War is hell. When a war is brutal and prolonged, people
react to it. The neutral observers – having no interest in the outcome of the
war – react to the human suffering they see on their screen. As to those who
have an interest in the outcome of the war; they react to it in one of several
ways.
Those whose side is winning justify everything their side is
doing, no matter how brutal or murderous it may be. If something happens that
is so glaringly savage it cannot be justified or minimized, those who support
it will blame the brutality on the other side. As to the losing side, it will
exaggerate the effects that the war is having on the civilian population, and
blame it all on the side that's winning.
The above description generally applies to all sorts of
civilian populations such as those you meet anywhere you go on this planet.
However, it can also happen that a large and diverse society, such as the United States of America ,
would be composed of different groups, most of them having a stake in the
outcome of the war, but each looking at it from a different angle.
The two groups which are of interest to us in this
discussion are (a) the pundits whose interest is security matters and/or
foreign policy, and (b) the individuals who were forged in a military (or
militaristic) environment. These people react emotionally and intellectually to
what they see and the sum total of what they say and do, gives shape to the
public opinion that will eventually emerge and be used to convince the
government it must react in one way or another.
All of that comes to the fore when reading two pieces that
were published in the New York Daily News. On February 12, 2016, the editors
wrote and published their own piece: “Putin on the blitz”; whereas on February
13, 2016, they published an article that was written by the military adviser
Andrew Peek, under the title: “This 'cease-fire' in Syria is a farce – and a bloody one
at that”.
Going over Peek's article, you instantly get the sense that
his interest is to safeguard the honor of the American military he has been
advising: “There is nothing as humiliating for Americans as the Syrian peace
process … [John] Kerry should walk away.” He goes on: “The current crisis was
initiated by Russian airstrikes … Controlling both Aleppo
and Damascus
and sealing the Turkish border would all but win this war” for the Russians.
He laments: “The Syrian opposition is still being bombed …
It wins us no friends among the Syrians, their allies or even their enemies.”
As to the Russians themselves, Andrew Peek asserts that they don't really
negotiate: “Why should they? They're winning,” he goes on to say. And this is
why he suggests that “the only way to make these talks meaningful is to turn
the tide of battle around.” He does not expand further than that.
As to the editors of the New York Daily News – when you read
their piece – you instantly get the sense that they are not ordinary pundits
but individuals who suffer from a predilection for the double-faced Jewish
ambiguity. From their first sentence to the last, you see them struggle to
weave a fake concern they express for the destruction of Syria , and an equally fake concern they express
for America 's
diminished standing in the world.
Look at this: “the country [Syria ]
is a bloody shambles … The ceasefire makes official the collapse of U.S. influence
in the region.” And this: “The death count is at 470,000, and millions have
fled … While the U.S.
declaring there's no military solution.” And they go on to say: “Now, it seems
there is a military solution – but not for the U.S. Russia has taken charge.”
Note that having expressed their pain that America did not
take the military solution taken by the Russians, the Jewish editors of the
Daily News now tell what the Russians did that America refused to do: “they
have been indiscriminately bombing and starving what men, women and children
remain in Aleppo and other strongholds.” Is this what the Jews wanted America to do
to be ahead of the Russians?
And there is worse: “Russian Foreign Minister lectured: All
sides must sit at the negotiating table instead of unleashing a new world war.”
This saying makes the editors weep: “The Russians have demonstrated they have
the courage of their convictions, and that the U.S. does not.” Translation: Let's
have a world war.