A View From The Left -NEW WARS / OLD WARS – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

NEW WARS / OLD WARS – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

 

It goes without saying that in the midst of a brutal civil war both sides produce information and propaganda that should be met with skepticism – especially when on side’s narrative is so enthusiastically taken up by the establishment media.  Thus the avalanche of heartrending stories about the starvation in the town of Madaya, which is besieged by Syrian government forces.  It does not diminish the suffering of innocent civilians there or elsewhere to point out the cynical and selective mobilization of sympathy to further the narrative of “Assad’s” attack on his own people.  Photos from Madaya have been regularly faked by rebel and foreign media, while there are credible sources that it is at least in part the rebel occupiers who have been responsible for starvation there.  In fact it is foreign intervention that is at the root of so much bloody mayhem and suffering in Syria.  As Americans, there is not much we can do to make Syria better, but we can do what we can to pressure our government and its allies to stop making it worse.

 

THE U.S. STARVES SYRIA

If the corporate media in the United States are truly interested in the plight of Syrians perhaps they ought to do the real work of journalism instead of acting as courtiers for the Obama administration… The American plan for regime change in Syria has killed 250,000 people and displaced 9 million more. There would be no bullets, bombs or sieges absent the United States and the rest of NATO, Saudi Arabia and Turkey attempting to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. All of the people who drowned in the Mediterranean as they tried to flee bloodshed were killed by the United States. The towns and cities that have been destroyed by warring armies were in fact destroyed by the United States. Absent American action, none of the other parties would have taken on this project. It is important to keep these facts in mind when seeing footage of starving people in Madaya. The corporate media lay all of the blame at Assad's feet and claim that the Syrian army is holding people hostage. There are in fact many Madayas in Syria with starving populations but if the narrative doesn't make the case for western aggression the story disappears. According to the United Nations some 400,000 Syrians are trapped by combatants in hard to reach areas and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid.  More

 

How to Help the Syrians Who Want to Return Home

Quite simply, the world has helped foster the migrant crisis by not supporting refugees in the Middle East. The United States prides itself on how much we have given to the refugee crisis, but we lag behind the European Union. On a per-capita basis, we are far outranked by many much smaller countries, among them Britain, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Full funding of the United Nations appeals would go some way toward stemming the flow of refugees. The United States alone could give at least $500 million more to the United Nations Appeal annually. But even with full funding, some refugees need to be resettled. Though the United States may prefer to pretend that this crisis is Europe’s problem alone, it is not. United States policy in the region bears at least some responsibility for the tragic chaos in the Levant and the resulting rise of the Islamic State.   More

 

Democratic Candidates Have Not Gotten Syria Right: They Should Be Talking Peace, Not War

By their reticence, the candidates are failing to mobilize political support to bolster the administration’s fragile commitment to the diplomatic path…  Of course, the Democratic candidates must weigh pragmatic concerns. Can a progressive position on the Syrian civil war endure the heat of a general election? The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee may face a Republican, such as Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, who favors more aid to Syrian rebels, including an ambitious no-fly zone. In addition, no matter who she or he is, the Democratic candidate will probably have to bear the burden of the current majority perception that Obama has been “weak” in foreign policy. In these circumstances, can it really be good politics to insist on diplomatic rather than military action in Syria? The answer is yes, it can… With most Americans reluctant to escalate the civil war, a full-throated justification of the alternative diplomatic route— including how it would help mobilize Syrians against ISIS—should fall on ready ears. By supporting ongoing negotiations, instead of simply warning about escalation, Democrats could offer a positive approach that would address Republican complaints that they “have no strategy.”  More

 

Chomsky accuses Turkey of double standards on terrorism

Hours after Tuesday’s bomb attack on a tourist area of Istanbul, Erdoğan delivered a sneering criticism of Chomsky and “so-called intellectuals” who had signed a letter calling on Turkey to end the “deliberate massacre” of Kurdish people in the south east of the country…  In the open letter to Erdoğan released last month, Chomsky and hundreds of others accused him of waging war against his own people… In his email to the Guardian, Chomsky accused Erdoğan of hypocrisy. He said: “Turkey blamed Isis [for the attack on Istanbul], which Erdoğan has been aiding in many ways, while also supporting the al-Nusra Front, which is hardly different. He then launched a tirade against those who condemn his crimes against Kurds – who happen to be the main ground force opposing Isis in both Syria and Iraq. Is there any need for further comment?”   More

 

Enduring Bases, Enduring War in the Middle East

…the New York Times revealed that the Obama administration is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a “new” and “enduring” system of military bases around the Middle East.  Though this is being presented as a response to the rise of the Islamic State and other militant groups, there's remarkably little that’s new about the Pentagon plan. For more than 36 years, the U.S. military has been building an unprecedented constellation of bases that stretches from Southern Europe and the Middle East to Africa and Southwest Asia.

The record of these bases is disastrous. They have cost tens of billions of dollars and provided support for a long list of undemocratic host regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Djibouti. They have enabled a series of U.S. wars and military interventions, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which have helped make the Greater Middle East a cauldron of sectarian-tinged power struggles, failed states, and humanitarian catastrophe. And the bases have fueled radicalism, anti-Americanism, and the growth of the very terrorist organizations now targeted by the supposedly new strategy.  More

 

Air war against Islamic State group cost $5.5 billion

The air war against the Islamic State group has cost the American taxpayer $5.5 billion, roughly $11.2 million per day, a $2 million increase since June, according to the latest Defense Department data.  The Air Force accounts for $3.75 billion — nearly 70 percent — of that cost, about $7.7 million a day since the U.S. began launching airstrikes in August 2014.  More than 50 percent of the cost accounts for daily flight operating tempo: The Air Force in 2015, for example, conducted 21,000 sorties over Iraq and Syria, 9,000 of which included at least one weapons release, Air Forces Central Command statistics say.  More

 

Defense Industry Revenue Forecast Gushes Over Global Turmoil

The global aerospace and defense industry is out of its doldrums. According to a new report by the accounting firm Deloitte, “the resurgence of global security threats” promises a lucrative “rebound” in defense spending.  The report alerts investors that “revenue growth” is “expected to take a positive turn” due to the terrorism and war in the Middle East and the tensions in Eastern Europe and the South China Sea.  Many analysts predicted declining revenue for the weapons industry as the U.S. scaled down military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.   More

 

As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy

Mr. Obama has long advocated a “nuclear-free world.” His lieutenants argue that modernizing existing weapons can produce a smaller and more reliable arsenal while making their use less likely because of the threat they can pose. The changes, they say, are improvements rather than wholesale redesigns, fulfilling the president’s pledge to make no new nuclear arms.  But critics, including a number of former Obama administration officials, look at the same set of facts and see a very different future. The explosive innards of the revitalized weapons may not be entirely new, they argue, but the smaller yields and better targeting can make the arms more tempting to use — even to use first, rather than in retaliation.   More