Four Myths About Obama’s War on ISIS [FAIR Media Advisory]
A reluctant warrior intervenes against a threat to the homeland–or so we’re told
Sept 12, 2014
With Barack Obama’s September 10 announcement of a military plan to launch strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), many pundits might be breathing a sigh of relief. The White House is finally taking the kind of military action they have been recommending for months.
But there are some serious questions that should be asked–about the threat posed by the Islamic State and about some of the assumptions guiding the debate.
–‘Striking the Homeland’
The idea that ISIS poses an immediate threat to the United States–as opposed to its non-Sunni Muslim neighbors–has been a consistent theme in the media, encouraging the public to support war…
-Obama, the Reluctant Warrior
One clear message from corporate media has been that Barack Obama is unusually reticent about using military force…[b]ut Obama’s actual record conflicts with this picture. In Iraq, Obama tried to keep more troops in Iraq than the Bush administration had agreed to in the withdrawal plan it had negotiated. Obama’s substantial achievement in Afghanistan was a massive escalation of that war…
–Congress Gets in the Way
The decision to consult Congress on the matter of starting a war–as required by the Constitution–is often treated as a weakness…
–Finally Intervening in Syria
Throughout the past year, hawkish critics of the White House and many pundits have insisted that the Obama administration should have intervened long ago…
…What seems abundantly clear is that the media’s coverage of the threat posed by the Islamic State–and the group’s savvy dissemination of appalling propaganda–have produced some shift in public opinion. As journalist Glenn Greenwald (Intercept, 9/8/14) remarked:
It’s as though ISIS and the US media and political class worked in perfect unison to achieve the same goal here when it comes to American public opinion: fully terrorize them.
[Edited by Zuo Shou]