A New York Times story by Michael Gordon (9/27/15) contains a line that sums up corporate media’s spin on the US role in the Syrian conflict:
Even as the United States has banked on a diplomatic strategy of trying to enlist Russia’s cooperation in Syria, the Kremlin has continued to jolt the White House with its unilateral military and political moves.
That “diplomatic strategy” involves getting Russia to endorse regime change in Syria, while the United States carries on a campaign against Syria that is anything but diplomatic. It’s involved facilitating the shipment of at least 160 planeloads of weapons to rebels trying to bring down the government, as the New York Times itself has reported (3/24/13; FAIR Blog, 2/22/15). It’s included the CIA spending a billion dollars–roughly 1/15th of the agency’s annual budget–to train fighters to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (Washington Post, 6/12/15; FAIR Blog, 9/5/15).
It’s launched some 5,000 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, mainly against the militant religious movement known as ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), but it’s also declared that it will use air power to support anti-government forces. US bombing of ISIS has killed at least 584 noncombatant civilians in Syria and Iraq.
The US has even had ground troops fighting in Syria, sending special forces on commando raids to kill ISIS leaders (New York Times, 5/16/15; FAIR Blog, 5/19/15).
So that’s what the New York Times means by a “diplomatic strategy.”
This is contrasted with Russia’s “unilateral military and political moves.” What does this consist of? Well, the move that prompted Gordon to write an article was Russia’s bid to “expand its political and military influence” by “reaching an understanding, announced on Sunday, with Iraq, Syria and Iran to share intelligence about the Islamic State.” In other words, Russia agreed to share information with three internationally recognized governments about an openly genocidal militant group that has seized territory in two of the governments’ countries.
Why is that “unilateral”? Because, Gordon explains, it was done “without notice to the United States.”
Another thing that Russia did without first alerting the United States, Gordon wrote, was opening a military base in Syria. Actually, the Russian Federation has always had a military base in Syria, having inherited the naval base near Tartus from the Soviet Union. Now, according to the Times, Russia is also establishing an airbase near Latakia, about 50 miles away. The deployment of planes to the airbase, the Times reported in an earlier article, “appears to leave little doubt about Moscow’s goal to establish a military outpost in the Middle East.”
Hmm. Has any other country tried to establish a military outpost in the Middle East?
Partial map of US military bases in the Middle East (source: Juan Cole)
But no matter how many military bases the United States might put in the Middle East, by the Times‘ standards, this does not constitute “unilateral” military expansion. Why? Because, by definition, Washington is always kept informed.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Margaret Sullivan at public@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes or @Sulliview). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.