Unlike Russian Wars, US Wars ‘Promote Freedom and Democracy’: New York Times

Donate

Unlike Russian Wars, US Wars ‘Promote Freedom and Democracy’: New York Times

Written by Adam Johnson; Originally appeared at FAR

The New York Times, in its recent rebuff of comments President Donald Trump made about Russia, seems not to have evolved its understanding of US geopolitics past an 8th grade level. Trump had been asked by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (2/5/17) why he wouldn’t condemn Vladimir Putin, whom O’Reilly called a “killer.”

“You got a lot of killers,” Trump told O’Reilly. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Unlike Russian Wars, US Wars ‘Promote Freedom and Democracy’: New York Times

The New York Times defends its country’s innocence.

Naturally, this prompted a torrent of pearl-clutching from liberal patriots aghast that the president could equate the moral worth of the United States with that of the dastardly Russians. Most prominent among these was the New York Times, whose editorial board published a flag-waving scolding called “Blaming America First” (2/7/17):

Asserting the moral and political superiority of the United States over Russia has not traditionally been a difficult maneuver for American presidents. But rather than endorsing American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality—which includes bombing civilians in Syria and, his accusers allege, responsibility for a trail of dead political opponents and journalists at home—and suggested America acts the same way.

Oh my, the horror.

A rough look at the actions in question since Putin has been in office reveals this outrage to be, at best, misplaced. One tally by Airwars, a Western nonprofit, puts the total number of Syrian civilians killed by Russia since it entered the war in September 2015 at just over 4,000, or 0.8–0.4 percent of the 500,000 to 1 million civilians who died due to George W. Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003. Add to this the thousands of other civilians killed in other theaters of the “War on Terror” under the Bush and Obama administrations, including Afghanistan, Libya and Syria itself, and the idea of pointing to respect for civilian lives as something that elevates the United States above Russia seems a little absurd.

But the addition of stifling dissent and allegedly killing journalists takes Russia over the line into Bad Guy territory, the Times suggests—ignoring the US’s own harsh punishment for whistleblowersinfiltration of dissident groups and bombing of foreign journalists. Not to mention the US’s sprawling, unprecedented incarceration system, or its unmatched institutional racism–all human right abuses leveled at home.

The Times goes on to insist that “no American president has done what Mr. Putin has done,” including “invading Ukraine” and “interfering in the American election.” Of course, American presidents have invaded other countries and intervened in other elections, but for reasons unclear, the Times suggests that those two cases are the ones that indicate the US’s moral superiority over Russia.

The New York Times briefly mentions the Iraq War and torture, but whistles past these episodes by insisting they were “terrible mistakes.” The Times seems to be under the impression that Russia kills innocents for laughs, while the United States does so only with the best of intentions:

At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, sometimes with extraordinary results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.

That US invasions “have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy” is not argued, let alone proved; it’s presented as an article of faith. As the Times’ “recent decades” go back to World War II, the United States presumably killed an estimated 3.8 million in Vietnam “to promote freedom and democracy”—despite President Dwight Eisenhower admitting that given the chance, 80 percent of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, the leader whose government the US opposed. Implicitly, the US’s use of covert terror to try to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua, and US military support for death squad regimes elsewhere in Central America, were likewise motivated by a longing for freedom and democracy.

As FAIR (9/30/16) has noted, the most important function of major editorial boards is to be gatekeepers of national security orthodoxy. And there is no more axiomatic orthodoxy than American exceptionalism. One can handwring over “mistakes,” even occasionally do harsh reporting on American war crimes—so long as one arrives back at the position of American moral superiority. “Yes, America has made mistakes,” the good liberal insists, “but at least we don’t do this other bad thing that is, unaccountably, uniquely disqualifying.”

Clearly, Trump’s motives in questioning American innocence were anything but liberal or noble. He was evoking America’s own sins not to challenge them, but to apologize for those of the Russian president and, preemptively, his own. But the outrage over Trump’s comments from pundits and editorial boards did not seek to spotlight his cynicism and its dark implications, but rather to insist that the United States is, in fact, on a higher moral plane than Russia. This is a childish assertion that serves to flatter the ego of American readers while legitimizing their government’s crimes.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • NYT is a failing pile of garbage. They recently rented 8 floors in their building. Their last Quarter earnings showed they lost if i remember correctly $140 million.Nothing more then a CIA mouthpiece, no idea why people buy that crap!

    • Igor Ochocinszk

      They dont. Thats exactly why they had to rent all that space.

  • chris chuba

    Jut taking an objective tally of NYT claims that even they could not dispute.
    1. U.S. interfered in BREXIT vote and Israeli elections (of course there were others but the NYT would deny those).

    2. U.S. supports Saudi war in Yemen, this will disenfranchise the Houthis and is non-democratic.

    3. U.S. supports rebels in Syria who have never been elected or controlled more than 10% of population and demand standing govt cannot participate in next election. This is intrinsically non-democratic.

    4. U.S. rejects Crimean referendum, again, non-democratic.

    They can rationalize these actions but they were the ones touting ‘democracy promotion’ as the be all and end all so that is the standard I am using to judge.

  • zman

    I don’t think that I would put a lot of stock in Airwars data claiming 4,000 civilian losses in Russia’s air campaign. I ALWAYS go to search engines and search until I find who NGOs such as this are supported by and who they use for intel. I have not as yet found the ‘money trail’, but I did find their list of organizations they use for info gathering. The so-called Syria Observatory for Human Rights is listed as a ‘valuable resource’. Listing this source alone brings more questions than anything. All western NGOs that come with these sort of questionable credentials, are not to be trusted outright. Reminds me of the western NGO that was used to prove Russia downed MH17. This in relation to US coalition:

    “CENTCOM insisted until May 21st 2015 that it could not officially confirm a single civilian death. Even then, the coalition only admitted to the “likely” deaths of two children in Syria. Airways believes this to be a significant under-reporting of the facts.” No Shit? Airwars was set up by journalist Chris Woods, who is vaguely familiar. He is in with the Bureau of Investigative Journalists.

  • John

    NYT and a bunch of others, in my view, are just living in dream worlds, that create a lot of bloodshed across the globe. Their friends that they dine with are covered in travesty, all in the name of freedom. They are one organization that never looks in the mirror unless brought to it by the cops.

    Not too many years ago, the 90’s I think, the Editor was sacked because they had maintained and protected a writer who put out a string of articles that, in some cases, were completely fabricated. This was all done in the name of ‘racial equality and advancement’. For the Times, or for the matter any of that journalistic crowd, to be incensed by the truth, pretty much puts them on the correct shelf.

    They are producing a news product which is garbage. They have a few solid minds and load up the rest with whomever will spread the most ridiculous take on reality possible. Their stance and silence on the massive and in terms of real love for the fellow man, criminal behavior of many in power on their favs list, testifies to their true dark nature. I don’t bother reading them. They sold out humanity. They have been this way for a very long time I suspect. A good weekend to all.

  • GuyQ

    There is democracy in Afganistan, Libya and Iraq