Christiane Amanpour Entirely Misses the Point:

LIBERAL MEDIAL LARGELY COMPLICIT WITH GENOCIDE

Ordinarily, I suppose we should be grateful that CNN’s celebrated chief foreign correspondent is shining her critical light on World genocide. (In a recent broadcast CNN Special) But her sniveling, graphic sequences of horrible crimes go largely un-answered. The reason for that is as close as her own employers and editors. Most are either outright pacifist or at minimum, non-interventional. Unfortunately, military action is almost always required to stop genocide. It is virtually impossible to stop otherwise. This is just bitter reality.

Modern liberal editors and media have forgotten their own humanity in the face of political correctness, isolationism, complaints of civilian casualties and political bias. George W. Bush was hounded by Media and liberal reporting to the last days of his Presidency. This, despite the fact that he is the one leader personally responsible for making it possible for millions of Muslim girls and women to return to school and have a chance for a moderately Western lifestyle. Even Arab sources report a 50% Arabic illiteracy rate among Muslim women. These unfortunate Muslims can’t even read the Quran! Western women’s rights advocates ignore the tragedy of Muslim women. I guess it’s no surprise that genocide is also far down their list.

Isolationism is not new. The Democrat Party openly embraced the leftist world of Israel/U.S. hate after the Vietnam War, accepting many reactionaries like Cindy Sheehan, who is openly anti-Semitic. None other than Charles Lindbergh himself went to pre-war Nazi Germany to review their military, ostensibly to report back to America. Instead, he bought the Nazi-line hook line and sinker, reporting that Germany was so far ahead of the U.S. that it would be impossible to stop them. This turned out to be false. One could argue that he was duped and that this was an honest mistake, but you’d be wrong.

Lindbergh was highly anti-Jewish and his anti-war, pro-German outlook was well documented. He received a medal from Nazi Germany which he refused to return even after the War started. His isolationism and pro-German outlook reflected in his participation in the “America First Organization,” a group militantly opposed to War with Germany or supporting England. People like him played a serious part in allowing the Holocaust to happen. Hitler even made public comments that: “America and the West don’t want Jews either.” He was right.

POST WWII ISOLATIONISM AND BEFORE

The desire for isolation is intoxicating. Who among us wouldn’t rather just lock ourselves in a room, away from the tumult? But mature and honest individuals realize that is hopelessly naïve. Our world is interconnected in ways America’s founders could not have envisioned in their wildest dreams or nightmares. Even President Lincoln faced “mass information” availability. We sometimes forget that the telegraph and inter-connecting trains covered most of the United States during the War Between the States. News of his assassination reached the entire Country in a blink, thanks to the tapping of telegraph hand-sets. Every lost battle became “another nightmare” to explain to Northern Industrialists who berated Lincoln’s management and war-time skills. There was no cable-TV or Internet, but the birth of mass communication by the telegraph was far more powerful than most of us would expect. By the time a battle was lost, it was already print fodder. Lincoln could expect to read about it in the next day’s newspapers.

It’s easy for “paper patriots” to extol military options, when in almost all cases those who call for military action do not have to pay for it, except by taxpayer proxy. It becomes the flower of our brave young men and women and their families who pay the price of eternal vigilance against despotism and genocide. Yet if you question these wonderful people, they will almost always tell you that if they have to go to war, their first choice would be to protect the rights of victims of genocide.

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND PREEMTIVE INCURSION

The first thing that liberal press screams about is “civilian casualties.” They surely know that terrorists put their installations into residential communities. This is cynically designed to awaken press hypersensitivity. It usually translates into premature military withdrawal.

But this never applies to rogue regimes that seem “immune” from criticism, intervention or media reports of their atrocities. That is the birthplace of genocide.

Western liberal news media hound our politicians and leaders about civilian casualties and “mistakes” at aiming attack weapons, even though ours are the most accurate in the history of warfare.

It’s not surprising that Western military and political leaders eschew intervention. They will almost never be criticized for not “interfering” except by a very small percentage of activists simply interested in embarrassing them. Intervention gets them peace marches, political attacks and extensive criticism of early military failures. The best leaders can hope for is the quickest possible successful incursion. If military action can stop genocide quickly, there is a chance to stop it before pacifist editors and activists start ranting. It requires strong leadership, political skills and courage.

THE PRICE OF PACIFISM AND DELAYED INTERVENTION

Pacifism is not the absence of war. It has a price. That price is usually dead bodies of innocents, vastly more than would have been caused by accurate pre-emptive bombing. Delayed intervention (either military or by embargo, etc) also has a price. That is usually described as “appeasement.” When you get a combination of those two features, you get the birth of genocide. It can be argued that embargoes and diplomatic punishments of rogue regimes should be tried as a prior substitute for military incursion.

That avenue is rendered irrelevant by oil Baksheesh and cynical power politics. Virtually every non-military intervention to fight genocide is over-run by Russia and China. Nobody can expect the West to defend the entire world against genocide. We have limitations. But we could do far more, even with very few of our own military casualties if pacifists understood the damage they cause. My heart goes out to a pre-World War II Winston Churchill, who fought isolationism and appeasement with the tenacity of a bull dog. He understood.

WHAT TO DO

Those who wish to stop genocide must face painful political realities, but if they choose to try, this is what they can do:

1. Face the press directly on civilian casualties. Remind them that in order to stop genocide, civilian casualties will occur. Apologize when it happens, but don’t retreat until the job is done.
2. Stop apologizing for your existence. You have a right to defend yourself.
3. Don’t allow yourself to be drawn into an argument of “war for oil.” That is a refuge of pacifists. Confront pacifism with the reality of terrorism. Tell them to give up their cars before they complain about incursions. Remind them that terrorism may also cost them their jobs.
4. Don’t expect police actions to end quickly. Concentrate on getting the message out that you are fighting for the rights of the oppressed. Get their atrocities on media as much as you can.
5. Point out how appeasement has allowed past genocides. Unfortunately you have lots of examples to choose from.
6. Confront the press that if THEY conspire to apply pressure to withdraw, you will turn back on them and hold them responsible for genocide. Embarrass them publicly on this, with your return questions

Christiane Amanpour never confronts her own editors on the issue of military necessity to prevent genocide.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, A HERO IN A SUIT

This distinguished diplomat and man of conscience was the 22^nd U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He engineered the “Bombs for Peace Plan” that resulted in the end of the then over 3 year war in Bosnia, and an end to ethnic cleansing, a metaphor for genocide he himself coined. His prescient words: "I don't like to advocate the use of force, [because] I know people will get killed," Holbrooke said. "But there are times when you have to use force in order to stop people from being killed in larger numbers, and it seemed to me this (Bosnia) was a clear-cut example." Perhaps it is no surprise that Ambasador Holbrook had a Jewish Grandfather who escaped the Nazis.

MEDIA HUBRIS

Christiane Amanpour’s reportage is short-sighted and gratuitous. She ignores the chief causes of genocide: Pacifism and appeasement. “They do it because they can get away with it.” Until she is willing to confront Media on open terms, her reports are just gratuitous violence, no more useful than an average Hollywood theater snuff film.

Whether he likes it or not, our new president, sanctified as a saint by our Media will also have to deal with genocide. It will not stop just because pacifists want it to. If his Administration intends to stop it, it will mean military action. And he will be attacked for that by the same constituency that put him into the Oval Office.

Dr. Michael M. Rosenblatt