Recently, on the far left website Counterpunch, I found an article entitled "License to Kill," dealing with American policy on Syria. I approached the article with a bit of trepidation. Although Counterpunch, founded by the late Alexander Cockburn, has some good articles, it also has a tendency, like its founder, of going off the deep end.
In one respect, the article, written by Luciana Bohne, takes a position I overall agree with, that the United States should not involve itself in the Syrian conflict. I believe the Syrian Civil War is none of America's business, and that American involvement would only make matters in the Middle East worse, as was the case in Iraq. Bohne, however, depicts America as the sole villain in international affairs while turning a blind eye to Russia's involvement in the conflict, not to mention the atrocities of Bashir al-Assad.
My Gut Reaction: How can someone who comes to the right conclusion on the Syrian conflict do so from such idiotic assumptions?
Analysis below the fold...
The issues with Bohne's analysis started with the strident, even shrill tone she takes in discussing American foreign policy. She describes UN Ambassador Samantha Power as an "indefatigable humanitarian warmonger." Without bothering to analyze Power's position or the views behind it, she suggests that America's only real concern is changing the Assad regime rather than the atrocities in Syria. (Never mind the fact that Assad is behind many of those atrocities.)
This in itself is only a stylistic issue. I personally agree that Ambassador Power's stance on Syria is misguided. However, while Bohne claims that Power is a warmonger, I simply think her policy suggestions would fail to end the suffering in Syria and potentially create a power vacuum that could be exploited by radical groups like ISIS.
Her article begins to plunge past the deep end when she suggests that the Russian government is really the good guy, having acted in the UN to protect the Assad regime. She heaps praise on Vitaly Churkin, the UN Ambassador from Russia, depicting him and the Putin regime as a bastion of world peace. The same Churkin cast Russia's veto against referring Syria to the International Criminal Court.
However, Bohne isn't content with this bit of hagiography, no. She goes on to laud another great defender of peace and security, Joseph Stalin:
Stalin was prescient at Yalta. He accepted to participate in the United Nations only if each of the five permanent members of the Security Council would be allowed veto power. His great concern was prevention of war, which, he argued, could only be achieved through unity and unanimity among the Big Three.
Really? Stalin, the guy who made a pact with Hitler to split up Poland, was concerned with "prevention of war"?
Bull. Stalin just wanted a mechanism to prevent the UN from intervening against Soviet aggression. For someone so eager to think the worst of the United States, Bohne sure seems naïve about international affairs.
I agree with Bohne's stance against American intervention in Syria. However, trying to depict the United States as the sole villain while glorifying arguably far worse actors is simply foolish.