By Moon Of Alabama
The recent U.S. airstrike at the Syrian-Iraqi
border and the missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq
were followed by many examples of bad journalism.
U.S. media, as FAIR documents,
have purged inconvenient facts from their coverage
of Biden's 'first' airstrike:
The less clear the US population is about the
frequency and scale of murderous violence its
government carries out, the easier it is for the
US ruling class to go about its wars.
Fortunately for the US state, corporate media
help manufacture collective amnesia by expunging
US aggression from the record.
...
Securing consent for running a lethal, worldwide
empire requires unremitting propaganda:
Redacting the historical record and playing the
victim are two useful strategies.
The dozens of examples in the FAIR piece are
telling. FAIR gets one thing wrong though. The
attack was not in Syria, as the U.S. claimed, but on
the Iraqi side of the border.
Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai -
6:01 UTC · Mar 3, 2021
Analysts keep making this mistake: 1st Biden's
bombing was in #Iraq not #Syria. An Iraqi
military delegation sent by @MAKadhimi verified
& confirmed that the #US bombed Iraqi security
forces on the Iraqi borders with #Syria and not
on Syrian territory.
Nearly all U.S. media use 'Iran-backed militia'
when describing the groups that allegedly launched
the missiles. The Pentagon now wants to change that.
A press briefing with spokesman John F. Kirby
had several exchanges about that:
No Advertising - No Government
Grants - This Is Independent Media
Q: Just going back to -- to the rocket
attack, could you describe roughly the
distance that the rockets were coming from?
And what does that say about the tactics --
and how does that -- of the -- whoever fired
those? And to what degree does this resemble
previous attacks by the
Iranian-backed militia?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not qualified to do the
forensics, Dan, on -- on -- on how this
equates to previous attacks, other than
obviously it's a rocket attack and we have
seen rocket attacks come from Shia-backed
militia groups in the past. So in
that way, it certainly -- it certainly
coincides with our past experience here.
... [lots of unrelated stuff] ...
Q: OK. And yesterday we hear from the podium
you expressed hope that the first strike on Abu
Kamal will -- might deter any future attacks.
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: And less than 24 hours later, this
happened. In the airstrike, you targeted
Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada,
two entities that are part of the PMF.
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
...
Q: How do you view the PMF now after
targeting Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid
al-Shuhada?
MR. KIRBY: We've long been open and honest
about the threats that these -- that arise from
these rocket attacks that are being perpetrated
by some Shia-backed militia.
And we've not been bashful about calling it out
when we've seen it. And the only thing I'd add
is, just like before we're going to act
appropriately to defend our personnel, our
interests and those of our Iraqi partners.
Q: I'm asking about the PMF in general, since
the group -- these groups are part of the PMF
and they're actually the leaders of these groups
are part of the leadership, like Kata’ib Sayyid
al-Shuhada, the leader of --
MR. KIRBY: I understand -- wait, I understand
where you're going. Again, we're focused on
these -- the Shia-backed militias
that continue to put at risk and to continue to
threaten our people and our Iraqi partners. And
I don't have any other additional conversations
to read out today.
Q: If I may? When you say Shia backed
militias, do you mean Shia militias or Iran
backed --
MR. KIRBY: I mean Shia-backed
militias.
Q: What does that mean?
MR. KIRBY: Lara?
Q: Thanks John.
Q: No, no, seriously John. I'm --
MR. KIRBY: No seriously. I mean
Shia-backed militia.
Q: Like what does that mean,
Shia-backed militia? You're backed by
--
MR. KIRBY: I've answered your question sir.
...
Q: On the Shia-backed militias.
Previously U.S. officials would say Iran backed
militias, Shia is a sect, it's a large group of
people. When you say Shia-backed what do you
really mean? I was confused.
MR. KIRBY: I've been using that phrase pretty
much since I've been up here and we know that
and I've said this that that some of the
Shia-back militias have – Shia-based have
Iranian backing.
There is a certain point in Kirby's relabeling.
The 'Iran backing' the 'Shia backed' militia get is
much less than often assumed:
Iran’s relationship with Iraqi militant groups
in its sphere of influence is often more one of
mentorship than of direct command and control.
The Hashd al-Shaabi or PMU are paid by the Iraqi
government which is based on a Shia majority. In
that 'Shia backed' might make some sense but not in
the sectarian way Kirby is using it.
To use "Shia backed militia" for Kata’ib
Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada has as much
analytical a value as calling Al-Qaeda Sunni backed
or the Irish Republican Army Catholic backed.
Neither would be technical incorrect but all these
designations are way to broad to be of any use.
One wonders why the Pentagon is doing this? Does
it want the 'Iran backed' out of the way to make it
easier to talk with Iran? Or could there be some
more
nefarious reason:
I believe that Washington could very well seek
to push Iraq into a new civil war in a bid to
eradicate the Hashd al-Sha’abi. Many of the
groups within the PMU have threatened to wage
war on US forces if Washington refuses to
withdraw. Unfortunately, this threat by the PMU
can easily be exploited by the US, giving
Washington a casus belli, as they intensify
their “defensive” airstrikes while claiming to
support Baghdad’s campaign to bring “stability”
to Iraq.
Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada
and the other Hashd al-Shaabi groups are by the way
mixed groups and not exclusively Shia. The one KH
member who was killed in the U.S. attack on Abu
Kamal was Sunni.
Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai -
10:21 UTC · Feb 26, 2021
First military victims of @JoeBiden:
The Sunni member of the Hashd al-Shaabi, Rahi
Salam Zayd al-Sharifi, from Hillah, the ancient
city of Babil (Babylon), killed by the #US air
attack on the Iraqi- Syrian borders last night
at 02:30 am local time.
Some of the worst writing on the episode comes
from the New York Times chief warmonger
David Sanger. In an 'analysis' headlined
For Biden, Deliberation and Caution, Maybe
Overcaution, on the World Stage he writes:
The goal was to send a signal to Iran without
risking escalation. The Iraqi government was
brought into the decision, and the strike was
limited to a small cluster of buildings in Syria
that was a gathering place for jihadis
and smugglers. Even then, Mr. Sullivan
and Pentagon officials took one target off the
list at the last moment because of images
showing there might be women and children
present.
Their response may have been overly cautious
because another rocket attack followed, on
Wednesday, when an American contractor died of a
heart attack.
But some leading Democrats still opposed the
strike.
To call the 'Shia backed' government paid militia
"jihadis" as if they were ISIS or al-Qaeda is as
wrong as one can get.
To accept the evidence free claim, invented by
'officials' a week after the airstrike, that one
target was taken off the list because women and
children were there is dense.
And to call a strike that hit Iraqi government
forces 'overly cautious' because the seven 500 pound
bombs that were dropped did not have the desired
political effect is analytical stupidity. It is the
whole idea that such strikes create 'deterrence'
that
is wrong. The missile attack after the airstrike
proves that deterrence does not work. More strikes
would not change that.
"Source"
Registration is necessary to post comments.
We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive
language. Please be respectful of others.
