Reprinted from Consortium News
The few humans in the media who did express skepticism -- largely found on something called the Internet -- were dismissed as fill-in-the-blank "apologists," much as occurred with the doubters against the Iraqi WMD case in 2002-2003. The people demanding real evidence were marginalized and those who accepted whatever the powerful said were elevated to positions of ever-greater influence.
If the cockroach historians could burrow deep enough into the radioactive ashes, they might discover that -- on an individual level -- people such as Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt wasn't fired after swallowing the WMD lies whole and regurgitating them on the Post's readership; that New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and dozens of similar opinion-leaders were not unceremoniously replaced; that Hillary Clinton, a neocon in the supposedly "liberal" Democratic Party, was rewarded with the party's presidential nomination in 2016; and that the likes of Iraq War architect Robert Kagan remained the toast of the American capital with his opinions sought after and valued.
The cockroaches might observe that humans showed little ability to adapt amid very dangerous conditions, i.e., the bristling nuclear arsenals of eight or so countries. Instead, the humans pressed toward their own doom, tagging along after guides who had proven incompetent over and over again but were still followed toward a civilization-ending precipice.
These guides casually urged the masses toward the edge with sweet-sounding phrases like "democracy promotion," "responsibility to protect," and "humanitarian wars." The same guides, who had sounded so confident about the wisdom of "shock and awe" in Iraq and then the "regime change" in Libya, pitched plans for a U.S. invasion of Syria, albeit presented as the establishment of "safe zones" and "no-fly zones."
After orchestrating a coup in Russia's neighbor Ukraine, overthrowing the elected president and then sponsoring an "anti-terrorism operation" to kill ethnic Russian Ukrainians who objected to the coup, Western politicians and policymakers saw only "Russian aggression" when Moscow gave these embattled people some assistance. When citizens in Crimea voted 96 percent to separate from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, the West denounced the referendum as a "sham" and called it a "Russian invasion." It didn't matter that opinion polls repeatedly found similar overwhelming support among the Crimean people for the change. The false narrative, insisting that Russia had instigated the Ukraine crisis, was accepted with near-universal gullibility across the West.
A Moscow "Regime Change"
Behind this fog of propaganda, U.S. and other Western officials mounted a significant NATO military build-up on Russia's border, complete with large-scale military exercises practicing the seizure of Russian territory.
Russian warnings against these operations were dismissed as hysterical and as further proof for the need to engineer another "regime change," this time in Moscow. But first the Russian government had to be destabilized by making the economy scream. Then, the plan was for political disruptions and eventually a Ukraine-style coup to remove the thrice-elected President Vladimir Putin.
The wisdom of throwing a nuclear power into economic, political and social disorder -- and risking that the nuclear codes might end up in truly dangerous hands -- was barely discussed.
Even before the desired coup, the West's neoconservatives advocated giving the Russians a bloody nose in Syria where Moscow's forces had intervened at the Syrian government's request to turn back Islamic jihadists who were fighting alongside Western-backed "moderate" rebels.
The neocon/liberal-hawk plans for "no-fly zones" and "safe zones" inside Syria required the U.S. military's devastation of Syrian government forces and presumably the Russian air force personnel inside Syria with the Russians expected to simply take their beating and keep quiet.
The cockroach historians also might note that once the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks decided on one of their strategic plans at some "think-tank" conference -- or wrote it down in a report or an op-ed -- they were single-minded in implementing it regardless of its impracticality or recklessness.
These hawks were highly skilled at spinning new propaganda themes to justify what they had decided to do. Since they dominated the major media outlets, that was fairly easy without anyone of note taking note that the talking points were simply word games. But the neocons and liberal hawks were very good at word games. Plus, these widely admired interventionists were never troubled with self-doubt whatever mayhem and death followed in their wake.