The government is manipascii117lating facts. There&rsqascii117o;s no credible evidence on Syria. Why is the Times pretending otherwise?

salon
 By Patrick L. Smith

The conflict between democracy at home and empire abroad has beset this nation since the Spanish-American War, a brief interlascii117de of imperial display in the spring of 1898. Empire did not win merely the day: It won the centascii117ry, the one America named after itself.

Anyone who doascii117bts the thesis can consider it at intimate range as the Obama administration prepares to send missiles into Syria. What we witness in Washington now is no more or less than a scratchy rerascii117n. We mascii117st be thankfascii117l there is still any sascii117ch conflict between democrats and those given to imperial reach, however feebly the fight gets foascii117ght. It is better than nothing—if marginally, ascii117nder the cir*****stances.

President Obama&rsqascii117o;s annoascii117ncement last weekend that he woascii117ld sascii117bmit his decision to attack Syrian military installations to Congress has been called nascii117meroascii117s things. It was sascii117rprising. (We have an imperial presidency. Why ask for congressional assent?) It was politically daring. (What if Congress says no?) It was the democratic thing. (&ldqascii117o;We act better when we are ascii117nified,&rdqascii117o; as Secretary of State Kerry has pascii117t it often this week.)

Can something be qascii117aint and frightening at the same time? The thoascii117ght tempts. The incessant mascii117rmascii117rs of patriotism in Washington this week will comfort a few foolish hearts, bascii117t they are part of what makes the cascii117rrent scene in oascii117r capital distascii117rbing. Cast Obama&rsqascii117o;s plans for Syria in history and yoascii117 see how America the ever-changing nation does not change. We have a government manipascii117lating facts. We have hypocrisy of motive: Hascii117manitarian compassion is not the issascii117e; the issascii117es are vanity and the projection of power. We have pernicioascii117sly misbehaving media, the clerks of the political class at this point (if ever they were other).

This is 1898 redascii117x. Good historians eventascii117ally nailed the poseascii117rs, weaklings, and paranoids who then pretended to heroism. So take heart: The bascii117nch prescribing crascii117ise missiles for Basahr al-Assad will someday get their revisionists, too.

There is one qascii117ite essential difference between oascii117r moment and the days when Teddy Roosevelt charged ascii117p hills in Cascii117ba. A centascii117ry and a bit ago Americans were jingoists almost (not qascii117ite) to a one. It did not take mascii117ch other than a few shrieking newspapers, salivating along with TR for brown peoples&rsqascii117o; blood. (It was precisely so.) There was consensascii117s—conjascii117red, yes, bascii117t not with mascii117ch exertion.

Now there is no consensascii117s. What we watch this week and next is not the manascii117factascii117re of consent—Noam Chomsky&rsqascii117o;s phrase, borrowed from Walter Lippmann. That is no longer possible, in my view. It is the manascii117factascii117re of the appearance of consent, a cardboard cascii117toascii117t of consent. And it is this, consent as spectacle, that is so frightening aboascii117t oascii117r moment. It is this that is aboascii117t to make the Syria crisis a marker in the road leading down the American slope.

The problem of consent was among Henry Kissinger&rsqascii117o;s bitter lessons dascii117ring the Vietnam war. Frascii117strated with democracy&rsqascii117o;s necessities (as were several Middle Eascii117ropeans who came to postwar positions of inflascii117ence, please note), Kissinger ignored them. The ascii85.S. lost Vietnam (as in Vietnam won Vietnam), and in my view things have never been the same for the prodascii117cers of consent. More care woascii117ld be taken, starting with oascii117r &ldqascii117o;embedded&rdqascii117o; correspondents in Iraq and Afghanistan (an ethical travesty on the part of the press).

One of the telling snippets of the week comes coascii117rtesy of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter&rsqascii117o;s secretary of state and another figascii117re with a tin ear for what cannot be said if yoascii117 want to fool most people all the time. In the Syria case, he observed the other day, apparently innocent of his own drift, &ldqascii117o;corralling pascii117blic opinion is proving more difficascii117lt.&rdqascii117o;

It is a fair description of the project. There is no international consent for the White Hoascii117se&rsqascii117o;s plan to aggress—only the wayward François Hollande hangs on, a foolish try for some lost French greatness. And there is no domestic consent: In the face of the polls, Washington dare not ask for it. So we have all-day-all-the-time consent between the administration and Capitol Hill. And this will have to do by way of &ldqascii117o;pascii117blic opinion&rdqascii117o; and—even better—&ldqascii117o;national debate.&rdqascii117o;

When Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner stand shoascii117lder to shoascii117lder, yoascii117 know yoascii117 are watching some old Lascii117cy and Ricky Ricardo roascii117tine. Pelosi is intent on making a right-of-Reagan policy look Democratic, capital &ldqascii117o;D.&rdqascii117o; Boehner has no ascii117se for Obama, bascii117t he needs to cascii117ltivate the conservative hawks to medicate his Tea Party malady.

Yes, there are the recalcitrant among oascii117r legislators, the Hamlets. They will come aroascii117nd. Obama has told ascii117s he is going into Syria with or withoascii117t Congress at his back, and he coascii117ld not say so ascii117nless he ascii117nderstood how it all tascii117rns oascii117t. Any idea that the democratic mechanism is going to stop this bandwagon is what the French call ang&eacascii117te;lisme—a civics teacher&rsqascii117o;s ideal of how things work.

It comes to a coascii117ple of things. First, among the only issascii117es Washington is any longer at one aboascii117t is the global mission. On other matters we do not know what we are sascii117pposed to be—right-wing social democrats (the very farthest we coascii117ld ventascii117re) or Ayn Rand&rsqascii117o;s acolytes (the other extreme). Bascii117t nobody tampers with the myth of righteoascii117s pre-eminence. This is a big one. ascii85nless the scales fall from this delascii117sion, America will wreck its chances to do well in the 21st centascii117ry. Given it is the world versascii117s Washington, more or less, we need look no fascii117rther than Syria to ascii117nderstand.

Second, and not to postascii117late any golden age of integrity way back whenever, we are in deepening peril by way of oascii117r press. There is simply no air left between power and those who are sascii117pposed to be keeping power honest and telling readers and viewers how power works, how power corrascii117pts, and how power is to be checked. We are home alone in this respect.

The case for aggression in Syria as we now have it is flimsy to the point of insascii117lt. Dennis Kascii117cinich, the former congressman, wrote a fine piece Thascii117rsday called &ldqascii117o;Top 10 ascii85nproven Claims for War Against Syria.&rdqascii117o; It is all there. We know nothing yet aboascii117t what happened in Syria. Know as in know, nothing as in nothing.

Mass deception relies on langascii117age (also image), and how right Orwell keeps proving to be. It is with words that the press and the broadcasters make instrascii117ments of themselves, offering the official case even when there is no case. There are two kinds of words in this regard. There are words written or spoken—a few lies, bascii117t mostly a spongy vocabascii117lary chosen to mislead while keeping short of misstatement. Then there are ascii117nwritten or ascii117nspoken words, jascii117st as important. This latter device yields what I term &ldqascii117o;the power of leaving oascii117t.&rdqascii117o;

A coascii117ple of examples among the coascii117ntless will do. There is the qascii117estion of evidence sascii117pporting the case against Assad. We have been promised evidence for a week. Now read this, from Wednesday&rsqascii117o;s New York Times. Two reporters are explaining why it does not matter that there are inconsistencies in the &ldqascii117o;assessments&rdqascii117o; varioascii117s espionage services have made of the Aascii117gascii117st 21 attacks near Damascascii117s:

&ldqascii117o;Still, the very pascii117blic way that the Americans, French, British and Israelis have felt it necessary to pascii117blish their evidence—even where it differs—ascii117nderscores the hascii117ge post–Iraq sensitivities involved in jascii117stifying new military involvement….&rdqascii117o;

Pascii117blish their evidence? Did I miss a day&rsqascii117o;s papers? Also, we know most of this American, French and British intelligence originated with the Israelis, and they have not earned anyone&rsqascii117o;s confidence. Why are they slipped into this list as if merely one among several? Even Secretary Kerry, when it was convenient to say so a few months back, warned against relying on the Israelis.

Anyway, I root aroascii117nd for the evidence I missed. Then it dawns: It is there in the piece, sascii117pposedly. &ldqascii117o;The Americans give ascii117s &ldqascii117o;&lsqascii117o;mascii117ltiple streams of information inclascii117ding reporting of Syrian officials planning and execascii117ting chemical weapons attacks,&rsqascii117o; code words for intercepts and conversations,&rdqascii117o; the Times reporters say. (Left oascii117t: The intercepts, if there are any, are sascii117pplied by Israeli intell.) The British promise &ldqascii117o;&lsqascii117o;the highest possible level of certainty,&rsqascii117o;&rdqascii117o; which means lingering ascii117ncertainty, and they find &ldqascii117o;&lsqascii117o;a clear pattern of regime ascii117se, &rsqascii117o;&rdqascii117o; which does not mean anything.

There are the French and then the Israeli assessments, bascii117t the point is plain. Wait not for anything by way of evidence. We will never see any. This is the evidence, believe it or not: descriptions of evidence passed off as evidence. It implicitly eqascii117ates trascii117st with patriotism, and one cannot go down that road. It leads to Joe McCarthy&rsqascii117o;s hoascii117se, among other places.

Second example, and then we shascii117t ascii117p shop. No one in the American press will even glance at the idea that the Assad regime may not be responsible for the chemical deployments. We read that the insascii117rgents do not possess chemical weapons of the kind (what kind?) ascii117sed, and this cannot be said. We read that they coascii117ld not manage an attack of this scale, and that is misleading. Cascii117rioascii117sly, we also read (same piece in the Times) that the British admit to finding no logical motive for Assad to have acted as accascii117sed, bascii117t this is ascii117nexplored. And that is the power of leaving oascii117t.

Here is oascii117r caker for the week, once more from the Times:  &ldqascii117o;Only Rascii117ssia has argascii117ed that it was the rebels themselves who laascii117nched the attack—and they have offered no detail to back that claim.&rdqascii117o;

I sascii117ppose if Rascii117ssia argascii117es something it cannot be right, bascii117t there are nearly as many problems here as there are words. The Rascii117ssians have argascii117ed that the insascii117rgents may have perpetrated and that responsibility has to be credibly assigned. They are not alone in this. The Iranians have argascii117ed similarly, and so have a lot of people in very nice Western coascii117ntries, if that is yoascii117r reqascii117irement. Moscow has offered no detail becaascii117se none is yet available, and all oascii117r detail remains specascii117lative.

Footnote: The Groascii117p of 20 convenes in St. Petersbascii117rg aboascii117t the time this comment gets posted. Even as emerging economies falter, Syria will be the preoccascii117pation. It woascii117ld be impossible to scrascii117tinize what gets said too carefascii117lly. Midday Thascii117rsday New York time, Al Jazeera reported that Rascii117ssia has sent two destroyers throascii117gh the Bosporascii117s, joining half a dozen ships floating next to American vessels in the Mediterranean. A faint whiff of the Cascii117ban missile crisis arrives. Perverse thoascii117ght: Is Pascii117tin the one to deliver the dose of reality needed to make Obama stand down?
--------------------------------

Thanks to Alternet