Here's another reason that Cambridge should pass a resolution against the Trump military budget: the first city to do so was New Haven. You can't let those guys get away with that. Also, if we pass enough resolutions, we'll get the U.S. Conference of Mayors to pass one, an organization that, along with I believe nearly every employee of the corporate U.S. media, recently applauded Donald Trump for bombing Syria. "Donald Trump finally became president of the United States," pundits said, a status that is apparently determined by how much reckless violence you order at one time. Someone else remarked this week: "United Airlines finally just became president of the United States."
I've written a lot about war lies. Here are what I think are the top 10 lies about Syria at the moment, other than Hitler being above using chemical weapons. Have you noticed that Trump, like the government in general, is routinely denounced as an habitual liar, but unproven claims about war must be revered as gospel truth or you're an Assad lover or a Putin puppet? It's worse than four years ago when Obama made similar claims.
Of course I'm mentioning Syria, so an hour's worth of disclaimers should come first, but let me try to shorten that to this: Guilty of murder in Syria are: the United States, Russia, Syria, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and numerous other funders and suppliers of all sides. The crimes of these parties are not equal, but none of their crimes erase any of the crimes by the others. If one cannot criticize some of the crimes without being immediately labeled a cheerleader for other crimes, then one cannot say anything and we've simply censored ourselves into silence. Reasons to focus on U.S. crimes at the moment include: we can have the most influence on the U.S., if we do not resist we are complicit, the U.S. media focuses on everything else, a U.S.-Russian confrontation risks nuclear holocaust, and it is a recent U.S. bombing that has changed the conversation and the politics regarding Syria. So, here are the top 10 lies:
- Chemical weapons are worse than other weapons.
This is not the case. Death and dismemberment are horrific regardless of the weapon. No weapon is being used legally, morally, humanely, or practically in Syria or Iraq. U.S. bombs are no less indiscriminate, no less immoral, and no less illegal than chemical weapons -- or for that matter than the depleted uranium weapons with which the United States has been poisoning the area. The fact that a weapon has not been banned does not create a legal right to go into a country and kill people with it.
- Chemical weapons use justifies the escalated use of other weapons.
Does shoplifting justify looting? If a Hatfield poisoned a McCoy, would another McCoy be justified in shooting a bunch of Hatfields? (Do yall Northerners know the names of those feuding families?) What barbarism is this? A crime does not sanction another crime. Whenever the U.S. government uses white phosphorus or cluster bombs, are other governments given the right to drop bombs on the United States?
- Important people we should trust know who used chemical weapons.
No, they do not. At least they do not know that the Syrian government did it. If they knew this, they would offer evidence. As on every past occasion, they have not done so. You can read an analysis of what they have claimed by a professor nearby here at MIT named Theodore Postol.
- The enemy is pure evil and will answer only to force.
The U.S. government and its proxies have sabotaged peace negotiations numerous times over the past several years, maintaining that Assad would have to step down or -- preferably -- be overthrown by violence before anything could be negotiated. This does not make the U.S. government pure inhuman evil, much less does it make the Syrian government that.
- If you don't want to bomb Syria with one enemy's name on your lips, you hold the firm belief that said enemy is actually a saint.
This piece of stupidity gets people accused of loving and holding blameless the Syrian government, the Russian government, the U.S. government, ISIS, and various other parties. In fact, the reasonable thing to do is to hold all killers responsible for their killing because of the crime, not because of who commits it.
- U.S. war-making in Syria is defensive.
This is the opposite of reality-based thinking as war-making endangers us rather than protects us. Someone should ask Donald Trump to remember the Maine. You may remember that Spain wanted the matter brought to a neutral arbiter, but the United States wanted war, regardless of any evidence. That's been the typical move over the centuries: careful maneuvering into war, not away from it. Trump, by the way, is already up to his bloody elbows in several wars inherited from Obama -- wars no less immoral and illegal slaughters because of their connection to either of those presidents. The question of who blew up the Maine is, at this point a truly dumb one. The important point is that the U.S. didn't want to know, wanted instead to rush into a war before anyone could find out. Typically, the desire to avoid information, and not some other consideration, is the reason for the urgency in war-making.
- Peace was tried in 2013, and it failed.
No. What happened was that Obama and his administration tried to pull off the same stunt that Trump is trying now, and the public rose up and refused to allow it. So, instead of a massive bombing campaign, Syria got more weapons, more trainers, more troops, and a medium sized bombing campaign. That's very different from actually shifting direction and offering Syria diplomacy, aid, and disarmament.
- The U.S. government's goal is peace.
The long openly stated goal of powerful players in the U.S. government is to overthrow Assad.
- Syria is as boring and unconcerning as numerous other ongoing U.S. wars.
In reality, Syria is a war that risks fighting between the United States and Russia, while each is armed with far more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth. Creating a profitable conflict between the U.S. and Russia is a likely actual motivation of some hawks on Syria.
- Making everything worse with yet more violence is the only option left.
That's not an option at all, and it's no more the only option left than beating up airline passengers is. But these are available options: aid, reparations, negotiations, disarmament, the rule of law, truth and reconciliation.
A lot of people fell for this package of lies who didn't fall for a similar package 4 years ago. Or perhaps they didn't. Perhaps what they did was cheer for a glorious bombing attack that was in the immediate past, that had already happened. The same people who told pollsters they were glad Trump bombed Syria also said they didn't want any more of it. Whether they had any idea that Obama and Trump had already done a lot of bombing in Syria we don't know. The point is that in 2013 the U.S. public was asked about a bombing campaign that hadn't happened yet. If it had then happened, millions would have discovered that they approved of it after all.
But one person who did fall for the lies, we are told, was Ivanka Trump. According to her brother, it was Ivanka who asked her daddy for a bunch of dead bodies. Or maybe he wanted to impress the president of China. Or maybe he does whatever the military wants. Or maybe his chocolate cake was too good. In any case, the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent any individual from being able to do such things -- which are now forbidden by international law.
This brings me, briefly, to the topic of impeachment. I'm a big fan of impeachment as a highly desirable alternative to a violent overthrow or waiting for another corrupt election. Naomi Klein says don't bother protesting, just do stuff to annoy Donald and damage his corporate brand, and that will make him likely to lose an election in 4 years. By all means, boycott his businesses. But we have neither 4 years to wait for environmental protection, peace, or justice, nor any reason to imagine that some unknown presidential candidate in 2020 wouldn't be even worse than Trump. The Democrats are all in a rage because with a bit of effort they could have just elected a gun nut who brags about participating in war to Congress in Kansas. A broken election system cannot be the main ingredient in any real solution. Neither can impeachment be the main solution. But it can be part of it if done right. That means: no imagining that the problem is really just one person, and on the other hand no obsessing over what an unpleasant person the vice president is, and no impeaching for false or unproven or non-serious or actually laudable actions. For impeachment to work -- and an impeachment process can bring about reforms or resignations without even getting to impeachment -- it has to be part of a popular movement that creates a climate of accountability such that whoever replaces a dethroned president is subject to the public will -- a far more radical change than swapping out one personality for another.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
6
5
