Why is the far right so against US intervention in Syria? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14905895
The Guardian wrote:Why is the far right so against US intervention in Syria?By Jason Wilson
Fri 13 Apr 2018 14.00 BST





Despite Iraq the left has mounted no serious opposition to Syrian involvement – so why is the right now filling those shoes?[center-img]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/1d23a9557ccc1c864b46943d54441fbe76248519/98_180_2461_1477/master/2461.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=52b7366bb31b0164c6cb8ce9333e52b0[/center-img]

In 2002 and 2003, millions of left-leaning demonstrators crowded cities around the world to protest against the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. All the while, conservative media, along with large segments of the liberal press, beat the war drums, encouraging the Bush administration in its project of regime change.

But 15 years later, as the US edges towards a greater involvement in Syria, there is as yet no progressive, mass anti-war movement. For now, the most prominent opponents of Middle East intervention are all on the right, while leading Democrats are entirely on board with military intervention in the Middle East.

Almost as soon as allegations of a chemical attack in Douma were aired, a broad spectrum of rightwing commentators were claiming that it was a “false flag” – that is, an attack carried out by someone else as a provocation, in order to bring down international punishment on the Assad government.

The most reliable peddlers of conspiracy thinking led the way. Alex Jones shot out a live Twitter broadcast claiming that the “false flag chemical attack could start a wider war”. The hardcore Trump acolyte and anti-immigration zealot Ann Coulter called it a “faked attack”, and like many others, connected it to Trump’s recently expressed desire to leave Syria.

In the same vein, many pointed a finger at the alt-right’s perennial scapegoat: Jewish people. In a tweet, alt-right podcaster Mike Peinovich (AKA Mike Enoch) Called it “(((neocon))) bullshit”, using the movement’s visual symbolism for Jewish people, adding that “I don’t buy it and neither should you.”



On his own podcast, prominent alt-right figure Richard Spencer also expressed scepticism about the attack, and interpreted the administration’s increasingly uncompromising stance towards Syria’s ally, Russia, as an indicator of Jewish influence.

“Let’s just let the cat out of the bag,” Spencer said, “there is a Jewish element (who thinks) Russia is fundamentally illegitimate.”

Image

The false flag theories, the animus towards Israel and Jewish people as supposed orchestrators of the attack, and sympathy for Russia, were all visible wherever the far right gathers online. This not least on Gab, the alt-right’s favored social media platform, where users swapped antisemitic memes explaining the attacks as a conspiracy, intended to manipulate Trump into fighting Israel’s wars.

If this skepticism were confined to these fringes, it might not be worth too much of our attention. But it also received an airing in ostensibly more mainstream forums, especially Fox News.

On Thursday, the Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy, who repeated claims made by the Russian government that aid organization the White Helmets had staged the attack. (The same claims had been published the previous day on Richard Spencer’s website).

And in general, Fox News hosts pushed back on the president’s bellicose remarks, largely evincing an anti-war sentiment. New recruit Tomi Lahren counseled Trump in her final thoughts segment to “remember that it’s America first”, and demanded that the US pull out of Syria entirely.



Early on Monday morning, Laura Ingraham wondered why Syria was a priority among other humanitarian disasters, and also asked, “where are we getting all the money?”

As for Tucker Carlson, he arguably cemented his position as the country’s most high-profile critic of America’s wars. On Monday night, on his primetime show, Carlson first ripped the “geniuses” accusing Assad of chemical weapons use, asking: “Do they really know that? Of course they don’t. They’re making it up.”

He further asked: “How would Assad benefit from using chlorine gas last weekend?”, arguing that as he is poised for victory, this would be self-defeating.

This emerging rightwing stance against war in Syria seems remarkable when set against recent history, but it makes more sense in the context of the right’s longer history.

Matthew Lyons, a longtime researcher and author on the far right, points out that there’s a “whole tradition in the US right of opposing military intervention overseas”.

Lyons says that this tradition, traceable to the America First Committee’s attempts to keep the US out of the second world war, receded in the cold war, only to be revived by so-called “paleoconservatives” like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s. (This week, Buchanan himself railed against Trump’s apparent capture by “the war party”).

“Alt-rightists such as Richard Spencer and rightwing conspiracists such as Alex Jones partly echo the paleoconservatives,” Lyons says.

He adds that when Trump launched strikes against Syria last year in response to another gas attack, “they saw that as a betrayal of Trump’s talk of ‘putting America first’, and a capitulation to the neoconservative establishment, so-called globalist elites, or just Jews”.

And while the far right has mixed feelings about Russia, Russia will take any help it can get. As George Washington University’s Marlene Laruelle , Russia is “a beneficiary of a confluence of narratives and visions” in the west, and acts “not as a societal transformer but as an echo chamber of European and American societies’ own doubts”.

In other words, while Putin may not be responsible for the right’s anti-war turn and the crisis of neoconservatism, to the extent that this reflects a broader shift in public opinion, he may benefit from it.

As for Fox News, according to the political scientist and conservative media expert Dan Cassino, anti-globalism is also the flavor of the month there.

He thinks they have been chasing the audience discovered and nurtured by outlets like Breitbart and Infowars. Indeed, as presenters like Carlson have found ways to make alt-right-adjacent ideology “palatable to advertisers”.

Cassino says that while once Fox had to balance Tea Party-style red meat politics against the sensibilities of “country club Republicans”, now he’s not sure that center-right audience exists any more.

For now, then, the most energetic and entrepreneurial parts of the right are anti-war. Until and unless a broader left anti-war movement emerges, they may remain as the most prominent advocates for that position.
#14905898
The whole Israel bashing makes them look ignorant I must say. There are plenty people on the right that do not indulge in Jew bashing, it is really the neo-nazi type right wing that do so or people who's background comes from that ideology so they do not throw the away the baggage that comes with it.
#14905902
In all English speaking countries the far right or at least the most right wing elements of the centre right were always isolationist, or tacitly supportive of right wing regimes in Asia and Europe. In America you had the isolationists who opposed war with Germany, notably Charles Lindbergh. In Australia you had the Australia First Movement which did not perceive Japan as a threat and opposed entering the war on the Allied side. In Britain the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley opposed attempts to contain Germany's eastward expansion.

It's essentially based on the argument that, "This country or people are not threatening my country, but they are fighting what I think is the greater enemy." In the 1930s the Anglo-American far right felt that the Soviet Union was their greatest threat, and therefore Nazi Germany's expansion into Eastern Europe and Eurasia was not seen as a major problem. In the 2010s the main threat is seen to be extreme Islamism in the form of ISIS, and again, Assad's regime is not seen as a problem. And like Nazi Germany fighting communism in the 1930s the Anglo-American far right see Assad as the main force fighting Islamism.
#14905903
Albert wrote:The whole Israel bashing makes them look ignorant I must say. There are plenty people on the right that do not indulge in Jew bashing, it is really the neo-nazi type right wing that do so or people who's background comes from that ideology so they do not throw the away the baggage that comes with it.


Even acknowledging a far right tendency to blame Jews does not explain doing so in this scenario. There is nothing to be gained from it. The left should have been seen as the culprit to further the right’s agenda. Failing to do so is highly suspicious. I can think of no reason other than the extremist on both ends are just puppets to distract us. Clearly, this is a direct result of anti-Trumpism. For the right not to point that out is mind boggling.
#14905910
It is not a conspiracy I think, there is a wave nationalist sentiment arising in the west. Since the end of WWII the only outlet for nationalism has been the neo-nazis. The trouble with that is that neo-nazism carries a heavy baggage of antisemitism and many other narrow minded ideological assumptions. What is happening now is that these neo-nazis think that they carry the mantle of this new wave of nationalism, which they do not. People like Richard Spencer and major network outlets like Fox News are trying to lead the expression of this movement but they can not. As this "alt-right" movement as defined by the opposition is not neo-nazi ideologically speaking.

Established media outlets like Fox News can not define it and give proper expression to it because they view things to much from established right-wing liberal political spectrum of American society. So thus they fail as well.

I believe in the future this movement will become defined and revealed for what it is. It will be shown that it is not racist as the left claims it to be in its terms and definitions. Also the neo-nazi stooges will realize that it is not a racialist white supremacist antisemitic movement they hope it is.

So the "right" can not point this out because there has not been established a proper expression of this new modern political movement we are witnessing in western societies.
#14905918
Albert wrote:It is not a conspiracy I think, there is a wave nationalist sentiment arising in the west. Since the end of WWII the only outlet for nationalism has been the neo-nazis. The trouble with that is that neo-nazism carries a heavy baggage of antisemitism and many other narrow minded ideological assumptions. What is happening now is that these neo-nazis think that they carry the mantle of this new wave of nationalism, which they do not. People like Richard Spencer and major network outlets like Fox News are trying to lead the expression of this movement but they can not. As this "alt-right" movement as defined by the opposition is not neo-nazi ideologically speaking.

Established media outlets like Fox News can not define it and give proper expression to it because they view things to much from established right-wing liberal political spectrum of American society. So thus they fail as well.

I believe in the future this movement will become defined and revealed for what it is. It will be shown that it is not racist as the left claims it to be in its terms and definitions. Also the neo-nazi stooges will realize that it is not a racialist white supremacist antisemitic movement they hope it is.

So the "right" can not point this out because there has not been established a proper expression of this new modern political movement we are witnessing in western societies.


Very well put. No one seems to understand the ‘silent majority’ is still with us. Their views never really get understood.
#14905920
The Guardian wrote:This emerging rightwing stance against war in Syria seems remarkable when set against recent history, but it makes more sense in the context of the right’s longer history.

Similarly, the long-standing "left wing" stance in favour of war in Syria seems remarkable when set against recent history, and makes absolutely no sense in the context of the left's longer history.

What a silly article. It's clearly an attempt to not-so-subtly make people associate opponents of the war with cranks and alt-right nose-measurers. When did the Guardian become such a blatant cheerleader for the establishment? :roll:
#14905945
The squeaky wheel gets the oil, so we've learned. For the Iraq War, we got gay marriage because the left whined the entire time. It's time for us to sit one out and do our own whining. They're obviously not dangling any benefits for us to be behind this war, so why should we be for it? Besides, we have women and homosexuals in the military now. It's time for them to do their fair share of fighting wars for a change.
#14905947
I don't know who is responsible for the gas attacks in Syria. I don't know there were gas attacks in Syria but I leans toward believe there were. What I do know that there is absolutely no reason for gas attack when there are some many more effective, cheaper alternatives. Assad ain't an angel but he ain't stupid. This has all the markings of a false flag operation.

On the practical side, I don't care it they gas all the Syrians. It ain't our business. All the Syrians are worth one American life or one American dollar. ;)
#14906358
Heisenberg wrote:When did the Guardian become such a blatant cheerleader for the establishment? :roll:


Since forever. The guardian is the paper of choice for rich London people who claim to be on the left but are really on the right (employ a cleaner, have a posh accent, probably vegetarian etc).
#14906371
Albert wrote:The whole Israel bashing makes them look ignorant I must say. There are plenty people on the right that do not indulge in Jew bashing, it is really the neo-nazi type right wing that do so or people who's background comes from that ideology so they do not throw the away the baggage that comes with it.


It's a mixture of antisemitism by the neo Nazi far right (David Duke etc) and sincere American Christian solidarity with the Eastern Christians, which Assad is indeed their protector. Alex Jones is probably of the innocent branch. He got so angry because Trump didn't listen to his advice. Also many of them believed that there will be a war, a WW3 with Russia! In the end the strikes were even more limited than the last time.
#14906377
Suntzu wrote:All the Syrians are worth one American life or one American dollar. ;)

I presume you meant to say "aren't" not are ? If so: Yes, they are. Sacrifice for freedom is the essence of the American ideal.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." Blake? I think?

America will not stand by and do nothing, American blood, shed for centuries now in the cause of freedom, screams in our ears. And I do believe the French and the Brits hear it too.

Zam
#14906383
Zamuel wrote:I presume you meant to say "aren't" not are ? If so: Yes, they are. Sacrifice for freedom is the essence of the American ideal.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." Blake? I think?

America will not stand by and do nothing, American blood, shed for centuries now in the cause of freedom, screams in our ears. And I do believe the French and the Brits hear it too.

Zam


At it again crusading for the ''American Way'' and the Almighty Dollar, with other people's sons of course in harm's way. The real way of American freedom is not going forth in search of ''monsters'' to slay (as one founder put it) but to lead by example, taking care of our own problems of which we have many.

But by all means display your arrogant imperialism disguised as ''liberation'' for everyone to see.
#14906422
Any people who care for human life are against US intervention in Syria, because it'll only exacerbate the problem. It will not fix it, and only far more people will get killed so Americans can boost their economy in another foreign war.

I hope the Americans here have their children and friends sent there first.

(edit: grammar)
Last edited by Godstud on 15 Apr 2018 03:31, edited 1 time in total.
#14906456
Heisenberg wrote:When did the Guardian become such a blatant cheerleader for the establishment? :roll:


In the bombing of Yugoslavia on 'ethnic cleansing' rants in 1999. That seems to be the turning point for the Guardian-centre left in the UK on war mongering.

Our constitution is outdated, but the First Amend[…]

@MistyTiger It's cool Misty, I totally underst[…]

Election 2020

:lol: https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/13[…]

4 days left until we make Trump win a landslide […]