RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Parry writes: "The Washington Post's neoconservative editorial page is still beating the drums for U.S. military intervention in Syria, but its latest demand for violent reprisals against the Syrian government dropped a key element in the previous propaganda campaign."

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (photo: AP)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (photo: AP)

Neocons Take Aim at Syrian Peace Talks

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

24 January 14


he Washington Post's neoconservative editorial page is still beating the drums for U.S. military intervention in Syria, but its latest demand for violent reprisals against the Syrian government dropped a key element in the previous propaganda campaign: the claim that President Bashar al-Assad had "gassed his own people."

Without admitting that those earlier Sarin gas allegations have fallen apart, the Post editors simply moved on to new accusations - that the Syrian government tortured thousands of captives who were subsequently killed. Those claims came from an anonymous "defector" who claims he took photographs to document the deaths and then turned the images over to the anti-Assad government of Qatar.

Of course, the Post editors treat the new allegations as flat fact, much as they did with earlier charges against the Syrian regime - and with the Bush-43 administration's claims in 2002-03 that Iraq was hiding stockpiles of WMD. The Post was catastrophically wrong in the Iraq case, but none of those top editors lost their jobs over the fiasco. Instead, they're still around treating the new Syrian accusations with the same lack of professional skepticism that they displayed regarding Iraq.

But what's interesting about the Post's editorial on Thursday calling for the Obama administration to threaten a U.S. military assault if the Assad regime doesn't comply with U.S. government demands is that the editorial makes no direct reference to the Sarin gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrians on Aug. 21.

Last summer, the Obama administration and the mainstream U.S. news media blamed that Sarin attack on the Syrian government with the same certitude and outrage as we're now seeing over the "torture photos."

Indeed, the conventional wisdom over the Sarin attack very nearly led to a U.S. military bombardment. The rush to judgment was spurred on by Human Rights Watch, which had been pushing for a U.S. intervention, and the New York Times, when they jointly concluded that a vectoring of the reverse flight paths of the two rockets involved in the attack tracked back 9.5 kilometers and intersected at an elite Syrian military base near Assad's Presidential Palace.

Despite this supposedly conclusive "proof," a U.S. attack was headed off by a mix of U.S. public opposition, President Barack Obama's willingness to test out a diplomatic alternative, and Assad's agreement to surrender his chemical weapons (while still denying a role in the Aug. 21 attack).

Recently, however, the certitude about the Assad government's responsibility for the Sarin attack has collapsed. First, the Obama administration refused to release any of the evidence that it claimed to possess that would have supported its claims that the rockets were launched from government-controlled areas.

Second, the UN inspectors determined that one of the two rockets - the one that landed in Moadamiya, south of Damascus - contained no Sarin. The rocket also clipped a building in its descent, making any calculation of its flight path unreliable.

Third, when UN inspectors and independent rocket experts studied the one Sarin-laden rocket that struck Zamalka, east of Damascus, they concluded that its maximum range was only about two kilometers, meaning that the HRW/NYT analysis was impossible, a reality that the Times only grudgingly acknowledged last month.

The two-kilometer range also meant that the rocket could not have come for any territory under the Syrian government's control, based on a U.S. government map released on Aug. 30. [See's "The Mistaken Guns of Last August."]

'Torture Photos'

But the Washington Post editors didn't bother to inform their readers about the collapse of this earlier propaganda theme that nearly justified a U.S. war against the Syrian government. In Thursday's editorial, the Aug. 21 allegations vanish, replaced by the "torture photos" and other accusations of human rights violations.

Of course, it is certainly believable that the Syrian government did engage in torture and murder of Islamic militants and other rebels captured during the current civil war. A decade ago, George W. Bush's administration relied upon the Syrian government and other authoritarian Arab states to torture U.S. detainees in the "war on terror." Some of them also died in captivity.

So, it wouldn't be beyond belief that Syrian officials have continued to deploy similar techniques against their domestic "terrorists" and jihadists flocking to Syria from other Muslim lands. But that doesn't mean the photos provided by a "defector" to the government of Qatar, which is actively supporting the anti-Assad militants, should be accepted at face value.

During the run-up to the war in Iraq, at least 18 Iraqi "defectors" - many managed by the neocon-allied Iraqi National Congress - provided detailed allegations about the Iraqi government's WMD stockpiles and Iraq's collaboration with al-Qaeda. Though the claims were widely promoted by the Bush administration and gullibly accepted by most of the mainstream U.S. press, they all turned out to be false. [For details, see Neck Deep.]

If the Washington Post's editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt learned anything from the disastrous Iraq War, it should have been to treat "defector" claims with many grains of salt. But it's probably a safe bet that Hiatt and his fellow neocon opinion-shapers are not really interested in applying the normal skepticism of professional journalism. They're looking more toward advancing the neocon agenda.

The Post's only reference to the discredited accusations blaming the Aug. 21 Sarin attack on the Syrian government is implicit, mentioning how Obama's threat of a military strike had gotten the Assad regime to surrender its chemical weapons. So, the Post argues, Obama should forsake the current Syrian peace talks - what the editorial calls "feckless diplomacy" - and go back to the well of making more military threats to enforce new demands:

"President Obama demonstrated last year that the credible threat of force could change the regime's behavior. His promise of airstrikes caused Mr. Assad to surrender an arsenal of chemical weapons. Yet the president seems not to have learned the lesson of that episode.

"Now he makes the defeatist argument that, as he put it to David Remnick of the New Yorker, 'It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which our involvement in Syria would have led to a better outcome, short of us being willing to undertake an effort in size and scope similar to what we did in Iraq.' In fact, Mr. Obama probably could force the measures [demanding more concessions] by presenting Mr. Assad with the choice of accepting them or enduring U.S. airstrikes."

The problem with the Post's threat of a military attack is that President Obama would have to be ready to carry it out if Assad did not comply with the new U.S. demands. But that may well be what the Post's neocon editors really desire, another war against another Arab nation. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+4 # RICHARDKANEpa 2014-01-24 20:13
Again things are moving fast in a positive direction and the neocons are not succeeding in getting in the way.

Both the US and Russia are pushing hard for a cease fire. In pockets a ceasefire has already taken place,

Most is Syria don't like the government but like the militants that the Saudis is showering support for. These militants are overwhelming the other rebels imposing sharia law on areas they control. The al Qaeda faction is overwhelmingly brutal,

A ceasefire between moderates and rebels might hold for a long time

Ahmadinejad's angry statements to woo Sunnis to feel solidarity with Shiites are a thing of the past. The peace talks are something very worth celebrating,

Iran is under attack by al Qaeda linked groups,
Iran has good reason to make new major concessions on nuclear tests,

Things could fall into place in the direction of peace, especially since the UN is finely working the way it was supposed to do instead of being locked into Cold War gridlock,

Let's celebrate,
+5 # Activista 2014-01-24 21:21
Excellent article by Perry - the facts are overwhelming, but the desperate war propaganda/lies against Iran/Syria is inventing more.
The comparison with Iraq war propaganda is valid. Would add Libya to the argument.
People in Syria can look at "liberated" Libya and Iraq civil war, and the pragmatic alternative is status quo.
+4 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-01-24 22:52
Is this all really about building a natural gas pipeline across Syria that we aren't going to build across Afghanistan?
+3 # geraldom 2014-01-25 23:34
It is so damn frustrating that Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the leaders of Iran remain extremely stupid, naive and ignorant concerning the ultimate agenda of the United States, regime change in both governments, setting up governments that are support the best interests of the U.S. government than that of their own people as we have done so many times in the past, as we have done in Iraq and as we are attempting to do in Afghanistan, not to mention the Ukraine.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2014-01-26 11:46
Tom Lehrer had something to say about that.

"When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve
Who is it that always intervenes?
UN and OAS, they have their place I guess
But first, send the marines.


For might makes right
Until they've seen the light
They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Til someone we like can be elected.

Members of the Corps
All hate the thought of war
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression.

We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go
So when in doubt, send the Marines."

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.