How 'Russiagate' Produced the Missile Attack on Syria
The sky erupts with missile fire as the U.S., U.K. and France launched an
attack on parts of Damascus, the capital of Syria, early Saturday in
retaliation for Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons last weekend.
(Hassan Ammar / AP)
Politicians, pundits and activists who've routinely denounced President
Trump as a tool of Vladimir Putin can now mull over a major indicator of
their cumulative impacts. The U.S.-led missile attack on Syria before dawn
Saturday is the latest benchmark for gauging the effects of continually
baiting Trump as a puppet of Russia's president.
Heavyweights of U.S. media-whether outlets such as CNN and MSNBC or key
newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post-spent most of the
last week clamoring for Trump to order airstrikes on Syria. Powerful news
organizations have led the way in goading Trump to prove that he's not a
Putin lackey after all.
One of the clearest ways that Trump can offer such proof is to recklessly
show he's willing to risk a catastrophic military confrontation with Russia.
In recent months, the profusion of "war hawks, spies and liars" on national
television has been part of a media atmosphere that barely acknowledges
what's at stake with games of chicken between the world's two nuclear
superpowers. Meanwhile, the dominant U.S. news media imbue their reporting
with a nationalistic sense of impunity.
On Saturday morning, the top headline on the New York Times website was
"U.S. Attacks Syria in Retaliatory Strike," while the subhead declared that
"Western resolve" was at work. The story led off by reporting that Trump
"sought to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack
near Damascus last weekend that killed more than 40 people."
Try putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Imagine that Russia,
with a similar rationale, fired missiles at U.S. ally Saudi Arabia because
the Kremlin "sought to punish King Salman for his country's war crimes in
Yemen"-with such reportage appearing under a headline that described the
Russian attack as a "retaliatory strike."
The latest U.S. air attack on Russia's close ally Syria was as much
politically aimed at Moscow as at Damascus. And afterward, the televised
adrenalin-pumped glee was as much an expression of pleasure about striking a
blow at Putin as at Assad. After all, ever since Trump took office, the U.S.
media and political elites have been exerting enormous pressures on him to
polarize with Russia.
But let's be clear: The pressures have not only been generated by corporate
media and the political establishment. Across the United States, a wide
range of people including self-described liberals and progressives-as
individuals and organizations-have enthusiastically participated in the
baiting, cajoling and denouncing of Trump as a Putin tool. That
participation has stoked bellicose rhetoric by congressional Democrats,
fueling the overall pressure on Trump to escalate tensions with Russia.
What's really at issue here is not the merits of the Russian government in
2018, any more than the issue was the merits of the Soviet government in
1967-when President Lyndon Johnson hosted an extensive summit meeting in
Glassboro, New Jersey, with Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, reducing the
chances of nuclear war in the process.
If you keep heading toward a destination, you're likely to get there. In
2018, by any realistic measure, the escalating conflicts between the United
States and Russia-now ominously reaching new heights in Syria-are moving us
closer to World War III. It's time to fully recognize the real dangers and
turn around.
Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon
