Oh dear, here we go again!. Some sections of the media again beating the war drum. Read the response to a pro-war piece in The New York Times in this piece on CommonDreams collating what saner voices have to say - whilst pillorying Bill Keller at the Times.
"Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller is not the only un-'reluctant' war hawk under fire for publicly pushing for US military intervention in Syria, but for those who remember the media debacle that ushered in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, he has exemplified the troubling trend among the nation's pro-war punditry class.
Since Keller's column appeared in the 'paper of record' on Monday—following a weekend of disturbing news about Israeli airstrikes inside Syria and amidst shaky reports about "chemical weapons" and "red line" rhetoric—those seeking wiser guidance on the path forward in a deeply fragmented Middle East are hoping that people like Keller, so wrong when it came to Iraq, will be pilloried for their positions on Syria.
Pilloried—then disregarded.
In his op-ed, Keller describes that though his mistaken assessment of the Iraq war may have left him "gun-shy" about Syria at first, he is now of the opinion that the US should flex its military muscle in the war-torn country.
But, stating he was "frankly appalled" by both the "mindlessness" and prominence of Keller's article in the Times, noted foreign policy analyst Jim Lobe argued the piece is "filled with the same kind of arrogance that [Keller] brought to Iraq as a “reluctant hawk” ten years ago."
And AntiWar.com's John Glaser characterized the piece as "absurd," writing:
Keller lays out how terribly wrong he was for supporting the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq, and is now asking readers not to collapse in laughter as he speaks with an air of authority on why we should invade, or at least bomb, Syria.
Keller explains that “at the outset of the Iraq invasion, I found myself a reluctant hawk. That turned out to be a humbling error of judgment, and it left me gun-shy.” How harrowing the experience must have been for you, Bill – using your position as an opinion-shaper at the most widely read newspaper in the country to cheer-lead an illegal war that destroyed an entire country, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and cost trillions of dollars.
The Nation's Greg Mitchell, who literally wrote the book on media malfeasance and the Iraq War, pulled no punches, writing of Keller:
He says he was gun-shy after his Iraq flub—but no more! Now he derides Obama for “looking for excuses to stand pat.” He also provides several reasons why Syria is “not Iraq,” and how now his hawkishness is based on reality: This time we really can hurt the terrorists gathered there, really can calm tensions in the region, and so on. Instead of a “mushroom cloud,” he warns of the next chemical “atrocity.” And he claims there’s a broader coalition of the willing this time.
He even revives the good old “domino theory,” endorsing the view that if we don’t do something in Syria it will embolden China, North Korea and Iran. And I love this one, straight from 2003: Doing nothing “includes the danger that if we stay away now, we will get drawn in later (and bigger), when, for example, a desperate Assad drops sarin on a Damascus suburb….” If a surge in aid for those Al Qaeda–lovin’ rebels fails against Assad, then we “send missiles against his military installations until he, or more likely those around him, calculate that they should sue for peace.” Yeah, how did that work out in Iraq in the long run?"
"Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller is not the only un-'reluctant' war hawk under fire for publicly pushing for US military intervention in Syria, but for those who remember the media debacle that ushered in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, he has exemplified the troubling trend among the nation's pro-war punditry class.
Since Keller's column appeared in the 'paper of record' on Monday—following a weekend of disturbing news about Israeli airstrikes inside Syria and amidst shaky reports about "chemical weapons" and "red line" rhetoric—those seeking wiser guidance on the path forward in a deeply fragmented Middle East are hoping that people like Keller, so wrong when it came to Iraq, will be pilloried for their positions on Syria.
Pilloried—then disregarded.
In his op-ed, Keller describes that though his mistaken assessment of the Iraq war may have left him "gun-shy" about Syria at first, he is now of the opinion that the US should flex its military muscle in the war-torn country.
But, stating he was "frankly appalled" by both the "mindlessness" and prominence of Keller's article in the Times, noted foreign policy analyst Jim Lobe argued the piece is "filled with the same kind of arrogance that [Keller] brought to Iraq as a “reluctant hawk” ten years ago."
And AntiWar.com's John Glaser characterized the piece as "absurd," writing:
Keller lays out how terribly wrong he was for supporting the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq, and is now asking readers not to collapse in laughter as he speaks with an air of authority on why we should invade, or at least bomb, Syria.
Keller explains that “at the outset of the Iraq invasion, I found myself a reluctant hawk. That turned out to be a humbling error of judgment, and it left me gun-shy.” How harrowing the experience must have been for you, Bill – using your position as an opinion-shaper at the most widely read newspaper in the country to cheer-lead an illegal war that destroyed an entire country, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and cost trillions of dollars.
The Nation's Greg Mitchell, who literally wrote the book on media malfeasance and the Iraq War, pulled no punches, writing of Keller:
He says he was gun-shy after his Iraq flub—but no more! Now he derides Obama for “looking for excuses to stand pat.” He also provides several reasons why Syria is “not Iraq,” and how now his hawkishness is based on reality: This time we really can hurt the terrorists gathered there, really can calm tensions in the region, and so on. Instead of a “mushroom cloud,” he warns of the next chemical “atrocity.” And he claims there’s a broader coalition of the willing this time.
He even revives the good old “domino theory,” endorsing the view that if we don’t do something in Syria it will embolden China, North Korea and Iran. And I love this one, straight from 2003: Doing nothing “includes the danger that if we stay away now, we will get drawn in later (and bigger), when, for example, a desperate Assad drops sarin on a Damascus suburb….” If a surge in aid for those Al Qaeda–lovin’ rebels fails against Assad, then we “send missiles against his military installations until he, or more likely those around him, calculate that they should sue for peace.” Yeah, how did that work out in Iraq in the long run?"
Comments