On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael
Morell a “mulligan” for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep
into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent animals by advocating the
murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive,
Morell did so despite Rose’s efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as
possible, trying to help Morell explain what
he meant about “killing” Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into submission.
In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to “make the Iranians pay a
price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in Syria.”
Rose: “We make them pay the price by killing Russians?”
Rose: “And killing Iranians?”
Morell: “Yes … You don’t tell the world about it. … But you make sure they
know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
In the follow-up
interview, some of Rose’s fretful comments made it clear that there
are still some American non-neocons around who were withholding applause for
Morell’s belligerent suggestion.
Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored
variety that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion
that U.S. bombing Syria to “scare” Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator
is the sole “indispensable” nation in the world).
Rose helped Morell ‘splain that he really did not want to have US Special Forces
kill Russians and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored
“moderate opposition” in Syria did that particular killing. But Morell would
not back away from his advocacy of the US Air Force bombing Syrian government
targets. That would be “an okay thing” in Morell’s lexicon.
The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population,
or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” That
would seem to cover Morell’s plan.
But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human
suffering already inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government
forces, rebels, terrorists and outside nations trying to advance one geopolitical
goal or another.
What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable
preconditions, such as outside demands for “regime change.” Instead, the focus
should be on creating conditions for Syrians to make that choice themselves
through elections or power-sharing negotiations.
Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more
aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that’s the sort
of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a…