The goal of mounting a saturation propaganda campaign is to
pollute the marketplace of ideas with so much noise, those who dirty the water
– so to speak – get to fish in the spots where they know there are fishes to be
had whereas everyone else, especially the well meaning among them, become
discouraged and walk away.
Roger Cohen, who is a columnist with the New York Times, is
a well meaning pundit. But even he can become disoriented by the intensity of
the propaganda which constantly discharges waste for the purpose of polluting
the stream of information in America, thus serve the Judeo-Israeli agenda
instead of America's. Cohen's contribution in this regard comes out clearly in
the column he wrote under the title: “Obama's Syrian Nightmare,” published on
September 10, 2015 in the NY Times.
The biggest success scored by the Jewish propaganda machine
was to convince the elites and the public that President Obama made a mistake
when he did not follow up on a warning he issued to Syria 's
President, Bashar al-Assad, by bombing Syria as promised. But the reality
is that Obama's restraint on this occasion turned out to be the best thing that
happened to the Middle East in a long time.
Think about it, the people who normally latch on to every
word that is uttered by an Arab or a Muslim, and make mountains out of
molehills, do not now bother to even mention the fact that Assad warned America
he will unleash his arsenal of chemical weapons on Israel if his country were
attacked by America or by Israel.
Thus, by not bombing Syria , Obama has avoided a horrible
outcome. It can also be argued that the issuance of a warning to Assad by the
American President must have played a role in the Russians convincing Assad to
give up his arsenal of chemicals. With the result that a calamity of biblical
dimension was avoided; and with the dreadful weapons being removed from Syria , no one
sane can say that President Obama's decisions regarding this whole matter were
faulty.
Yes, refraining from bombing Syria
by America
did not end the civil war in that country, but neither would have the act of
bombing it. In fact, the vacuum that would have been created by the
decapitation of yet another state in the region would have magnified the
struggles for control among the various factions. The civil war would have been
more vicious and more widespread; and the whole tragedy would have unfolded in
an atmosphere saturated with deadly chemicals.
Hard realities regarding the trouble in the Middle East having
been kept out of the ongoing debate – were the reason why people, even of the
Roger Cohen caliber, succumbed to the temptation of blaming the civil war in
Syria on President Obama's decision not to bomb that country. And because
Cohen's view of the recent past is badly polluted, his understanding of the
current situation is faulty, and his recommendations for the future are
dangerous.
Here is how Roger Cohen expresses his position: “Obama
walked away from upholding his 'red line' … In so doing, he reinforced Assad,
reinforced Putin, and declined to change the course of the Syrian war …
setbacks of far greater significance than ridding Syria of chemical weapons.
This was a mistake.” He wants to see heavy American involvement.
Note, however, that he does not say why he would have
preferred to see a change in the course of the Syrian war from what it is now
to the chemical holocaust that was promised were Syria to be bombed. Instead, he
rattles off the fantasies that were floated at one time or another – things
like: “The Syrian aircraft could have been taken out. A safe area for refugees
might have been created. Arming the rebels might have changed the course of the
war.” And he shoots them all down with this: “Counterfactuals, of course, don't
carry much weight. We'll never know.”
What is dangerous about all that is the way that the debate
has unfolded, creating the potential for more trouble ahead. You can see this
in the editorial that came in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Obama's
War Refugees” and the subtitle: “What happens in Syria
arrives in America ,”
published on September 11, 2015.
The Journal editors say this: “The conflict may get worse,
especially as Russia
moves in to prop up Bashar Assad's rule.” But the reason why the Russians are
building their forces in Syria
is that they see ISIL coming to a defeat. What they fear will happen next, is
that true to form, America will turn its attention to the destruction of the
Syrian system a la debaathification of Iraq.
Since the Russians regard such eventuality as a potential
for the Jewish lobby to advance its agenda by pushing America into a new war before it leaves the last
one, they have decided to draw their own red line and warn America not to
be foolish or adventurous yet again.