A fork does not necessarily have only two prongs; in most
cases it has many more. Thus, when someone seems to speak with a forked tongue,
it could be that he serves more than two evil gods at the same time.
In fact, we have an example of that in the editorial antics
of National Review Online. This is a publication whose editors want the world
to believe they are driven by moral rectitude. But the reality is that they
show signs of being driven by a whole bunch of other things; one of which being
defined by the way that they start and end their latest editorial.
That opinion piece came under the title: “Syria Isn't Just
About Syria,” published on April 11, 2018 on the website of National Review
Online. The editors start the piece by making a demand: “The U.S. must bring hellish consequences on the
dictator of Damascus .”
And they end it by challenging their country's administration and its president
to respond positively to that demand. Here is how they presented the challenge:
“If Trump wants to honor his office and lead the free democracies, this is the
time to do it”.
Do you realize what the editors just did, my friend? They
mortgaged the honor of the Office of President as well as America 's
ability to lead the “free world,” in order to secure an action that may or may
not be possible to take. The understanding being that if such action is not
taken, America 's
honor and leadership will go down the tube, the question to ask will have to be
this: Who will be served by the unfolding of such events?
Meanwhile, the opening and closing statements being the
bookends of the editors' dissertation, we must consider their content to be the
core of their philosophy. As can be seen; instead of pointing to moral
rectitude, that philosophy points to the desire of giving America the
allure of being the world's sheriff. As to the actual claim of moral rectitude,
here is how the editors alluded to it: “Scores were murdered. Hundreds were admitted
to hospital.” It is the editors’ way of displaying fake concern for human
suffering and the loss of human life. They do it by attributing the
consequences of the Syrian war on the governing regime ... but do not stop
here. They go on to evoke the horrors of the war to pressure the White House to
attack Syria ,
thus add to the horror.
This should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the editors
of National Review Online have meshed the subject of moral rectitude with the
idea of America
being the sheriff of the world. They took that approach not because they
believe in both ideas but because they thought of using one to justify the
other. That is, consumed by the burning desire to see hell descend on Syria , the editors used the tragedy of the civil
war as reason to push for America 's
intervention in that country. This forces the question: What's the ulterior
motive of these editors?
We can find the answer to that question by looking closely
at the rest of the editorial. Doing that, we encounter this passage: “We trust
the administration understands that this isn't merely about Bashar Assad …
every thug regime in the world is waiting to see what will happen … Those
regimes include Iran, Russia and North Korea.” Having guessed what's going on
in the heads of other people, the editors thought it would be wise to make
certain that the readers understood what they are saying. And so, they
reiterated the guess, doing it this time with some force. Here is that
reiteration: “So Vladimir Putin in Russia ,
Ali Khamenei in Iran , and
Kim Jong-un in North Korea
anxiously await the U.S.
response to Assad”.
This takes care of the editors' view concerning foreign
policy. When it comes to domestic politics, they also have local villains in
their cross-hairs. They began this part of the discussion by mentioning a Trump
tweet that went this way: “If Obama had crossed his Red Line in the Sand, the
Syrian disaster would have ended long ago!” To that Trump remark, the editors
expressed their approval with this: “It's hard to disagree”.
And because they thought there is the possibility the
sheriff may be a bit rusted up and in need of guidance on how to handle the
foreign situation, the editors offered him an advice: “The response must
involve enormous U.S.
and allied firepower and bring heavy consequences. The Israelis began the work,
but we hope the U.S.
won't let the Israelis do the hard work of retribution”.
And that's what says what this exercise is all about. It's
about mobilizing America 's
internal and external potentials, and put them in the service of Israel , always Israel
and no one but Israel .