Wall Street Journal Urges War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
Perhaps publishing it was strategically timed. It comes with John Kerry in the Middle East. He’ll be there through Sunday.
He met with foreign ministers of 11 so-called Friends of Syria countries and opposition group representatives. In Jerusalem, he discussed Syria with Netanyahu.
At the same time, the suspicious Woolrich London killing occurred. Another article suggested a possible false flag. The Journal op-ed urges war on Syria. So did others discussed below.
On May 22, Journal editors gave Jack Keane and Danielle Pletka feature op-ed space. They took full advantage. They headlined “How to Stop Assad’s Slaughter
Keane’s a retired general. Formerly he served as US Army’s vice chief of staff. Pletka is the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) foreign and defense policy studies vice president.
AEI has enormous influence. It advances Washington’s imperial agenda. It’s consistently hawkish. It was a leading Bush administration foreign policy architect.
It was instrumental in promoting war on Iraq. It supports regime change in Syria and Iran. More on the Keane/Pletka article below.
Previous articles explained that when Washington wages war or plans them, media scoundrels march in lock step. They promote what demands condemnation.
They regurgitate official lies. Managed news misinformation substitutes for truth and full disclosure. It happens every time. Doing so makes them complicit.
They support wrong over right. They ignore human suffering. Rule of law principles don’t matter. They bear full responsibility. Readers, viewers and listeners are systematically betrayed.
Earlier articles said Washington Post
editors want war. Editorials advocate it. On May 8, they headlined “What if the US doesn’t intervene in Syria,” saying:
Whatever the risks of intervening, inaction risks more, they claim. Post editors want more arms for insurgents.
“They urge an air campaign. “(T)he situation in Syria has grown more dangerous to US interests.”
It’s “increasingly clear that the greatest risk to the United States lies in failing to take decisive action to end the Assad regime.”
Earlier they headlined
“Washington’s last chance to help Syria.”
“If the Obama administration is to lead on Syria, it must commit itself to steps that can bring about the early collapse of the regime and its replacement by a representative and responsible alternative.”
“Only direct political and military intervention on the side of the opposition can make that happen.”
WaPo editors want direct US intervention. They’re not alone. Other media scoundrels support war. Previous articles discussed them.
A Los Angeles Times editorial
headlined said if Assad “used chemical weapons, the US must honor its commitment to act.” In other words, full-scale intervention is justified.
Chicago Tribune editors
urge arming so-called “rebels,” imposing a no-fly zone, and “bombing access roads where chemical weapons are transportedâ€¦.”
Wall Street Journal editors
accused Obama of bluffing for not responding to (false) accusations that Assad used chemical weapons. “The world is watching,” they said. “(W)e will hold you accountable.”
“Israel will have to consider its own military options (if Obama) won’t act.”
Beating the drums for war is standard scoundrel media policy. Keane and Pletka urge it against Syria. It’s not Libya, they say. Assad’s better armed. He’s routing insurgent forces.
Eliminating his air power could tilt “the balance of power in favor of anti-Assad ‘rebels,’ ” they say. Washington-led NATO ousted Gaddafi that way.
Both writers lied. They claimed Assad used chemical weapons. Insurgents did several times. They got Pentagon training to do so. No evidence whatever suggests Assad used them.
Doing so would be self-defeating. Neither writer explained. Instead they said Assad used “aerial bombardment, close air support to ground troops, aerial resupply and delivery of chemical weaponsâ€¦.to fight the ‘rebels’ and to kill tens of thousands of civilians.”
Syria was invaded. Death squads did so. Washington bears full responsibility. Regime change is longstanding. It was planned years ago. Throughout the conflict, Assad acted responsibly. He did what any leader would do.
He’s obligated to do so. Syrians depend on him. His military attacks death squad invaders. They bear full responsibility for civilian deaths.
Many were massacred. Clear evidence proves it. They committed numerous other atrocities. Media scoundrels largely ignore them. They wrongfully blame Assad. So did Keane and Pletka.
“What is keeping (him) in power is his use of fighter planes,” they said. “If the US wants to break the military stalemate, force Assad into political concessions or aid in his ouster, eliminating his air power should be the first order of business.”
They turned truth on its head. They said he’s using air power “to take out civilians in what might be labeled a reverse-counterinsurgency strategy.”
“If counterinsurgency is predicated on the security of the civilian population, then the reverse strategy penalizes civilians and ensures that they are forced to choose between their hope for freedom or the risk of death.”
“Indiscriminately killing civilians is working well for Assad, and the linchpin of his strategy is his regime’s air power.”
Highlighting Big Lies gets most people to believe them. Keane and Pletka claim they know what’s not true.
They and likeminded hawks feature it. Doing so supports Washington’s imperium. Advancing it matters most. Mass killing and destruction are small prices to pay. Ideologues think this way.
They urge direct US intervention. They favor “strik(ing) Syrian aircraft and the regime’s key airfields through which Iranian and Russian weapons are flowing to government forces.”
They claim what they can’t prove. No evidence suggests it. Russia’s fulfilling earlier contracts. Perhaps they include weapons. Defensive systems are supplied. Self-defense is legitimate. International law supports it.
Keane and Pletka ignore Washington’s involvement with other NATO partners, Israel and rogue regional states. They’re supplying insurgents with weapons and munitions.
They’ve been doing so since conflict began. They provide funding, training and leadership.
Keane and Pletka want Obama to use “cruise missiles and B-2 stealth bombers” to attack Syrian airfields and other targets.
“The airfields are Assad’s lifeline of support from Iran and Russia, and without them he’s in real trouble.”
“Syria’s air force will be severely degraded if the US pursues this option, but Syrian planes won’t be entirely grounded because airfields can be repaired.”
“As a result, these operations would need to be sustained for a period of time to preclude repairs.”
They support imposing a no-fly zone. They claim US forces can destroy defensive missile systems “with relative ease using Tomahawk missiles.”
“Achievabilityâ€¦.is straightforward,” they say. With NATO and Arab League support, it’s easier. “(F)acts weâ€¦.know (include) countless Syrian innocentsâ€¦.being murdered weekly.”
They wrongfully blame Assad. They claim he’s using chemical weapons. Another willful lie.
They claim failure to intervene makes escalated “spillover into Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iran and Turkey” likely.
They claim Syrians want America to help them. Omitted is saying the best way is by calling off its dogs, stop funding, arming, training and directing them, and end waging war on humanity.
Keane and Pletka urge more of it. They support crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. Don’t expect apologies for doing so.
Imperial warriors, apologists and supporters never say they’re sorry. They want more nations attacked. It’s the American way.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.