{"id":331789,"date":"2017-10-24T00:32:12","date_gmt":"2017-10-23T23:32:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/nyt-laments-forever-wars-its-editorials-helped-create\/"},"modified":"2017-10-24T00:32:12","modified_gmt":"2017-10-23T23:32:12","slug":"nyt-laments-forever-wars-its-editorials-helped-create","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/nyt-laments-forever-wars-its-editorials-helped-create\/","title":{"rendered":"NYT Laments \u2018Forever Wars\u2019 Its Editorials Helped Create"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"New<\/p>\n

In considering why “the public is quiet” about the United States’ unending wars, the New York Times<\/strong> (10\/23\/17<\/a>) fails to examine the failure of leading media outlets to actually oppose these wars.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Corporate media have a long history of lamenting wars they themselves helped sell the American public, but it\u2019s rare so many wars and so much hypocrisy are distilled into one editorial. On Monday, the New York Times<\/b> (10\/22\/17<\/a>) lamented the expansion of America\u2019s \u201cforever wars\u201d overseas, without once noting that every war mentioned is one the editorial board has itself endorsed, while failing to oppose any of the \u201cengagements\u201d touched on in the editorial.<\/p>\n

The Times <\/b>began by noting the sheer scope of US military reach:<\/p>\n

\n

The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9\/11 and now has just over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories\u2026. American forces are actively engaged not only in the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen that have dominated the news, but also in Niger and Somalia, both recently the scene of deadly attacks, as well as Jordan, Thailand and elsewhere. An additional 37,813 troops serve on presumably secret assignment in places listed simply as \u201cunknown.\u201d The Pentagon provided no further explanation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The editorial stops short of actually opposing anything specific, instead insisting, \u201cIt\u2019s time to take stock of how broadly American forces are already committed to far-flung regions and to begin thinking hard about how much of that investment is necessary.\u201d They are vaguely concerned; here we have this massive global empire, fighting an ever-changing nebulous enemy of \u201cterrorism,\u201d with no end in sight. What can be done? It\u2019s unclear\u2014but let\u2019s \u201ctake stock.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

The New York Times<\/strong> (10\/8\/01<\/a>) endorsed the invasion of Afghanistan…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Left unmentioned in the editorial: from Afghanistan<\/a> (both the 2001 invasion<\/a> and Obama’s 2009 surge<\/a>) to Iraq (the 2003\u00a0 2003 invasion<\/a> and Obama re-entering the country<\/a> in August 2014 to fight ISIS) to Syria (both CIA-backed regime change<\/a> and bombing ISIS<\/a>) to Korea<\/a> to our drone wars<\/a> in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the New York Times <\/b>has endorsed and often cheered every of these \u201cforever wars.\u201d And the \u201cengagements\u201d the Times<\/b> didn\u2019t expressly support (Thailand, Jordan, etc.), because they\u2019re so routine as to not merit mention, there\u2019s no record of them opposing. Indeed, as FAIR (3\/27\/17<\/a>) has noted previously, the New York Times<\/b> editorial board has not opposed a single US war since its equivocal and lukewarm opposition to Reagan’s invasion of Grenada 34 years ago (10\/30\/83<\/a>).<\/p>\n

When confronted<\/a> with this fact on Twitter<\/b>, New York Times <\/b>foreign and defense policy editorial writer Carol Giacomo responded<\/a>, \u201cIn last decade, NYT<\/b> editorial board has raised many questions about US military engagements.\u201d Raised many questions? Well, then, never mind; let\u2019s leave the Times<\/b>\u2019 role in the creation of said global empire unexamined.<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

…and the invasion of Iraq (New York Times<\/strong>, 2\/20\/03<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Times<\/b> spends a great deal of time trying to market itself as not being the rubber stamp pro-war outlet it manifestly is. To do this, it employs two main genres of nominal anti-war posturing. The first\u2014previously commented on by FAIR (3\/27\/17<\/a>)\u2014is to call for congressional approval of a war, without actually opposing it or arguing against its underlying moral or political validity. It\u2019s a process complaint that permits the New York Times<\/b> to look Very Concerned without the messy work of actually opposing anyone in power. The argument is never \u201cthis war is wrong or unjust\u201d; it\u2019s \u201cthis war may be great, but we have a legal problem of not getting congressional buy-in\u2014the absence of which is not problematic enough to make us actually oppose the war.\u201d<\/p>\n

The second is the morally half-assed \u201cno boots on the ground\u201d argument, like the one the Times<\/b> employed in support of bombing ISIS in Iraq in 2014 (8\/8\/14<\/a>) and the Syrian government in 2013 (8\/27\/13<\/a>). They insisted, for example, that Obama \u201cbest follow through\u201d on his threat to bomb the Syrian government, while still opposing \u201cdeep American involvement,\u201d whatever that meant. This genre supports bombing people\u2014typically brown and poor\u2014from afar, but draws the line at using US troops to augment the long-distance killing.<\/p>\n

The \u201cno boots on the ground\u201d pseudo-opposition is an admission that the only lives that matter are American, and that the PR pitfalls of body bags returning home on national TV are the only moral limit to the US invading and occupying other countries. Cruise missiles, drones, special forces raids, and covert funding and arming of dodgy rebel groups are A-OK, so long as there are no \u201cboots on the ground\u201d\u2014a cliche, as FAIR has noted (5\/19\/15<\/a>), that itself has an increasingly boutique definition.<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

…along with the bombing of ISIS (New York Times<\/strong>, 10\/2\/14<\/a>), and every other major new front in the “War on Terror.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Both of these genres permit the New York Times<\/b> to look like Conflicted Liberals, distressed about war without ever opposing it in any meaningful sense. Both modes typically involve appeals to gather more willing nations, other vague appeals to \u201cinternational support\u201d or running through legal motions, but, ultimately, after all the tortured language and qualifications, the Times<\/b> always\u2014always\u2014<\/i>ends up back at supporting the bombing. The Times<\/b> acts not as an outside voice holding power to account, but as US empire\u2019s internal compliance officer\u2014there to warn of excesses and problems around the margins, but always with the best interest of their NatSec client at heart.<\/p>\n

No such heavy-hearted qualifications, needless to say, exist for US enemies. Russia is \u201cengaging in aggressive and dangerous behavior in the air and on the high seas,\u201d the Times<\/b> (5\/19\/16<\/a>) insisted in an editorial condemning the \u201cduplicity of President Vladimir Putin.\u201d Iran\u2019s \u201cdestabilizing role in the Mideast\u201d is simply taken for granted (4\/24\/17<\/a>); its actions routinely \u201cdeserve condemnation\u201d (4\/7\/17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the US is presented as a good-faith arbiter of human rights and peacekeeping, with no broader military or cynical aims. \u201cAt least in recent decades,\u201d the Times <\/b>editorial board (2\/7\/17<\/a>) childishly put it earlier this year, \u201cAmerican presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy.\u201d Funny how that worked out.<\/p>\n

<\/span>