It's a heartache - Obama's 'gun pragmatism' on Syria

"This was a tale of two President Barack Obamas, the one with
high dreams and the one who must deal with grubby realities."
Mark Mardell, BBC. 

As President Obama performs his political 'rock star' role at the G8 in Belfast, swooning the assembled schoolchildren with appeals to peace and reconciliation, it might seem almost heretical to question either his 'good heart' in appealing for social harmony or the 'heavy heart' with which he confronts the world's wider troubles.

 

Obama's 'high-dreaming' side, as BBC North America correspondent Mark Mardell divines it, is 'loaded-down' with the heaviness of having to deal with "grubby realities" like the conflict in Syria.

 

So much for understated crises around the globe and America's own grubby dealings in those realities. 

 

Yet, quite how, we may ask, is Mardell able to 'intuit' such understandings of Obama's 'conflicted psychology'? The answer, we may suppose, lies less in Mardell's abilities as a psychologist than his role as a safely-conditioned establishment journalist.

 

When it comes to Western leaders, particularly media-adulated ones like Obama, the presumption is always of benign and thoughtful motive, even if ultimately proven to be 'mistaken'.

 

But, as with those who led the slaughters of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's actions over Syria suggests little room for doubt or error: beyond the hype and 'psychology', his decision to send substantive weaponry to opposition forces in Syria is a straight act of calculated warmongering.

 

The White House statement in defence of this line is, predictably, long on interventionist rhetoric and brazenly short on convincing evidence.

As noted by News Unspun:

"This points to no conclusive evidence but is rather a re-hash of previous claims, only this time the claims seen in the news over the last few weeks are prefixed with 'our intelligence community has high confidence in'."

Besides various sceptical observers and chemical weapons experts, Anthony Cordesman, a leading security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has declared that: "the ‘discovery’ that Syria used chemical weapons might be a political ploy." 

In hawkish mode, Cordesman still insists on America being free to advance its own interests through such aggressive engagements. Yet, his frankness on the surreptitious means of doing so tells us much about the falsity of Obama's 'heartfelt' persona.

It should take little serious scrutiny to realise Washington's tortured pretext for this most dangerous escalation; it's a device of the flimsiest kind, almost entirely endorsed or passively accepted by a quiescent, rationalising media.

Again, here's Mardell with the 'heavy-heart' reading:

"He wants to avoid getting embroiled in another Middle East war and to avoid the US dictating outcomes in the region, but he doesn't want Syria to spiral further into chaos or President Bashar al-Assad to continue in power."

Though reluctant to be "embroiled" or seen to be "dictating outcomes", Obama, we're to believe, is being forced to act through concern over Assad's 'power and chaos'. There's no discussion of how Obama, Nato and the Saudi/Gulf states have wantonly fed such chaos through their determined removal of Assad, all in advancement of their own geopolitical and sectarian interests.  

In a prior servile piece, Mardell gave eager amplification to Obama's 'clarity' on chemical weapons:

"The basic news from the White House is pretty clear - they are now sure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against the rebels. That crosses President Obama's red line, and changes his calculus."

"This is a very hard call for Mr Obama. He knows his country doesn't want to get caught up in another war. However, many in the West see this as a simple contest of right and wrong. It also has aspects of a regional Sunni/Shia civil war that could spiral out of control.

He almost certainly feels that such involvement would in the end not enhance the name of the US in the region.

But there are pressing humanitarian arguments to stop this now and to make sure those the West sees as the good guys win, before Islamic militants claim victory.

Mr Obama is at the helm of the country to which the liberal interventionists look to provide a lead. It is worth noting that you don't hear the same cries of "something must be done" from Brazil, China or Sweden.

But many politicians in Britain and France still feel a heavy imperial burden to use their well-honed militaries to re-make the world." [My italics.]

Even Kipling, unsurpassed in such burdensome mission, would no-doubt have approved of Mardell's 'heart-rending', liberal words.

What Mardell routinely avoids saying is simply that more arms to the conflict will kill more people and prolong the misery. Alert to this reality, the UN have urged that no more weapons be entered into the conflict.

Yet, dutifully, Mardell can only reiterate Obama's 'heavy heart' in doing so. Writing on Twitter, he asks:

@BBCMarkMardell via Twitter
USA will give military assistance to Syrian rebels. But is Obama's heart really in it ? http://t.co/XlaCdMJZ45

Further evidence of such craven apologetics can be seen in this revealing exchange between Media Lens Editor David Cromwell and Mardell (ML message board, 17 June 2013):

Hello Mark,

I hope things are good with you, and thanks for your latest blog at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22900710

You write:

'The basic news from the White House is pretty clear - they are now sure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against the rebels.'

Especially post-Iraq, no responsible journalist should write, 'they are now sure'. How can you possibly tell without mind-reading powers? By all means, report that the White House 'asserts' or 'says' or 'claims'. This is not a trivial matter of semantics. Wouldn't you agree?

Best wishes

David Cromwell

Dear David, all good here and hope you are well. I accept you have a point - i dont know for certain what is in their minds, only what they say. But I think we see Obama in a different way - (and may be i am attempting a mind reading trick again !) - I think he wanted to make sure the evidence was rock solid before publishing it because of the faulty iraq intelligence and the huge damage it did. Which is why the USA lagged far behind other countries in saying this. I dont think he is looking for an excuse to act - i think he is very cautious about the evidence on its own merit, but also because he doesn't want to get sucked in. Although in the end the US might act i really think Obama is different - pragmatic in the national interest but not a liberal interventionist in the classic sense - why i think that is, you may see from the last paragraph of the blog. I think merely portraying Obama as weak because he wants to avoid the military option is misunderstanding his world view - he's not a hammer and has some understanding of what it is like to be a nail.

But I accept there is a world of difference from what i suspect, or think, and what i know and take you point about the bare assertion.
Mark Mardell .."say they are sure" would have been better.

Hello Mark,

Glad things are good with you – I’m fine too, thanks. Thanks for kindly responding and providing further comment. It’s good that you see and accept my point: ‘ “say they are sure” would have been better.’

You also say in your email:

‘But I accept there is a world of difference from what I suspect, or think, and what i know and take you point about the bare assertion.’

It’s not so much the difference between what you suspect and know. The point is surely not to take at face value what governments say; especially given the deceptions that paved the way to the Iraq war. It’s common on BBC News – as elsewhere – to see journalists tell the public: ‘The White House is sure’, ‘Washington believes’, ‘Obama thinks’ and so on. History shows that often ‘there is a world of difference’ between what governments say they ‘believe’ or are ‘sure’ about, and what is true. Maybe you can take a journalistic lead in pushing back against this propaganda line of ‘what Washington believes’. Don’t be the middleman dishing it up to the public, garnishing it with BBC gravitas. Why not use your influential position as the BBC’s North America editor to challenge and scrutinise more thoroughly?

‘I think we see Obama in a different way...’

Who is the ‘we’ here? You may choose to see Obama in a different way from past US leaders. But then, that is your personal opinion and surely not the stance of an impartial journalist with an objective understanding of history and realpolitik.

Best wishes

David Cromwell

In another damning indictment, Media Lens co-editor David Edwards exposes the Guardian's repeated complicity and preferred viewing of Obama:

"Despite all of this, a Guardian editorial offered a strikingly different judgement. Noting that Obama had decided to authorise military aid on the basis 'that Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against the opposition', the editors commented:

'That use is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime.'

These are among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian. Despite the indisputable fraudulence of US-UK claims regarding Iraqi WMD, an equally staggering litany of lies on Libya, and despite the existence of gaps and doubts so reminiscent of Iraq 2002-2003, the Guardian is willing to quietly endorse the latest claims on Syria – 'Assad' clearly has used chemical weapons and that use should be added to the charge sheet against him. Once again, when it really matters, the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda."

Obama's arms pledge, alongside ending of the EU arms embargo, takes us yet another alarming step towards an all-out Western attack on Syria, now most likely facilitated by an impending no-fly zone and ultimate Libya-style aerial bombardment.

Besides provoking Russia, it now draws every other regional state into a direct war crisis.  Thus we see the compliance of Egypt and Jordan, now in effective coalition with the US/Nato and Saudi/Gulf axis.

Alongside Lebanon and Hezbollah's increasing involvement, we also see Iran's responsive decision to send 4000 troops to aid the Syrian government, providing a further Western excuse to continue hostilities against Tehran.

Nor is the election of 'moderate' Iranian president Hassan Rouhani likely to lessen the threatening actions of the West, either in relation to Syria or sanctions-battered Iran itself. And how predictable to hear Obama, Cameron and Hague now requesting Rouhani to 'prove' his 'liberalised credentials' through diplomacy while the West pile weaponry into Syria.

Likewise, Israel's tactical desire is for ongoing warfare, greater destabilisation of Syria, and eventual humbling of Iran.

Contrary to the 'reluctant missionary' message from the BBC and other power-serving media, Obama is deeply and energetically mired in all these dark manoeuvrings.    

While Mardell waxes lyrical about Obama's 'pragmatic' considerations, the mass shifting of arms to the Syrian opposition and, inevitably, jihadist, forces - "because guns are currency" - has created terrifying new prospects for more mass civilian deaths.

Already responsible for criminal drone strike killings and prolonging the agony of Afghanistan, Obama is also now directly to blame for promoting intensified murder and suffering in Syria. 

But, then, Mardell, the Guardian and so much of our 'heart-searching' liberal media "see Obama in a different way".

Drone killers - diplomas in death

Admirable denunciation of drones
at Lush company store front, Glasgow

Imagine the fear of letting your children out to play knowing they might be murdered by an anonymous person sitting in a control room thousands of miles away.

Welcome to the drone age. Or, more immediately, the most unwelcome terror for those at the receiving end of US drone missiles.   

As a new study reveals, "for every high-level suspect in Pakistan, the U.S. military kills 49 other people who we know little to nothing about and at least three of those 49 are children."

Although support in the US for drone killing has decreased by 18 per cent this past year, around two thirds of Americans still approve of their use. In Pakistan, only 5 per cent approve.

Perhaps those figures in the US would look the same as Pakistan's if their children were being blown to pieces in the streets.

How easily approval is given when far away others are being bombed, particularly when told that it's all for the 'higher cause' of 'defeating terrorism'.

One is reminded here of the famous Milgram experiment which encouraged participants to inflict electric shock torture on another person:

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

So it seems for the American and wider public. For drone killers or citizens at large, the administering of violence on others rests on the psychological security of authoritative promptings and assurances.  

And what of the psychological impact on those carrying out drone killings? One 'operative', Brandon Bryant, now says that he is haunted by his actions:

"After participating in hundreds of missions over the years, Bryant said he “lost respect for life” and began to feel like a sociopath. He remembers coming into work in 2010, seeing pictures of targeted individuals on the wall – Anwar al-Awlaki and other al Qaeda and Taliban leaders -- and musing, “Which one of these f_____s is going to die today?"

In 2011, as Bryant’s career as a drone operator neared its end, he said his commander presented him with what amounted to a scorecard. It showed that he had participated in missions that contributed to the deaths of 1,626 people.

“I would’ve been happy if they never even showed me the piece of paper,” he said. “I've seen American soldiers die, innocent people die, and insurgents die. And it's not pretty. It's not something that I want to have -- this diploma.”

Now that he’s out of the Air Force and back home in Montana, Bryant said he doesn’t want to think about how many people on that list might’ve been innocent: “It’s too heartbreaking.”

Reflective and revealing words. But what greater loss and heartbreak for the families of the many victims. As Alex Thomson reminds us:

"The real victims of the ever-expanding US drone operations are, of course, the innocents killed and recently disclosed classified CIA evidence underlines their number is large."

Should we feel compassion for Bryant? Yes. He is a paid killer, but one who, at least, has shown painful awareness of his dark deeds, crimes that will likely cause him mental suffering for the rest of his life.

Should he be brought to account for his actions? Again, surely, yes, but in conjunction with the much more urgent prosecution of those who order and oversee such crimes. As established at Nuremberg, those highest up the chain of command are the most responsible.

As with gradations of responsibility, one of the questions that might one day be posed in that high crimes court is why death by drone is seen as a more 'palatable' form of military murder than any other. 

It takes a certain kind of dehumanised mind to proclaim that eliminating others with drones is fine, but murdering them with a chemical weapon is 'red line' reprehensible. Aided by a media fascinated, rather than repelled, by weapons technology and capability, this bestows upon Obama and his Nato friends a 'moral militarism' which, while notionally questioned, is never condemned as criminal and barbaric. 

Besides the outright wickedness of drone killing, and the moral hypocrisy of those advocating it in their spurious 'war on terror', it's not difficult to see its sheer futility.  

What makes anyone think that killing people in terrifying drone strikes, or military killing in general, will temper or eradicate hatred of the West?

What view of America will the parents of a child cut to bits by a drone rocket harbour towards that country and its allies?

Doesn't killing a Taliban leader only make his replacement inevitably more hateful and bent on violent revenge?

Of course, alienation, division, fear, insecurity and the perpetuation of conflict is precisely the kind of world that arms profiteers and their political representatives must continually cultivate.  

As we've been seeing in the West's 'concern for Syria', the only 'solution' they understand and advocate is more guns and violence. And the only outcome of all that can be more drone terror, more wars, more human heartbreak.

Iran and Syria - putting the liberals right

As fearmongering over Iran and appeals for 'decisive intervention' in Syria intensify, it's illuminating to come across journalists usually associated with right-wing outlets offering substantive facts and comment to the contrary.

It also 'raises the bar' for what most of the liberal media could and should be saying on Iran, Syria and other 'problem' states - though there may be no such 'hope' for our state media, the BBC, which seems fixed on its daily diet of demonisation and war promotion.   

In that comparative vein, here's two articles well worth consulting. 

The first, in particular, is from the Telegraph's chief political commentator Peter Oborne who, with co-author David Morrison, provides an astonishing demolition of the 'Iranian nuclear threat' and other sundry falsehoods over Iran. 

The opening sequence of this piece (taken from their book A Dangerous Delusion) is a fine 'pocketised' rebuttal in itself of the multiple lies and mythologies attributed to Iran:

"At this point it may be helpful to state the basic facts about Iran’s nuclear activities:

• Iran has no nuclear weapons.

 

• Since 2007, US intelligence has held the opinion that Iran hasn’t got a programme to develop nuclear weapons and has regularly stated this opinion in public to the US Congress.

 

• The IAEA does not assert that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons programme.

 

• Iran does have uranium-enrichment facilities. But as a party to the NPT, Iran has a right to engage in uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. Other parties to the NPT, for example, Argentina and Brazil, do so. Iran is not in breach of any of its obligations under the NPT.

 

• As required by the NPT, Iran’s enrichment facilities are open to inspection by the IAEA, as are its other nuclear facilities. Over many years, the IAEA has verified that no nuclear material has been diverted from these facilities for possible military purposes. Iran is enriching uranium up to 5% U-235, which is appropriate for fuelling nuclear power reactors for generating electricity, and up to 20% U-235, which is required for fuelling the Tehran Research Reactor.

 

• While Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection, those of Israel and India (allies of the United States) are almost entirely closed to the IAEA. Yet Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, is the object of ferocious economic sanctions and threats of military action. By contrast, Israel (with perhaps as many as 400 nuclear bombs, and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East) is the object of more than $3 billion a year of US military aid.

These are basic facts about Iran’s nuclear activities, facts that are (if you search for them) in the public domain. Yet the mainstream media in Britain rarely mentions any of them. As a result, almost all of its reporting is misleading, and some of it completely false."

Oborne and Morrison go on to expose the many pernicious misrepresentations of Iran, noting how the BBC can speak of "its nuclear weapons programme", while others like the Economist routinely write about "Iran's nukes".

Detailing the many IAEA reports refuting Western claims of 'nuclear weapons intent', the authors remind us that "the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has declared the possession of such weapons a ‘grave sin’."

They go on to dispel many other long-promoted myths, notably the standard falsehood of Ahmadinejad 's 'threat' to 'wipe Israel off the map'. 

The piece culminates in a neatly-imagined re-write of what David Cameron should, in truth, be saying in his speeches about Iran: 

"Despite the impression given by our media, I don’t think Iran’s nuclear activities are a threat to the UK. Nobody, not even Israel, believes that Iran has already developed a nuclear weapon. And I would remind you that, since 2007, US intelligence has judged that Iran hasn’t even got a programme to develop nuclear weapons."

So, from Oborne and Morrison, a sober negation of the daily deceptions propagated by those seeking to vilify and attack Iran. 

Read and use it as reference next time you need something to counter such biased and ill-informed claims. (Readers may also refer to Oborne's brave exposure of the UK's Israeli lobby and his recent piece on the apparent cover-up at the Chilcot inquiry.)

The second revealing article comes from the Daily Mail's leading columnist Peter Hitchens writing on Syria.

Beyond even the Telegraph, it's unusual for this blog to be airing opinion from a virulent organ like the Mail. Yet, are we seeing much better opinion on Syria or Iran from the coy, contorted editorials at the Guardian? 

With that in mind, consider this key extract from what Hitchens has to say about Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, William Hague and the BBC:

"I do not like the Syrian government. Why should I? It is not much different from most Middle-Eastern nations, in that it stays in power by fear. The same is true of countries we support, such as Saudi Arabia, recently honoured with a lengthy visit by Prince Charles. In fact Saudi Arabia is so repressive that it makes Assad’s Syria look like Switzerland. And don’t forget the places we liberated earlier, which are now sinks of violence and chaos – Iraq, Libya.

So many high ideals, so much misery and destruction. My old foe Mehdi Hasan (who understands the Muslim world better than most British journalists) rightly pointed out on ‘Question Time’ on Thursday that our policy of backing the Syrian rebels is clinically mad.

These are the very same Islamists against whom – if they are on British soil - government ministers posture and froth, demanding that they are deported, silenced, put under surveillance and the rest. But when we meet the same people in Syria, we want to give them advanced weapons. One of these ‘activists’, a gentleman called Abu Sakkar, recently publicly sank his teeth into the bleeding heart of a freshly-slain government soldier.

I confess that I used to think highly of William Hague. I now freely admit that I was hopelessly wrong. The man has no judgement, no common sense, and is one of the worst Foreign Secretaries we have ever had, which is saying something.  His policies –disgracefully egged on by a BBC that has lost all sense of impartiality - are crazily creating war where there was peace.

Syria for all its faults was the last place in the region where Arab Christians were safe. Now it never will be again. Who benefits from this? Not Britain, for certain.

Now, his strange zeal for lifting the EU arms embargo has caused Moscow to promise a delivery of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Israel has threatened to destroy them if deployed. Syria has said it will respond with force.  This is exactly how major wars start. Mr Hague is not just pouring petrol into a blazing house full of screaming people. He is hurling high explosives in as well.

It may even be that some people actually want such a war, with Iran as its true target. They know that ‘weapons of mass destruction’ will not work again as propaganda. So they claim to be fighting for ‘democracy’ in Syria." [My emphasis.]

Hitchens may not seem a figure to be cited in matters of left/anti-war discourse. His primary concern seems to be for 'this country', rather than for war-ravaged others. Think also of his various rants on immigration, 'benefit cheats' and other 'social miscreants'.  

Yet, most of his words here are acutely right about the war proponents and their specious 'diplomacy'. Indeed, they might not seem out of place on the pages of the Socialist Worker. 

Again, by the same standard, what does such comment from a generalised conservative like Hitchens say about the poverty of Guardian, Independent and other 'critical liberal' media writing on Iran and Syria? 

And isn't it also significant that the BBC is being so readily-savaged by people like Oborne and Hitchens over its bias and war-promoting output?   

As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus eagerly writes, France's latest claims over the 'use of sarin gas by Assad forces' are "potentially a game changer".

It's another intimation of the West's 'crossed red line', faithfully repeated by the BBC, another spurious claim duly highlighted in the 'case for war'. 

Meanwhile, the BBC continues its usual demonisation of Iran with a 'curtain call' for Ahmadinejad, "one of the world's most divisive leaders".

Can we trust either Britain's state media or its liberal press to hold Cameron, Hague and their fearmongering associates to account? People like Oborne and Hitchens might not seem palatable critics to many on the left, but, unlike much of our quivering liberal media, they surely understand, and are prepared to denounce, the dark mendacity of those seeking more intervention and war.     

Iraq fatalities poll - key questions for the media

If, as the saying goes, the first casualty of war is truth, the extent of death and casualties in Iraq is a truth so vastly hidden from the general public it might be regarded as an outright victory for the war-making establishment.

But the first casualty of war isn't just truth. It's more specific. As John Pilger, taking us beyond the safe liberal version of that easy maxim, reminds us:

The oldest cliché is that truth is the first casualty of war. I disagree. Journalism is the first casualty. Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship that goes unrecognised in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries, such as Iraq.

All of which indicates a damning level of assistance from the mass media in that greatest of crimes and deceptions.

As a recent campaign-funded ComRes poll suggests, public recognition of the numbers killed in the Iraq war has been massively manipulated and media-massaged.

As detailed by Joe Emersberger, two questions were put to a representative sample of 2021 British adults (24-27 May 2013).

The first asks:

How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003? Please just give your best estimate.

The responses are summarized below:

Up to 5,000………………44%

5,001 - 10,000…………..15%

10,001 - 20,000…………..7%

20,001 - 50,000…………..8%

50,001 - 100,000………..11%

100,001 - 500,000………10%

500,001 - 1,000,000……...4%

1,000,001+………………...2%

Don't know/Not stated…….0.3%

The second question asks:

What percentage of Iraqi deaths as a result of the war do you think were civilian ie non combatants? Please give a percentage from 1-100. Please just give your best estimate.

The results were widely dispersed. Fifty percent thought that less than half Iraqi deaths were civilians.

Astonished by the findings, Channel 4 News chief correspondent Alex Thomson believes the poll "shows [a] public perception wildly at odds with reality."

As his own summary of the data notes:

Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003.

One in 10 (10 per cent) think that between 100,000 and 500,000 have died and one in 20 (6 per cent) think that more than 500,000 have died.

According to public estimates, the mean number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion is 189,530.

Women in Britain are more likely to underestimate the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion than men. Half (53 per cent) of women think 5,000 or fewer deaths have occurred since the invasion compared to one-third (35 per cent) of men.

Thomson comments:

Perhaps that last figure is the most startling – a majority of women and more than a third of men polled say fewer than 5,000 deaths have occurred. That figure is so staggeringly, mind-blowingly at odds with reality as to leave a journalist who worked long and hard to bring home the reality of war, speechless. If we believe the results, then war-makers in government will take great comfort, as will the generals who work so hard to peddle the lie of bloodless warfare, with all the cockpit video propaganda video news releases and talk of “collateral damage” instead of “dead children”. Equally – questions for us on the media that after so much time, effort and money, the public perception of bloodshed remains stubbornly, wildly, wrong. [My emphasis.] 

Commendable words, indeed, from Thomson. How many other leading journalists are likely to follow his remarks in such an open, concerned way?

And yet, besides the mass level of public unawareness, what does this really say about our media's own disgraceful performance?

As Thomson states, "equally - questions for us in the media". Yet, shouldn't that be so much more than just "equally"? Shouldn't it be "predominantly"?

It's expected that those so geared-up for such mass killing are equally up for the propagandist presentation of it. But where that kind of blanket screening of death and suffering is happening, shouldn't it be the primary and urgent task of an honest, vigilant media not only to check the lies and mendacity of the politicians and military, but also the complicit role of their own media organisations and associates in facilitating all that distortion?

Thomson writes as a journalist genuinely outraged and not a little perplexed by the media's 'failures' here. Yet, while approving of his humanitarian sentiments, why the "speechless" astonishment?

Someone of Thomson's ability to see through so much other establishment criminality and subterfuge can surely recognise the kind of powerful forces and pressures serving to keep media presentation of such issues safely policed and moderated.

That includes not just obvious state-supportive media, the BBC, but also Channel 4 News, whose lead presenter Jon Snow recently commented:

"it is eternally controversial..from my own experience reporting in Iraq the IBC count has always seemed very low..I try not to use it....The Lancet figure may be more truthful...I doubt we can be more accurate in reality than say that credible sources believe more than half a million died and at least four million were displaced."

If Jon Snow and Alex Thomson have key doubts about the veracity of 'accepted' figures, why have Channel 4 News been continuously running the government-favoured Iraq Body Count number?

Shouldn't that be a crucial question in its own right?

Again, we (or, at least, some of us) can see the dark motives of a political-military machine that, expediently, 'doesn't do body counts' - an outrageous crime in itself. But what does it say about our 'vanguard' media that it also hasn't made the body count, and official negation of it, a pressing, vital issue?

And always remember, we're not talking here about some standard piece of political shenanigans. We're talking about the deaths, the lives, the memories, the historical witnessing of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

How could such a staggering crime and cover-up be so routinely admonished and ignored?

Besides starting to amplify the much higher death figures, hitherto suppressed, that's the key, self-examining question the media itself should be posing in the wake of this invaluable poll.

Syria - more arms, more killing

The European Union's decision to drop the arms embargo on Syrian opposition forces signals a depressing new turn in that country's already tortured civil war.

And how familiar to see Britain and William Hague leading the case for gifting EU arms to the 'rebels'.

As Channel 4 News correspondent Alex Thomson tweeted:

"How I'd love to take W Hague to Syria next time and have him explain how his arms will only get to the "right" gunmen. Assinine. [sic]"

"don't make a bloody situation bloodier".

Alongside strong warnings from Oxfam, the point is reinforced by politics lecturer Andrew Mumford, outlining the high risks of proxy interventions:

"The understanding that proxy interventions actually prematurely end an existing conflict belies evidence that on the whole they actually prolong such conflicts largely because a weak warring faction is boosted to the point of creating stalemate. A flood of weapons or surrogate forces into an existing warzone gives one or other of the parties involved further motivation and support to fight on, not collapse or seek negotiation. With Britain and France now boldly declaring their desire to ship arms to the insurgents, Syria seems destined to endure a bloody extension of its civil war."

Mumford also notes the considerable risk of 'blowback' across Europe in response to such provocation, something Hague and his French associate Laurent Fabius seem to have wilfully ignored. 

But why, 'inexplicably', did twenty five other 'resistant' EU member states apparently cave-in to the British-French lobby?

A reasonable clue might be John Kerry's offering of a 'helping hand' in the matter, 'encouraging' the EU to go along with the UK-French call.

In response, Russia has stepped-up its armed support of the Syrian government. As reported:

"The move by Moscow was criticised by the White House, which said arming the Syrian government did "not bring the country closer to the desired political transition" that it deserved."

Rich words, indeed, from America - even if Russia is also to be condemned for piling on the weaponry - yet all all too typical of Obama's slick wordplay.

There's also, of course, Israel's weapons-wielding hypocrisy, bombing provocations and now counter-threats to Russia, all making for a deepening war scenario.

With US endorsement, Hague is talking-up a 'level playing field' for Syria, evading the awkward certainty of arms reaching the al Qaeda-linked forces now leading the Syrian opposition.

Significantly, it's this aspect that's being posed by the BBC and other media as 'the key question', the liberal 'dilemma', rather than the actual increase of arms and inevitability of more killing.      

As Shamus Cooke notes on both Western and Saudi manoeuvring over Syria and the region, few of the serious questions of source, association, delivery and intention are being asked:

One question the U.S. media never thinks of asking is: Where did all these Islamic extremists come from and why? The Sunni Islamic opposition inside Syria has long been religiously moderate, implying that many of the extremists are foreigners.

The ideological source of this extremism came from Saudi Arabian religious figures and their allies, who use Islam as a political tool to target nations “unfriendly” to Saudi Arabia and the United States. The most glaring example of this in regard to Syria was the Fatwa (official interpretation/statement) issued by 107 Islamic scholars that denounced the Syrian government and encouraged Muslims to fight against it. The statement essentially encouraged jihad, though the word wasn’t mentioned explicitly.

The statement includes:

“It is a duty for all Muslims to support the revolutionaries in Syria [against the government] … so that they can successfully complete their revolution and attain their rights and their freedom.”

The hypocrisy of such a statement is almost too glaring: the many Saudi figures who signed the document that want “freedom” in Syria are not demanding freedom in Saudi Arabia, by far the country with the least amount of freedoms in the world.

With Saudi Arabia and Qatar providing guns to the Syrian rebels — with help from the CIA — the Saudi religious figures attached to the Saudi regime give religious/political support by misleading devout Muslims to flock to Syria to attack a country of Muslims, thus creating the giant sectarian divisions we now see throughout the Islamic world.

And so, as in the spiralling Sunni-Shia carnage across Iraq and Libya, Syria is also feeling the double and interconnected spectre of Western 'assistance' and sectarian killing.

While, post-Woolwich, Cameron urges a renewed battle against Islamic extremism, the dark paradox is that the West is helping to wipe-out another secular entity in the region.  

As Cooke concludes:

Obama has taken the saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” to irrational heights, and in so doing is helping to produce a new generation of Islamic extremists that will help fuel the U.S.-led never-ending “war on terror.” The real intention of the War on Terror is not to stop terrorists, but to target nation states that are opposed to U.S. foreign policy: Iraq and Libya — like Syria — were both secular countries at the time of their being invaded; Afghanistan was invaded even though the vast majority of those involved in the 9-11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. There was no terrorist problem in Iraq before the U.S. invaded, just like there was no terrorist problem in Syria before the U.S.-backed rebels came onto the scene.

Thus, we see another Western-promoted calamity, causing ever greater destabilisation and misery in the region.

Meanwhile (invoking a useful Media Lens term), "here's one we liberated earlier".

Calling time on the corporate media

David Edwards, one editorial half of the ever-challenging Media Lens, asks today at the ML board:

Time to abandon the corporate media? 

It's something we've proposed in the past. Imagine if all our favourite dissident commentators - Chomsky, Pilger, Greenwald, Hedges, Moore, Klein, Weisbrot, Jay et al - deprived the corporate media of their support and worked under a single cooperative umbrella sending out everything completely, 100% free, as we do. How much global public interest and support do you think they'd generate? I think it would be huge. It might persuade other corporate dissidents to 'defect'. And here's the real thing, because none of them would need to worry about upsetting corporate gatekeepers, they could all be totally honest in their analysis, notably about the media (even the best of them are not, currently, for 'strategic' reasons relating to corporate inclusion). That would make their analyses even more honest and interesting. People would love it even more, attracting even more support. And when you look at climate inaction, it's clear that the attempt to change the world through corporate inclusion has been a spectacular failure on even the most obviously crucial issue. Does anyone really believe it's going to improve? DE

Between the mass distortions peddled by state media like the BBC and what passes for a 'progressive liberal-left' media, has there ever been a more pressing need to develop something truly alternative?

And bear in mind that the working foundations for it are all essentially in place with already vibrant non-corporate online media outlets like Real News, Democracy Now, ZNet and, of course, Media Lens itself.

The fact that the most substantive part of public exposure to news, information and comment is also online, rather than in print, suggests a massive new opportunity for shifting decisively now to something truly radical in its independence and outreach.

While it's good to read, for example, a Greenwald or Milne piece at the Guardian, dissident output is still carefully policed and compromised by corporate-liberal constraints.

And that process of token media inclusion and incorporation is vital in maintaining popular control and passive acceptance of the whole system.     

Consider the alternative: the same kind of writers and even less inhibited analysis coming from a 'Free Media Co-operative'. Why would that have any less of a global following and impact?

And just think of the radical publicity in itself as corporations and advertising-dependent media tried to take it down.

As the forces driving war, poverty, austerity and, most pressingly, climate change continue their rampant destruction of people and planet, the need for real citizen journalism should be seen as an emergency task. 

Alarming times. Exciting times.

Woolwich to Kabul - getting street-wise about war

In the wake of the Woolwich killing of a soldier, many, including the dead man's family, have expressed bewilderment that 'this kind of thing' could have happened on 'our streets'.

Yet, where should wars, 'our' wars, be waged? On the 'Arab Street'? On the 'High Street'? On Baghdad's streets? On London's streets? On 'their' streets? On 'our streets'? 

Have a look here at the list of horrific deaths and injuries inflicted by Nato forces on Afghan streets:

2001-2006       2007 
 
2008       2009       2010

2011       2012       2013
 
And then care to reflect on why many people appalled by Woolwich also seem so perplexed and angry.

Could a key part of the reason be that, unlike Woolwich, so many 'here' receive almost no information on such fatalities and, thus, hold little regard for what's happening 'over there'?

Is their condemnation and anger motivated only by base human concern over an awful killing or conditioned also by a gross imbalance in their view of war-assaulted 'others'?  

In stark contrast to what happens when a soldier dies, whether 'here' or 'there', Afghan deaths are ignored and anonymised: where are their names and faces, their voices and stories, the mass media coverage of their deaths and families' suffering?

That, of course, covers just some of the staggering tragedy that is Afghanistan. Just think of the many more grieving families that have cried just as painfully over lost loved ones on Iraqi streets, on Libyan streets and, for over six decades of Israeli occupation and murder, on Palestinian streets - for, in its consistent support of Israel, that's also a Western-waged war.

As we rightly think of another family's terrible personal loss on a Woolwich street, try to imagine, if that's not too difficult amid the mass propaganda, a 'global street'; one on which we all live, where, on some ravaged parts of it, many more suffer and die horrendous deaths, victims of war and aggression routinely waged against 'them', but seldom troubling 'us'.

When invasion and persecution 'there' become intolerable, others, as seen, will likely take to 'our end of the street' intent on waging savage retribution. Whether the perpetrators are raised 'here' or come with dark intent from 'there' makes no essential difference, either to the nature of their grievance or their terrible, mistaken means of 'redressing' it. 

The violence such people bring to 'our' part of the street does nothing to help those suffering at the war-broken end. Indeed, it only intensifies their suffering as such acts are further used to legitimise illegal wars and intensify the spurious 'war on terror'. Result: more violence, more blowback, more street hatred, more disturbing powers for the state to impose upon the street at large.

Contrary to Jonathan Freedland's illogical claim that left voices are using such attacks to 'make their anti-war case', and should refrain from doing so, it's not remotely hard for any rational, or street-savvy, mind to see that Western invasions and Nato killing will only increase the likelihood of such responsive atrocities.  So, why is Freedland not speaking about the massive and irrational propaganda process serving to stifle that truth rather than questioning the motives of those trying to expose it?  

Nor, for Glenn Greenwald, should we be surprised now by the art of distortion which, blatantly or mendaciously, seeks to castigate such views as 'warped' or the conclusions of 'terror apologists'.     

That, in turn, gives licence to other misguided people, like the EDL, now pledged to 'defend our streets' with their own hate-fuelled threats and  retributive violence.

Such escalation is ugly enough, most obviously for an anxious Muslim community once again compelled to demonstrate its 'peaceful intent'. Yet, how darkly ironic that while Muslims are being killed in their millions in places 'over there', it is also the very religious community 'here' that's most under attack as a 'threat to our civilization'.

Whatever the complexities of conflicting Islamic strands, or problem of jihadi fanaticism, that's a remarkable inversion, one which seems not to merit serious reflection from 'our civilizing' media now talking-up an 'inevitable clash of civilizations'. 

All that serves as a vital smokescreen for Western war policy. For Cameron, it helps divert attention from the political rather than religious issues behind Woolwich and other such attacks. 

For while we should, indeed, fear the irrationality of the religious-driven zealot, Muslim, Christian or otherwise, what greater suspicion should we have of the righteous political warmonger and their zealous adherence to corporate-driven militarism?    

And isn't it also perversely ironic that Saudi Arabia, the very state now forefronting the export and funding of violent religious jihadism in Syria, is the one most closely protected by Britain? 

While Cameron is busy selling even more weaponry to that fundamentalist entity and backing the jihadist end-users in Syria, he is calling for a 'responsible' Islamic community to 'work with us' in serving to 'root out the extremists'. If only more of 'us' were being encouraged to think about that vast deception and hypocrisy.

Instead, Boris Johnson and other war-promoting populists get to proclaim their 'Britain carries on' messages, urging more vigilant and defiant defence of 'our streets'.            

Here, beyond such jingoism and deceit, is a more inclusive piece of street thought: it's not just 'our' street that matters, it's everyone's street, one which we share a common duty to look after, with equal concern for all living on it.

Hopefully the stark imagery of a Woolwich street will not only serve as a disincentive to other brooding individuals contemplating irrational, useless violence, but also make people a little more street-wise about the much darker set of violent forces killing wilfully around the world and fuelling those very illusionary thoughts.