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

[Carl G. Estabrook]

It's certainly correct to see the Obama administration's behavior as  
no departure from liberal imperialism ("over 100 years old now"), in  
spite of the lies of his presidential campaign(s).

But (without checking) I don't recall DN! ever hosting false debates  
on, "Shall we attack Kosovo now, or later?"  My memory is that Goodman  
treated Clinton with the contempt he deserved.

(My contribution to those dear, dead days: "Japan Bombs New Mexico" <https://files.nyu.edu/emf202/public/bd/newswriting.html 
 >.)

Obama became president in 2008 in part by co-opting (and effectively  
lying to) the antiwar movement. ("McCain would expand the war!")

He's working hard to be re-elected by doing the same to the Occupy  
movement - while continuing with "liberal imperialism."

We can hope that he'll be driven from office, as Vietnam-era  
presidents were, in spite of covert support from the likes of DN!

Walsh may be right: "It looks like it’s time to abandon Goodman and  
switch to Alyona" <http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/>.


On Feb 25, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> This is a lot like the split among the "progressives" over Kosovo. I  
> think it's ridiculously broad to say that there is some "movement"  
> that has "abandoned" an anti-war position, though. This kind of  
> liberal imperialism is over 100 years old now and very resilient.  
> "Progressives" are a big enough tent to hide them in plain sight  
> decade after decade. They are to be criticized, but never confused  
> with the antiwar left.
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
> From: Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>;
> To: Peace Discuss <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] DN! acquiesces to belligerent Obama foreign  
> policy?
> Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 8:35:59 PM
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ###
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss