Wednesday, February 15, 2012

the specter of war and those who might give voice to its prevention

Chris Floyd has a comment on Glen Greenwald's latest piece, echoing a theme that has been kicking around for ages and that I have begun thinking about quite a lot recently:

"And so I read the Greenwald piece looking for, hoping for, that pivot beyond the customary criticism, the laying out of evidence (which, let me add, is really all that I do here). Hoping, I suppose, that someone who commands a far larger reach than a relatively marginal site like mine or Silber's would at least reference something like the Silber idea, if only to say: "Hey, here's a thought -- why don't we try something like this?" Or "What do people think of this?" Or even, "Silber suggests this, but I have an even better idea. "
The idea in question is a series of simple but cutting advertisements in popular media (and the few remaining newspapers) in an effort to present ideas countering the heavy-handed push for war. The corporate media, known propaganda arm of the ruling class, faithfully reports American and Israeli claims about the grave Persian Menace, even seemingly take a leading role in preparing the populace for the conflict .

Certainly, as I think is plainly evident at this point, a war with Iran will happen if the ruling elites want it to. This fact has been made clear by recent events; Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, the global Special Operations wars and the War on the Implacable Noun are all proof their effectiveness in creating conflicts. The austerity measures being enforced against popular will or interest across the West and police reactions to mass protests demonstrate not only how secure is their control, but also how confident they are in their position. The power is wielded with impunity. The law and its enforces are set to guard the corporate/media/political classes as they ravage our societies for resources.

Floyd's point is one that we are faced with and have been for some time: what do we do about it? Chronicling the devastating effects of our wars of aggression and documenting the never-ending lies of our media are valuable endeavor, but they simply are not enough. Greenwald's criticism is unmatched in these areas. His voice is vital to exposing the truth to his many, many readers. But that is exactly the point. His voice is loud and it reaches far - he could offer a major platform to concrete strategies to oppose this march to war. After the better part of a decade documenting the ruling class' crimes, seeing now the full-speed push for a war that could cost millions of innocent human lives one wonders why he has not yet.

Beware of information gatekeepers and half-measure dissidents. The West will soften Iran and its people with destructive sanctions, and then war will follow, if not soon, then in the near future. We must marshal ourselves to oppose this course of events - if that is even possible - we must try.


  1. Salon is small and independent, but it's not a compact, resilient platform of dissent.

    Thankfully Glenn is not alone, and a handful of dissenting platforms still exist.
    (Democracy Now, FDL, TruthOut and to some degree The Nation, Mother Jones and PBS maybe? To the extent that some of their reporters are not enamoured of President Obama)

    Despite Glenn's leading voice, becoming a one-man platform may be too much to ask from a lone (libertarian?) journalist writing from Rio de Janeiro.
    I don't have the answer, but maybe --just maybe-- the clusters of grey matter needed for a dissent platform lie elsewhere.

  2. I am not advocating he lead the movement, merely pointing out (as are Floyd and Silber) that someone with his wide readership could help garner serious resources (money and other big names) for this cause if he were so inclined.