yet one more sign that the
"progressive" movement in the West has largely abandoned its antiwar,
anti-intervention stance.</p><p align="">The segment began with a clip of John McCain advocating yet another
war, for the good of the Syrians of course, bombing them to save them.
The first guest was Joshua Landis, a prof in Oklahoma whose bio tells us
that he "regularly travels to Washington DC to consult with the State
Department and other government agencies." The other agencies are not
specified, but he speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations and similar
venues. Professor Landis represents the anti-intervention voice in the
universe of Amy Goodman, but his opening words manifested the limits of
that universe: "Well, I’m not opposed to helping the (Syrian)
opposition." He continued, "The problem right now, the dangers right now
with arming the opposition, is that we’re not sure who to arm." </p><p align="">Confused, I thought surely the next guest would be the
anti-interventionist. He was Karam Nachar "cyber-activist" and
Princeton Ph.D. candidate, working with Syrian "protesters" via "social
media platforms." That means he is safely ensconced in New Jersey far
from where U.S. bombs would fall. Perhaps this fellow would say loud
and clear the Syrians did not need the interference of the West, did not
need sanctions to starve them nor bombs to pulverize their cities.
Perhaps he would laud the Chinese/Russian proposal for both sides to
stop firing and to negotiate a solution. </p><p align="">But he did not. He also was for intervention by the West. And he
did not think the disorganization of the opposition, cited by Landis,
justified hesitation or delay in arming that opposition. That and not
any principled anti-interventionism distinguished the two sides in this
"debate." Said the cyber-activist: "Well, to start with, I disagree
with Professor Landis’s portrayal of the situation with the Syrian
opposition. It is true that, for instance, in the Syrian National
Council, there are a lot of disagreements. But (the opposition is)
still frustrated with the leadership of the Syrian National Council
because of its inability to solicit more international support….
And I believe that the State Department, Secretary Clinton and the
American administration is heading towards that. … It’s going to require a lot of money and a lot of courage and a lot of involvement on the part of the international community. (Emphasis, JW)</p><p align="">And then the boy cyber-activist got nasty: "I am just a little wary
that this overemphasis on how leaderless the Syrian opposition is
actually a tactic being used of people who actually do not want the
regime to be overthrown and who have always actually defended the
legitimacy of the Syrian regime, and especially of Bashar al-Assad."
There it is. Even if one is for intervention in principle, no delay is
to be countenanced. Such people are surely on the side of Bashar
Al-Assad.</p><p align="">This is the kind of "debate" we get on "progressive" media outlets.
It is not even a debate about whether there should be imperial
intervention, once completely verboten on the Left, but when and under
what circumstances military intervention should occur. This phony
debate should simply be ignored whether it appears on DemocracyNow! or
on NPR, increasingly indistinguishable in content and outlook or
anywhere else. For a principled explanation of anti-interventionism one
can look to Jean Bricmont on the Left or Ron Paul and Justin Raimondo on the libertarian side. </p><p align="">In fairness to Amy Goodman, just a few weeks back on February 7,
she hosted the British writer and long time student of Syria, Patrick
Seale. Said Seale: "I believe dialogue is the only way out of this. And
indeed, the Russians have suggested to both sides to come to Moscow and
start a dialogue. But the opposition says, ‘No, we can’t dialogue with
Bashar al-Assad. He must be toppled first.’ Well, that’s a dangerous — a
dangerous position to adopt." That interview is
well worth reading. <b>And Goodman would do well to stick with that
instead of shifting over to empty debates between interventionism now
versus interventionism later. After repeatedly hosting the CIA
consultant Juan Cole to cheer the cruel war on Libya, Goodman now seems
to be going down the same path with Syria. It is a sad spectacle and
one more indication of how little the "progressives" in the West
understand the nature of Humanitarian Imperialism which uses human rights to sell war. It looks like it’s time to abandon Goodman and switch to Alyona. </b></p><p align=""><br></p><p align=""><div id="box"><b>Obama Commits to US Intervention in Syria US Can't Be Bystander, President Insists </b><div>
by Jason Ditz,
February 24, 2012</div></div> <div><p align="">In a White House speech today, President Obama committed to
continued US intervention in Syria, saying that the US would “beef up
its role” and would not allow itself to be “bystanders during these extraordinary events.”</p><p align=""><img src="http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ClintonObama.jpg" alt="" align="right" hspace="10" vspace="10">The
“how” for US intervention remains an open question, but the
administration seems to be doing anything and everything it can to make
sure the US is insinuated into every conceivable part of the ongoing
civil war.</p><p align="">Publicly, it has meant endorsing a UN invasion of Syria as well as joining the “Friends of Syria” group that is talking openly about the prospect of funneling arms to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) faction of defectors.</p><p align="">The much scarier question is the unanswerable one of what is going on
behind the scenes. While the administration is continuing to reject the
notion that there will be an overt US invasion, it has also shown
more-than-usual interest in interfering in this particular Arab Spring
uprising. It is difficult, when intervention is being endorsed so
openly, to rule anything out.</p></div></p><p align=""><br></p><p align=""><br></p><p align="">###</p><p align=""><br></p></div></body></html>