[The following post is by TDV Contributor, Wendy McElroy]
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
Obama has scammed the world into war...again. He is unlikely to repeat the facilitating lie this time, however. It was too thoroughly and quickly debunked for him to take the risk. Besides, there is no need. Iraq and Syria are already being bombed. Instead, the lie is now forgotten except by critics of Obama or of war.
The Lie And Why The Liars Told It
In early September, as he prepared to bomb Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress or the United Nations, Obama faced a dilemma. America had been actively at war for 13 years, ever since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. The public was war-weary. And the public would be voting Republican or Democrat in only two months time. How could he bomb with public support and without losing the election?
The situation was especially problematic for three reasons. There was general consensus that the new military front on terrorism would consume years and might require U.S. boots on the ground. Iraq and Syria posed no provable or imminent threat to the American homeland nor did they commit an act of war. And Obama had no constitutional, congressional, U.N. or other authority to launch yet another war.
In an article (Sept. 28) entitled “The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria,” journalists Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain explained how Obama solved his dilemma. The solution “was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat...'The Khorasan Group'. After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere,
a new terror group was created in media lore.” (Note: Khorasan is a former province of Iran. The term is sometimes used to reference a more general Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran region.)
The meticulous stripping of the lie came only 15 days after its debut. The debut: On September 13, about a week before the bombing of Syria began, the
Associated Press drew upon unnamed officials and classified (undisclosed) U.S. Intelligence assessments to warn of a new and deadlier terrorist threat. “At the center is...the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters.” The Khorasan group were “recruit[ing] Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner” with explosives and destroy airplanes. The
AP continued, “The Obama administration has said that the Islamic State group [ISIS], the target of more than 150 U.S. airstrikes in recent weeks, does not pose an imminent threat to the continental U.S. The Khorasan group, which has not been subject to American military action, is considered the more immediate threat.”
In an
anti-war.com article (Sept. 28) entitled “
They're Making Up Stuff,” Justin Raimondo explained the new group's importance to Obama. “What’s so fearsome about 'Khorasan'?” Raimondo asked, “Well, they couldn’t care less about establishing a Caliphate...and as for overthrowing Assad, the Khorasanians won’t stoop to conquer. No, nothing less than an attack on America, preferably using an airliner as a weapon of choice, will do. What they lack in originality they more than make up for when it comes to the all-important Imminence Factor.”
Problems one and two were diminished, if not entirely solved. Conveniently, the Khorasan group threatened the American homeland with violence, which is a traditional cause of war. The terrorists-on-steroids roused enough public rage and fear to justify an extended campaign against them...or, at least, to quiet or confuse most objections to it.
Still One Stumbling Block
But what of problem three: the lack of Congressional and U.N. approval?
The Congressional problem remains. Congress is not rushing back to vote on war; it will stay on hiatus until after the November 4
th election. For one thing, the Republicans who dominate the House are mostly hawkish and probably content enough with the status quo. They are also content to have Democrats absorb blow back or military disasters. Obama chose to bypass Congress so let the fall-out land on his shoulders. No wonder
Nancy Pelosi, the leading House Democrat, is calling for her colleagues to return early for a war vote. Their absence harms Democrats.
The U.N. problem remains. On October 3, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
called for “all warring sides in this brutal and bloody conflict [in Syria]....“to redouble their efforts to bring this horrific conflict to an end and help reach a long-overdue political solution.”
In short, stop bombing. Obama has tried to sidestep such criticism by organizing a coalition to support his Syrian policy; this gave the appearance of global consensus. The
Daily Mail reported “the U.S. is working with 60 other nations in these attacks against the terrorist group” as of September 28.
Domestic Acceptance Is Constructed
The path around political problems is to secure popular opinion. The corporate mainstream media lost no time in stirring the panic that promotes war. Airwaves, internet and print were filled with reports of the Khorasan's threat to average Americans. On September 20, a
New York Times headline declared, “U.S. Suspects More Direct Threats Beyond ISIS.” While admitting “[t]here is almost no public information about the Khorasan group,” the article went on to
state, “it is the cell in Syria that may be the most intent on hitting the United States or its installations overseas with a terror attack.”
On September 23, the Defense of Department (DOD)
announced that the U.S. had expanded its “action [in Syria] to disrupt the imminent attack...against the United States and Western interests conducted...by the Khorasan Group - who have established a safe haven in Syria to develop external attacks, construct and test improvised explosive devices and recruit Westerners.”
Even then, however, voices of skepticism spoke in the background. On the same day as the DOD's announcement, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace raised a red flag. Noting that “[t]he 'Khorasan Group' is a term that gained currency only in the past two week,” Carnegie remarked “[w]hat is being discussed is not a 'new terrorist group', but rather a special cell...of an already existing al-Qaeda franchise.” The article
concluded, “[t]he sudden flurry of revelations about the 'Khorasan Group' in the past two weeks smacks of strategic leaks and political spin.”
As skepticism grew, the corporate mainstream media began to backpedal. Five days after pushing the Khorasan story, The New York Times (Sept. 25) questioned the group's existence. It also observed that official accounts of the threat Khorasan posed “differed” and an attack on the American homeland was now being described as “aspirational” rather than “imminent.”
The pivotal point came on September 28 when Greenwald and Hussain blew the lid off the lie. They did so with such force that even liberal, pro-Democrat outlets such as
Democracy Now! began running
headlines such as, “How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along.”
Conclusion
In record time, a lie was born and died. But does the truth matter? The bombing goes on. Perhaps the saga will convince some Americans to vote differently in November. Even if they do, will Republicans be any better on the war issue? Whatever happens in America, the Iraqis and Syrians murdered by bombing raids that were launched will never draw breath again.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.