by Philip J Cunningham
What kind of message does it send to the world when powerful countries proud of their democratic traditions and rule of law use incendiary and illegal bombing to advertise and enforce “humanitarian” values? Why the rush to judgment without democratic deliberation? Why not wait for inspections to better determine what happened on the ground? And why answer a tragedy with an act of violence?
No sooner did the missiles let fly over Syria than the war of words over Trump’s strike began. Even after the smoke cleared, it was hard not to choke on the gasbag gloating in the corridors of power. The citizen audience of the US was subjected to a Beltway narrative prepped, tenderized and heated up by willing media allies of the security state, resulting in a resounding chorus of "experts" applauding the dangerous, pointless and illegal attack.
No sooner were the bombs were bursting in the air, than the neo-liberal establishment found itself in lockstep with its arch-rival Trump, excited to see another touchdown by team USA. This was followed by an end-zone strut and victory dance about the importance of sending a message.
Supposedly independent media outlets in the UK and France also waved the red, white and blue flags of their respective nations with scant apparent interest in digging out the truth.
No sooner were the bombs were bursting in the air, than the neo-liberal establishment found itself in lockstep with its arch-rival Trump, excited to see another touchdown by team USA. This was followed by an end-zone strut and victory dance about the importance of sending a message.
Supposedly independent media outlets in the UK and France also waved the red, white and blue flags of their respective nations with scant apparent interest in digging out the truth.
“A perfectly executed strike last night,” Trump tweeted. “Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!”
Trump’s volley of nice, new smart missiles "sent a strong message to Syria, Russia, to Iran," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said. "They 100 percent met their objectives…a strong message to Syria, to Russia, to Iran that when this president has a red line, he will enforce it,”
UK leader Theresa May used upper class bombast to laud Britain’s role in the joint steel and iron stiletto-stab against Syria. “I have done so because I judge this action to be in Britain’s national interest. There is no graver decision for a prime minister than to commit our forces to combat – and this is the first time that I have had to do so. As always, they have served our country with the greatest professionalism and bravery.”
As for junior partner Emmanuel Macron from France, he seemed content to follow US cowboy logic to shoot first and seek consent later. “In conformity with Article 35, Line 2 of the Constitution, the Parliament will be informed and a parliamentary debate will be organized, following this decision to use our armed forces in an overseas operation.”
While the West was wagging the dog of war, there were poignant, thoughtful pleas for peace from unlikely corners of the world, including regimes that the US routinely castigates and berates for being undemocratic and lacking in the rule of law, most especially China and Russia.
China Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying expressed a thoroughly reasonable view when she said, “We oppose the use of force in international relations and call for respect for other countries' sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Any unilateral military action bypassing the Security Council runs contrary to the purpose and principles of the UN Charter and violates the principles of international law.”
At the UN, Nikki Haley did her best to explain the Trump turnaround on Syria when just a week earlier, he was talking of pulling out altogether. “Did a chemical weapons attack happen? Yes, the U.S. has analyzed, yes it has happened, the UK has analyzed, yes it has happened, France has analyzed, yes it has happened.”
Halley echoed the tough talk of her boss when she addressed the UN Security Council, “If the Syrianregime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded.”
Halley echoed the tough talk of her boss when she addressed the UN Security Council, “If the Syrianregime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded.”
Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, director of the US Joint Staff, employed, in true military fashion, laconic words of praise for the attack. "All the options looked at ways to balance minimizing collateral damage against maximum effect. These three targets seemed to hit the sweet spot." He went on to ridicule the target nation for attempting to defend itself with anti-missile missiles. "When you shoot iron into the air without guidance, it's going to come down somewhere.”
As for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, he accurately described the smart bomb shelling of his Syrian ally as an “act of aggression," opining that the attack was “destructive for the entire system of international relations."
Nikki Haley's Russian counterpart, Vassily Nebenzia admonished the United States, France and the United Kingdom for engaging in the "diplomacy of mythmaking, hypocrisy and falsehoods.” Strong words, and not without a whiff of uncomfortable truth.
Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, asked the aggressors to read the UN Charter to enlighten and awaken themselves from their “ignorance and tyranny," while the controversial Bashar Assad, the villain of the piece, tweeted cryptically that “good souls will not be humiliated.”
The Iraqi foreign ministry, which knows a thing or two about being on the receiving end of US shock, awe and ordinance drops said the strike “could have dangerous consequences, threatening the security and stability of the region and giving terrorism another opportunity to expand after it was ousted from Iraq and forced into Syria to retreat to a large extent.”
The attacks turned out to be precise, as advertised, but that is not to exonerate the blatant attempt to terrorize people into submission. By what logic does the US assume the right to drop bombs anywhere it pleases? What legal basis does it have to lord over the lives of others like this?
An indisputably tragic but small-scale incident in a war that has cost half a million Syrian lives was answered with a short, brutish and illegal attack this week. Could it be that the timing that pushed Trump, who was outspoken in his desire to have no part in Syria’s war, to make a scene of it? Or was there something perhaps unannounced happening on the ground in military terms that called for a show of force?
The provocative chemical attack was initially reported on and played up by Syrian rebel Islamists with a vested interest in making the Damascus government look as bad as possible. Patrick Cockburn, a veteran reporter and author of a book on ISIS sees the real news of the week in the defeat and retreat of the “Saudi-backed jihadi movement in Douma.”
Whether by accident or design, the flashy US attack served to give cover to the ignominious retreat of an ignominious, foreign-funded military force, now apparently taking refuge in a part of Syria controlled by Turkey.The implication is that the US had been the errand boy for Saudi Arabia in doing the dirty work in Syria.
Inspections may eventually prove the truth of claims of chemical attack, but meanwhile the US has shown an abject willingness to make grandiose claims and let missiles fly.
Inspections may eventually prove the truth of claims of chemical attack, but meanwhile the US has shown an abject willingness to make grandiose claims and let missiles fly.
Firas Abdullah, who CNN describes as a media activist recently evacuated from Ghouta, seemed disappointed that the attack wasn’t deadlier. "It is not enough. I can describe it as -- it's just a media strike."
Media strike--an inadvertently apt term. The flashy Syria strike and its pretext were sold, sealed and delivered by the media, especially the big television networks in the US, aided and abetted by BBC and Sky in Europe. Trump is a master of media manipulation, and his fingerprints are all over the fiasco, but so, too, are the fingerprints of his fiercest domestic critics.
“The Media Strike” was brought to you by the usual sponsors. If there’s one thing that broadcast rivals and competitors in the USA have in common, it’s a desire to sell ad time. To one up the other, it helps to have shocking optics, a compelling Hollywood conflict pitting good versus evil and a never-ending story.