If you would like to support the show and help keep us going strong, please become a subscriber on our Patreon page.
Hosts Rania Khalek and Kevin Gosztola spend the full episode discussing President Donald Trump’s attack on a Syrian airbase.
In the beginning, the reaction of support from media personalities, as well as Democrats and neoconservatives, is highlighted.
Further into the show, the hosts break down who the media has referred to as sources for information on what happened in the alleged chemical attack, which led Trump to escalate U.S. military action. The hosts also discuss the left’s response to the strike and what the attack may mean for the Syrian conflict.
“On cable news and all the establishment outlets, it’s like the line is there’s no dissent whatsoever. There’s no questioning anything,” Khalek suggests. “It’s [Syrian President Bashar al Assad] used chemical weapons. This is what happened, and now we have to bomb Syria. No questions asked. Meanwhile, online, like on Facebook and Twitter, it’s like the complete opposite.”
“Idlib, which is the province in Syria where this attack occurred, it is an area that is under the control of armed groups that are either al Qaida or affiliates of al Qaida,” Khalek adds. “The village in particular that was hit with this alleged chemical weapons attack, it’s under the control of Ahrar al Sham, which is one of the most prominent and extremist groups in Syria.”
“They are like the Taliban. They impose harsh Islamic law. They kill aid workers. They kill journalists. They kill activists. There is no independent information coming out of these areas at all. All of it is under the control and needs the approval of these armed groups that are in control. So, all of the information that you are getting out of these areas, whether it is from the White Helmets or whether it looks like it’s from what they like to call themselves media activists, that information does not come out without the input of these al Qaida-linked rebel groups.”
As Khalek emphasizes, it is not just the Syrian government that lies. The al Qaida-linked rebel groups lie too. That means the public has to question everything to a far greater extent than the media is currently.
To listen to the full discussion, click the above player or go here.
Hi there,
I think it’s important to not over-react to what happened, although what happened was definitely rash and arguably reckless, given the volatility of the situation (and the uncertainty, for reasons that Khalek already alluded to). I think the strikes are more symbolic than express an “imperialist” (Sorry to put this in quotes, but this is just not language that I use) because:
1) There are reports that the strikes didn’t actually do a whole lot of damage (there are tweets/retweets mocking Trump for this, like the ones by Leith, which I thought was missing the point), and that analysts have said that the strikes will have “little immediate effect on the military balance of Syrian battlefields, where Russian forces have helped Assad’s forces to a string of victories against rebels”. Yes analysts have been wrong in the past, but I don’t have compelling reasons to question this, especially this analysis seems to corroborate with what Khalek said about Russia-Syria winning the fight against the rebels, so I personally wouldn’t make too much of the ISIS attack. Unless you disagree…?
2) It’s interesting to note that even though Trump said that something should be done about Assad, he still stopped short of saying that Assad should be gotten rid of (last time I checked anyway). It is interesting to compare this with Bernie Sanders, who has said that Assad should be gotten rid of. It is also worth pointing out that a lot of the Trump supporters have been very vocal critics of Trump regarding the recent strikes, because they want the US out of the Middle East, and I think Trump is sensitive to this, though I don’t know about the extent of this. And most importantly, there are repeated statements by the White House that people should “not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or our posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status.”” So again, there’s this to keep in mind.
I think all this was just symbolic showmanship, and this was partially in response to the American public (many of whom less patient to ask questions about who the perpetrators of the chemical attack are) demanding Trump do something about big bad Assad, partially in response to the genuine horrors of the event, and also an attempt to break the stupid mainstream media narrative that Trump is in bed with Putin and is a puppet of the Russian government. There’s certainly an argument to be made about the recklessness of Trump’s decision, but I don’t think there’s a good argument to be made about how this is an illustration of America’s “imperialist agenda in the Middle East”, which seems to be a rather popular argument in certain parts of the twittersphere.
April 10, 2017 at 1:32 pm