Reprinted from Consortium News
Neocon ideology appears to have seized near total control over the editorial pages of America's premier news organizations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, contributing to an information crisis inside "the world's superpower," a development that should unnerve both Americans and the world community.
A Washington Post editorial, for instance, took President Barack Obama to task on Wednesday for one of the few moments when he was making sense, when he answered "no" to whether he was "actively discussing ways to remove" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Obama added, "we are looking for a political solution eventually within Syria. ... But we're not even close to being at that stage yet."
In Assad's case, there is the conventional wisdom that his government carried out the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus, although much evidence now points to a provocation by anti-Assad rebels. There is also the fact that Assad's military has been battling the ruthless Islamic State and Al-Qaeda's Nusra Front, two terroristic organizations.
While that doesn't excuse excessive civilian casualties, it is a mitigating circumstance, much as the U.S. military rationalized the massive loss of civilian life after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as regrettable collateral damage, but justified in prosecuting the post-9/11 "war on terror."
But, of course, there are two sets of rules, one for the world's "indispensible nation" and its allies and another for everyone else. There is an unstated acceptance of these double standards by every "serious" person in Official Washington, including mainstream journalists.
In this view, the "exceptional" United States has the right to invade any country of its choosing and violently remove leaders not to its liking. If the shoe were on another foot -- say, some country seeking to remove a U.S. ally for violating international law or human rights or someone trying to hold former President George W. Bush accountable for his war crimes -- an entirely different fashion rack of principles would suddenly be in vogue.
Nevertheless, Obama answered Welker's question appropriately. "No," he said, the U.S. government is not now trying to overthrow Assad, whose government is the principal bulwark against an outright military victory by Al-Qaeda's affiliate, Nusra Front, or the even more barbaric Islamic State.
Indeed, it would be madness for Obama to say or do differently, since he himself acknowledged last summer to New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman that the idea of a "moderate" rebel force in Syria was always a "fantasy." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Behind Obama's Chaotic Foreign Policy."]
Dreamy Neocon Thinking
The likely result of the U.S. military destroying Assad's defenses would be a victory by Islamic extremists with their black flags flying over Damascus. That, in turn, would probably force the United States and its European allies to undertake a major invasion of Syria with hundreds of thousands of troops at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars -- and no reasonable prospect for success.
Despite the craziness of this we-must-take-out-Assad thinking, it has become the "group think" of Official Washington. If only Assad were forcibly removed, this thinking goes, then the supposed "moderate opposition" would take over, transform Syria into a model democracy and everything would work out just fine. That this scenario is reminiscent of the dreamy neocon predictions about Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003 -- and would be even less likely in Syria -- seems to bother no one.
So, the Washington Post's editors write in reaction to Obama's negative reply on ousting Assad: "That message will be greeted with cheers by the Assad clique and its supporters in Iran; it will encourage the regime to believe it can continue its 'barrel bomb' and chlorine gas attacks with impunity. It will also probably ensure that the rift between the United States and its allies against the Islamic State continues to widen."
Then, the Post's editors glibly suggest that Obama should introduce U.S. ground forces, presumably into Syria as well as Iraq: "Mr. Obama appears to recognize the severity of the threat posed by the Islamic State and appears to be focused on the job of leading the fight against it. But if he continues to allow his ideological resistance to steps such as the deployment of ground forces to constrain the campaign, he will ensure its failure."
The Post's casual attitude toward dispatching the U.S. military into foreign countries, even without the approval of a sovereign government and thus in defiance of international law, is typical of the neocon arrogance that launched the Iraq War, which, in turn, gave rise to both Al-Qaeda's presence in the region and the Islamic State, which fought the U.S. occupation of Iraq under the name "Al-Qaeda in Iraq."
In other words, it was the neocon disregard for international law that touched off this bloody mess in the first place, but the neocons are now popping up to give more advice on how Obama must handle the situation now. But their recommendations amount to war and more war. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Neocon Plan for War and More War."]