Home | About | Donate

Time to Talk in Syria


#1

Time to Talk in Syria

Stephen Kinzer

As the horrific carnage in Syria continues, a depressingly familiar chorus is rising from Washington. The new consensus is the same as it was in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan: Bombing isn’t working, so let’s bomb more. A familiar coalition — generals, defense contractors, and politicians, along with think tanks and much of the press — is demanding escalation of our military campaign in Syria. There may be a limit to how many unwinnable wars the United States wants to wage in the Middle East, but it evidently has not yet been reached.


#2

I wish all the people in Washington DC would have to send all their young sons and daughters before we had to send ours. That would end the wars overseas.
Bill Clinton never served in the military, I bet.


#3

Our best hope in the near-term, is for post-Brexit pressures from key players inside Europe and inside NATO, who recognize the trajectory toward war with Russia, and refuse to go along with the crazies who run the USA.


#4

These two sentences express opposed analyses and yet they are propped up as equivalents:

The generic WE stance (that is wholly inaccurate):

"Yet rather than seeking to calm the Syrian crisis, we seem determined to intensify it — and may well do so after a new president takes office in January."

The real Truth:

"A familiar coalition — generals, defense contractors, and politicians, along with think tanks and much of the press — is demanding escalation of our military campaign in Syria. There may be a limit to how many unwinnable wars the United States wants to wage in the Middle East, but it evidently has not yet been reached."

In other words, the "WE" that deems the expansion of war necessary consists of the generals and defense contractors. Some of the population may have been deceived into thinking this bloody quagmire is a good thing, or that Defense spending in lieu of necessary domestic infrastructure investments is a good thing; or that vengeance is godly. But MANY more do not.

I am tired of all those opposed to these M.A.D. policies being lumped into the group that makes war at its pleasure.

Polled majorities were against the bailout to the big banks. But it happened anyway.

Polled majorities would prefer single payer health care, but the Obama giveaway to Big Insurance happened in its place.

All over the world, millions assembled to protest the launch of Wars of Aggression; but they took place regardless.

The "Page and Gilens Study" shows that everyday citizens have ZERO influence over foreign or domestic policy.

That's why whenever I see a writer first posit an honest assessment that identifies very real actors and benefactors of policies, but then reverts back to the passive, generic WE... I call it out. And I will continue to do so.

Some people trained in disinformation techniques use this "rhetorical device" willfully to create the illusion of the consent of the governed. Others, possibly Mr. Kinzer, unconsciously fall back on it. But it's a dangerous canard.

The MIC gets half a trillion a YEAR that the public knows about. That buys a lot of influence... among other things.

"It is mind-boggling that despite the stark lessons of the last decade, prominent Americans want to plunge into another war in another Muslim country."

Remember the adage that it is difficult to get someone to see something if their paycheck depends upon NOT recognizing that thing?