Corporate Media Beating The Drums Of War

Before the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq occurred, the mainstream corporate-owned media in this country consistently and insistently beat the drum for war. In story after story, they made the case (wrongly) that both of those wars were necessary for the defense of the United States. They even ignored the offer by the Taliban government to turn Osama bin Laden over to the international court at The Hague, to be put on trial for the 9/11 attack on America.

We now know that those invasions were a big mistake. They were attempts at regime-change, and had nothing to do with defending the American homeland. And they were both massive failures. We ousted corrupt and dictatorial regimes, and replaced them with similar regimes that were even more corrupt.

One would have hoped that the mainstream media had learned its lesson, and would view new efforts to go to war (or take military action against another country) with a jaundiced eye. One would have hoped they would now examine both sides of any new move toward war. But they are now showing they learned nothing. They are now again beating the drums of war -- this time in support of a military attack against Syria.

The media seems to have accepted the Obama administration argument that the Syrian government attacked rebels with chemical weapons. Secretary of State Kerry said he had proof of that attack. But what little proof he has offered only says there may have been a chemical attack. He has provided no proof that it was the Syrian government who did it.

Their argument is that the rebels don't have the capability to do a chemical attack. But we know that various factions of the rebels are aligned with al-Queda -- who has ties to Saudi Arabia (which does possess chemical weapons) and who has demonstrated in the past they are willing and able to commit atrocities. And the media is ignoring some reporting that the weapons used were weapons provided to some of the rebel factions by Saudi Arabia (and may have been accidentally exploded by rebels who didn't know how to properly handle them).

The media also seems to have just accepted (again) the argument that attacking Syria would somehow be in defense of the United States. No one has yet offered to explain just how this is true. They just claim that it is so. The media should be demanding that the government explain how the security of the United States is at stake if no attack is carried out -- but they have chosen to ignore that and just accept the government pronouncements (in spite of the fact that they make no sense).

And finally, the media is engaged in just two arguments -- should the attack be immediate or should it await a decision from Congress? They ignore the much more important question -- should there be an attack at all? The administration has admitted the attack will not cause a regime change, and that they don't want to cause a regime change. Why attack then -- just to show we're the biggest bully on the block? An attack that will make no difference in the civil war is meaningless, and should not be done -- since it will undoubtably result in the loss of life among innocent civilians (and create more enemies for the U.S.).

I am disappointed in this media drumbeat for war, but not very surprised. After all, a new war will boost the ratings for TV news and sell more newspapers -- and it will increase the profits for corporations. And sadly, increased ratings and profits is a good enough reason for the corporate-owned mainstream media to favor a new war.