[Peace] What I learned about Syria at the Democratic “debates”

[Robert Naiman]

I watched the Democratic “debates” last night. I was bored out of my mind.
I fell asleep on the couch.

But when I woke, I realized that I had learned something potentially useful
about U.S. foreign policy formation. Like what you learn when you read
David Sanger or Helene Cooper in the New York Times, or when you read the
Washington Post editorial page. What kind of sausages are they making in
the Evil Factory today? Oh, that kind of sausages.

My main interest in watching the “debate” was to see what they would say
about Syria. Surely it would be addressed. It was a golden opportunity for
anyone who wanted to take down the Blob-neocon-Dem Establishment narrative
about Syria in front of millions of Democrats. Insiders know that the
Blob-neocon-Dem Establishment narrative about Syria is horse manure. The
Blob-neocon-Dem Establishment narrative is that Trump screwed up by
withdrawing U.S. forces from northern Syria, and that’s what caused the
Turkish invasion. We’ve got an all-star bipartisan duo of Establishment
validators proving that this story is a lie: Brett McGurk and Rob Malley.
Brett McGurk was a Trump Administration official, Trump’s envoy to the
coalition against ISIS. Rob Malley was in the Obama Administration, and is
now back at the International Crisis Group. Rob Malley says it was
inevitable that the Syrian government was coming back and the thing that
the Trump Administration did wrong was not preparing the U.S. withdrawal by
helping its Syrian Kurdish military partners get a deal with the Russian
and Syrian governments to protect them from a Turkish invasion. Brett
McGurk says that’s exactly what he pushed for as a Trump Administration
official, but he was blocked by John Bolton and the neocons. So there’s a
spectacular story here of yet another catastrophic Blob-neocon failure, and
it might be helpful for more Americans, especially Democrats, to know about
this to help inoculate them from listening to the Blob-neocons in the
future when the Blob-neocons clamor for more war.

But nobody talked about this at the “debate.” In fact, all but one of the
“Dems” who spoke parroted the Schumer-Pelosi-Blob-neocon line.

The exception was Tulsi Gabbard. Here’s what Tulsi Gabbard said:

“End these regime change wars.”

It’s not immediately obvious why the Democratic Establishment wing of the
Blob hates Tulsi Gabbard so much, given that she is polling at 2% and is
not on track to stay in the debates and is not included in the main
conversation in the media. Why does the Democratic Establishment wing of
the Blob see Tulsi Gabbard as such a threat? Why do they keep attacking
her? Why don’t they just ignore her?

Ronald Reagan used to tell this joke about the Soviet Union. An American
guy and a Soviet guy are trash-talking each other. The American guy says,
“You know what’s really great about America? I can stand in front of the
White House and say, ‘Ronald Reagan is a jerk,’ and nobody will arrest me!”
The Soviet guy says, “Oh yeah? Big deal! I can stand in front of the
Kremlin and say, ‘Ronald Reagan is a jerk,’ and nobody will arrest me
either!”

You know you’re not living in a police state if you can stand in front of
the official residence of the Leader and say the Leader is a jerk and not
get arrested. You may not be living in a vibrant democracy, but at least
you’re not living in a police state.

When it comes to ending regime change wars, the Democratic Party as we know
it is kind of a police state. Any Democrat who calls for ending regime
change wars is ejected from the stadium, voted off the island.

Why is that?

Regime change wars are the raison d’etre of the Blob-neocons. For the
Blob-neocons, the whole objective of the game is to capture the U.S.
government and then use U.S. power to overthrow foreign governments and
install regimes friendly to the interests of the people who are engineering
the overthrow. This is called “U.S. interests,” but it has nothing to do
with the interests of the majority of Americans. It has nothing to do with
the interests of people in Peoria. It’s all about the interests of the
Blob-neocons. This is a key objective of the game, to try to get people to
go along with the claim that the interests of the Blob-neocons are
identical with the interests of the majority of Americans, when all
experience has shown that they are not.

So when the Blob-neocons hear a Democrat say, “End these regime change
wars,” the Blob-neocons hear that as an existential threat. That’s about as
welcome to them as an enthusiastic new Sheriff is to a band out of outlaws,
about as welcome as an enthusiastic new fire department chief is to a gang
of arsonists, about as welcome as Medicare for All is to private health
insurers, about as welcome as postal banking is to payday lenders, about as
welcome as tuition-free public college is to private universities.

The thing about marginal ideas in America is, because it’s not a police
state, ideas that are marginal now might not be marginal in the future.
Word might get around. I think that this explains why the Blob-neocons are
so apoplectic about Tulsi Gabbard, out of all proportion to her current
impact, or any impact that she threatens to have in the future we can see.
They’re afraid that the “end these regime change wars” idea might be
contagious.

I’m old enough to remember when Medicare for All was a marginal idea. We
called it “single payer” then. Here’s how marginal the idea was: it was
associated with Dennis Kucinich. Establishment Democrats would roll their
eyes. “Oh, that’s that Dennis Kucinich idea.”

So maybe that could happen with “end these regime change wars.” Regardless
of what happens with the candidacy of Tulsi Gabbard, we learned something
useful from the debate. We learned that “end these regime change wars” is
Kryptonite for the Blob-neocons, garlic for the vampires. You can’t kill an
idea. Not as long as we don’t live in a police state. “End these regime
change wars.” Put it on the ground, spread it all around. “End these regime
change wars.” Let’s send it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20191016/1758bced/attachment-0001.htm>