After the bloodbaths in Libya and Iraq, it is stunning that Democracy Now could host this pathetic non-debate between Joshua Landis and Karam Nachar about "Foreign Intervention in Syria".
Landis argued that "the dangers right now with arming the [Syrian] opposition, is that we’re not sure who to arm"
Nachar countered that he is "wary" that the minor qualms raised by Landis are used by people "who actually do not want the regime to be overthrown and who have always actually defended the legitimacy of the Syrian regime".
Given the horrific track record of the Western intervention, shouldn't progressives be staunch opponents to any form of Western military involvement in Syria?
It appears that is a perspective that has become too radical for Democracy Now to consider. In fairness, Amy Goodman did bring up to Nachar and Landis the view that Syria may be used as a pawn to bolster Western (and Israeli) hegemony in the region – and to threaten Iran. In a timid way, this at least intimated that the Western powers are dangerous.
Nachar, quite predicatbly, said taking such concerns seriously would lead to a "moral fiasco" if the rebels were not armed. Landis evaded the issue of malvolent Western intentions completely but acknowledged that US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan "haven't necessaritly helped the situation" – a monstrous statement for reasons that should be obvious. Landis added that there is "nothing strange about a reluctance to jump in" but that, of course, the US should anyway.
The most dangerous criminals in the world are the US and their rich allies. I don't expect this point to be mentioned in the corporate press. However, on Democracy Now! I thought it might receive serious consideration. How high do the corpses have to pile up before that point becomes the cental one in any discussion about Western intervention?
Of the main reasons the West is so dangerous is because of its mass media's capacity to bury the evidence of its crimes. We see a striking illustration of that in the way Amy Goodman has regulary introduced segments on Syria by saying that it is "the Arab Spring’s bloodiest conflict to date."
In fact, Amy Goodman should know that gruesome honor goes to Libya – AFTER NATO's bombing.
As Seumas MIlne pointed out in the Guardian:
'What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.'
The corproate media's reach is extensive indeed when we see that even non-coproate alternative media outlets like Democracy Now! swallow key falsehoods and fail to challenge its imperial assumptions.