A New York Times article on the Syria peace talks in Geneva states:
And a political solution is not out of the question if some right choices are made. The United States, for one, should drop its opposition to including Iran, which supplies arms and other assistance to Mr. Assad, in the negotiations. Russia, another weapons supplier, could send a powerful message to Mr. Assad by suspending its arms deliveries. Saudi Arabia and Qatar could send the same message to Mr. Assad’s opposition by ending weapons deliveries to the rebels. And Turkey could close its border to the foreign fighters that have turned Syria into a cauldron of extremist elements that threaten the entire region.
This is rich. Yet again, the Times simply whitewashes the U.S. role in Syria. Saudi Arabia and Qatar should end weapons deliveries to the rebels? What about the U.S.? Why doesn’t the Times call for the U.S. to stop arming the rebels? After all, the Times knows perfectly well that it was the CIA that was coordinating the flow of arms from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, most of which ended up in the hands of the Islamic extremists, to the rebels, who have received training from the CIA at bases in Turkey and Jordan. And the U.S. has since begun arming the rebels directly.
The reason the Times does not disclose this to readers is because it would undermine the obligatory propaganda narrative designed to manufacture consent for U.S. interventionist foreign policy. According to this narrative, the mess that Syria has become is a consequence of a lack of U.S. intervention. This is nonsense, of course. Precisely the opposite is true. But Americans are supposed to believe that the U.S. government must not sit on its hands any long, but must do more to help bring peace to Syria. See, criticizing the government for doing too little rather than for intervening to prolong and escalate the violence in the first place just fits better with the belief system of adherents to the state religion.
The Times knows the truth, of course, about U.S. support for Syrian armed rebels. We know because the Times has reported it. Moreover, the Times has repeatedly lauded the Obama administration for its Syrian policy. In April 2013, they approvingly stated that “President Obama is edging, cautiously but appropriately, toward greater support for the rebels.” They added that he should “resist” directly arming the rebels, but offered no criticism of the CIA’s role in coordinating the flow of arms from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In June, they praised Obama for having decided to arm the rebels only with “prudent reluctance” since, among other concerns, they could end up in the hands of the extremists. Then just last month, they again endorsed this U.S. policy by stating, “There is a danger that American aid could backfire, as it did in the 1980s when support for Mujahedeen fighters battling the Soviets helped to create fertile ground for terrorist movements years later. But the risk may be worth it.”