[Peace-discuss] DN! acquiesces to belligerent Obama foreign policy?

[Carl G. Estabrook]

Progressives Embrace Humanitarian Imperialism – Again

DemocracyNow! Hosts a Non-debate on Syria

by John V. Walsh, February 25, 2012



"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.

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.

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."

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.  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.



Obama Commits to US Intervention in Syria US Can't Be Bystander,  
President Insists
by Jason Ditz, February 24, 2012
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.”

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.

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.

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.






###


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120225/bb803007/attachment.html>