Strong and fresh idea
There are VERY FEW new ideas in current discourse.

Here's a strong and fresh idea from Eric Zuesse. I've never thought of it before, and I've never heard it from other nationalists or anti-interventionists.

Both President Trump and former President Obama are commonly said in America’s ‘news’ media to be or to have been “ceding Syria to Russia” or “ceding Syria to Russia and Iran,” or similar allegations. They imply that ‘we’ own (or have some right to control) Syria. That’s not only a lie; it is a very evil and harmful one, dangerously goading the US President to go even more...

This is one of those constantly repeated flat assertions, treated as background information like gravity that doesn't need to be restated.

In simple fact we can't 'cede' a country that wasn't ours to begin with.

These accusations were common in two earlier circumstances, with the same warlike purpose.

Around 1920 "investigators" were asking who lost Russia. Around 1950 "investigators" were asking who lost China.

Again we couldn't lose something unless we owned it. Asking the question CREATES the unstated assumption of ownership.

In all three eras the answer is the same, but the question first needs to be recast as a HOW instead of a WHO, and the assumption of ownership has to be stripped out.

Better formulation: How did we turn Russia and China and Syria from friends to enemies?

Broad answer: We turned them to enemies by DEFINING them as enemies.

Specific answer: We turned them to enemies by attempting to change their regimes.

The first two cases aren't familiar because we've wiped them from our history. From 1918 to 1920 we invaded and occupied Russia in an effort to help the Mensheviks. Result: Russians saw the Mensheviks as foreign invaders and favored the Bolsheviks. From 1946 to 1949 we tried to help Chiang's forces in China. Result: The Chinese saw Chiang as a foreign invader and favored Mao.

Zuesse's idea clarifies these commonalities. Our attempt to change another country's regime is an ASSERTION OF OWNERSHIP. It's like walking into a stranger's house and replacing his furniture with your furniture, or removing his kids and replacing them with your kids. The stranger correctly believes you're trying to assert ownership, and rejects everything connected with your bizarre illegal behavior.

Labels: Answered better than asked

  ¶ 1:28 AM