Why A Picture of a Dead Refugee Boy Won’t Change Anything

by William Skink

A person I have a lot of respect for posted this article on her Facebook page that features a heartbreaking, graphic picture of a dead Syrian toddler who washed up on a beach. The little boy is face down in the surf, dead.

The first comment on that post is from a local Democratic politician who I have absolutely zero respect for. The comment stated simply this: yes.

I’m not sure what that “yes” is supposed to mean. The intention of the person who posted the article is to bring attention to the worse refugee crisis the world has seen since WWII. I’m assuming the yes is in solidarity with this effort to raise awareness.

The reason I can’t stomach that response is because that politician also ardently supports Hillary Clinton, a despicable warmongering hawk who gleefully celebrated the news of Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet, then executed.

Here is the Facebook response I wrote then chose not to post:

What needs to change is not European attitudes but American foreign policy. There are Syrian refugees because American foreign policy has been to arm “moderate” rebels who are not actually moderate but violent foreign fighting mercenaries and terrorists. There are Libyan refugees because interventionists like Hillary Clinton exploited a trumped-up humanitarian crisis to justify ousting and executing Gaddafi. This is geopolitics at its worst, and Americans remain mostly ignorant of what’s actually going on with their tax dollars abroad because our corporate media feeds us propaganda (even MSNBC). Maybe a picture of dead toddler washing up on the beach will change that. I doubt it, though.

Now, in Syria, Russia is getting more directly involved. How would a President Clinton respond?

The end of summer. It means back-to-school shopping, tearfully ended beach-borne romances, Labor Day barbecues—and, it would seem, the increased likelihood of new Russian adventurism. As if Moscow weren’t satisfied with the game in Ukraine, the last month has seen a flurry of reports about its ever-expanding military involvement in Syria.

One report has even alleged that Russian pilots are gearing up to fly missions alongside the Syrian air force, dropping bombs not just on ISIS but on anti-Assad rebels who may or may not be aligned with the United States or its regional allies.

Several sources consulted for this story said the Pentagon is being unusually cagey about Russia’s reinvigorated role in Syria. A former U.S. military officer told The Daily Beast, “I’m being told things like, ‘We really can’t talk about this.’ That indicates to me that there’s some truth to these allegations.”

Russian adventurism? How is that for propaganda?

Here is an analogy for RD readers. Both America and Russia have military bases in other countries. How do you think America would respond if China was blatantly arming “moderate rebels” in Japan? Do you think America would just stand by and allow strategic military bases to be threatened by a foreign nation? Hell no, America would intervene.

So why would we expect anything different from Russia?

Anyone who supports Hillary Clinton supports more war. More war means more war refugees. That’s the reality.

And remember, the neocons have become reluctant fans of Clinton’s ME adventurism. In that NYT article, a neocon alignment with Hillary Clinton is described as “not as outlandish as it may sound,” then goes on to state this:

Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

Refugees will continue dying in the thousands. Politicians can lament over that harsh reality, but if they support Hillary Clinton, then I’m not interested in anything they have to say about the consequences of American foreign policy.

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why A Picture of a Dead Refugee Boy Won’t Change Anything

  1. JC says:

    MIchael Weiss, who is the author of the Daily Beast article you quote above is a famed propagandist working for NED.

    And let’s not forget the Robert Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, who under a Hillary Clinton regime most likely would either move up in the State Department, or to the White House as a foreign policy advisor. The incest among neocons is striking, and they have infiltrated the R2P (“responsibility to protect”) wing of the dem party that Clinton (and to some degree Sanders) represent.

  2. very interesting post and comments at Moon of Alabama wrt the refugee crisis.

    • JC says:

      Yep, and to answer b’s questions about “what is this [migrant media] campaign all about?” we get a very interesting and succinct analysis from Zero Hedge a few minutes ago:

      Of course, what is left unsaid is that since Russia is there under the humanitarian pretext of fighting the evil ISIS, the same pretext that the US, Turkey, and the Saudis are all also there for, when in reality everyone is fighting for land rights to the most important gas pipeline in decades, the US is limited in its diplomatic recoil.

      Indeed as we sarcastically said last week: “See: the red herring that is ISIS can be used just as effectively for defensive purposes as for offensive ones. And since the US can’t possibly admit the whole situation is one made up farce, it is quite possible that the world will witness its first regional war when everyone is fighting a dummy, proxy enemy which doesn’t really exist, when in reality everyone is fighting everyone else!”

      Which now effectively ends the second “foreplay” phase of the Syrian proxy war (the first one took place in the summer of 2013 when in a repeat situation, Russia was supporting Assad only the escalations took place in the naval theater with both Russian and US cruisers within kilometers of each other off the Syrian coast), which means the violent escalation phase is next. It also means that Assad was within days of losing control fighting a multi-front war with enemies supported by the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and Putin had no choice but to intervene or else risk losing Gazprom’s influence over Europe to the infamous Qatari gas pipeline which is what this whole 3 years war is all about.

      Finally, it means that the European refugee crisis, which is a direct consequence of the ISIS-facilitated destabilization of the Syrian state (as a reminder, ISIS is a US creation meant to depose of the Syrian president as leaked Pentagon documents have definitively revealed) is about to get much worse as 2013’s fabricated “chemical gas” YouTube clip will be this years “Refugee crisis.” It will be, and already has been, blamed on Syria’s president Assad in order to drum up media support for what is now an inevitable western intervention in Syria.

      The problem, however, has emerged: Russia is already on the ground, and will hardly bend over to any invading force.

  3. Big Swede says:

    Laughing into 1939.

Leave a Reply