NY Times: We Have Always Been at War With Syria!

Barack Obama’s reluctant venture into war-making is causing heads to explode on the Left. The intellectually consistent are denouncing him as a warmonger and an imperialist, but there aren’t many of those. More typical is the New York Times editorial board, which, like Stalinists in the 1930s, follows the party line unquestioningly. For which it is taken to task by the far-left journal Counterpunch: “Perpetual War is Fine With the New York Times After All.” How can you not enjoy that?

George Orwell

George Orwell


The editorial board of the New York Times has an Orwellian knack for war. Sixteen months ago, when President Obama gave oratorical lip service to ending “perpetual war,” the newspaper quickly touted that end as a democratic necessity. But now — in response to Obama’s speech Wednesday night announcing escalation of war without plausible end — the Times editorial voice is with the endless war program.

Because Obama.

Under the headline “The End of the Perpetual War,” published on May 23, 2013, the Times was vehement, calling a new Obama speech “the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America.” The editorial added: “For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.”

The Times editorial board was sweeping in its conclusion: “Mr. Obama told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled, as it always was before 2001, primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. That shift is essential to preserving the democratic system and rule of law for which the United States is fighting, and for repairing its badly damaged global image.”

That was before the Democratic Party was about to be crushed in a mid-term election.

But the “essential” shift is now dispensable and forgettable, judging from the New York Times editorial that appeared hours after Obama’s pivotal speech Wednesday night. The newspaper’s editorial board has ditched the concept that the state of perpetual war is unsustainable for democracy.

"Pinch" Sulzberger

“Pinch” Sulzberger

Under the headline “The Attack on ISIS Expands to Syria,” the Times editorial offers only equivocal misgivings without opposition “as President Obama moves the nation back onto a war footing.” Without a fine point on the matter, we are to understand that war must be perpetuated without any foreseeable end.

The concluding paragraph of the New York Times editorial in the Sept. 11, 2014 edition is already historic and tragic. It sums up a liberal style of murmuring reservations while deferring to the essence of U.S. policies for perpetual war: “The American military’s actions in the Middle East has (sic) often fueled Arab anger, even when the United States was spending billions of dollars on beneficial programs, including health and education. Mr. Obama expressed confidence that the plan against ISIS will work and, at the moment, seems aware of the risks he takes.”

Like the vast bulk of the rest of U.S. mass media, when push comes to militaristic shove, the New York Times refuses to make a break from the madness of perpetual war.

Well, no: the Times refuses to make a break from supporting the Obama administration, no matter what head-snapping contradictions that may entail. The Times had no problem denouncing “perpetual war” when we had a Republican president. The only surprising thing in the editorial is a grammatical error that would have resulted in a failing grade when I was in elementary school:

Screen Shot 2014-09-11 at 6.30.43 PM

Elitism isn’t what it used to be.

Responses