“I find war detestable but those who praise it without participating in it even more so.” — Romain Rolland 1866-1944

Bear with me while I engage in what can only be termed journalistic masturbation.

After watching wall-to-wall coverage in the mainstream media concerning the incident in the Strait of Hormuz between Iranian speedboats and US warships, one would be hard pressed to not experience a feeling of deja vu — the parallels to the Gulf of Tonkin are amazing.

For a few days now, the major networks have breathlessly trumpeted the provocative confrontation and reported that “US warships were seconds away from firing on the speedboats.” Everybody panic!

Eh, not so much.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now has an interesting article posted on AlterNet concerning the incident and what could be generously called complicity of the media. Ms Goodman writes, “The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its ‘provocation’ in the Strait of Hormuz on January 6. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels may have been blown out of proportion. Democracy Now! spoke with investigative historian Gareth Porter.”

Mr. Porter, who is an historian and national security policy analyist states, further into the article, “Then I think the next major thing that happened was a briefing by the commander of the 5th fleet in Bahrain, the Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, which is very interesting. If you look carefully at the transcript, which was not reported accurately by the media, or not reported at all practically, the commander — or rather, Vice Admiral Cosgriff actually makes it clear that the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats. And this is the heart of what actually happened, which was never reported by the US media.

“So I think that the major thing to really keep in mind about this is that it was blown up into a semi-crisis by the Pentagon and that the media followed along very supinely. And I must say this is perhaps the worst — the most egregious case of sensationalist journalism in the service of the interests of the Pentagon, the Bush administration, that I have seen so far.”

So the question seems to be, was the media complicit in the application of hyperbole to drum up support for military action against Iran vis-a-vis a Gulf of Tonkin type incident? And, more importantly, who in their right mind would be surprised at this?

Ron Paul was probably not surprised as he is on record from January 2007 as saying this exact sort of thing was a possibility. From his “Straight Talk” newsletter dated January 15, 2007:

Escalation in the Middle East

January 15, 2007

While the president’s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president’s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East.

The president stated last week that, “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity- and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.” He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East. Meanwhile, US troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the US closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran.

As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran — possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!

This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran?

We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:

“… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.”

In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism.

Far from being the “nutjob” or “tinfoil hat candidate” that some in the mainstream media are making him out to be, Congressman Paul seems to have his finger on the pulse of what is actually taking place in the world, not the Potemkin village the administration and the national media would have us believe.

As to my initial reference of engaging in journalistic masturbation, I sincerely feel that I write only to make myself feel better. I don’t kid myself that the majority of Americans do not read alternate media; they don’t read from Reason To Freedom , they don’t read Rational Review, they don’t read Unknown News (otherwise, poor Mr. Knapp and the esteemable Harry and Helen Highwater would never have “zero fundraising” days!)
As hard as these and many more wonderful alternate media outlets and blogs try to enlighten the masses, the large percentage of folks still get glean what little news they get from the major networks and cable outlets. Naturally, because the majors are “on board” with the administration’s message, the masses have zero reason for getting worried about world events because dear old Uncle Sam is looking out for their best interests — don’t worry your pretty little head about recessions or blowback or economic collapse or corruption or mandatory chipping of citizens, or torture or … or … Jesus-Christ-on-a-jumped-up-jalopy, my head is about to explode!

So while I feel very much like I’m pissing in the wind, I would feel even worse if I tried to suffer in silence; to do nothing or say nothing. Because the feeling of impotence is overwhelming-I can be honest about myself enough to admit I’m not at the point of being able to shoot the bastards; I, like many of my fellow citizens, am too comfortable. I like my electricity, love my internet connection, love my air conditioning and my ability to shop at the local supermarket thus eliminating the need to kill my dinner. I am your ugly American; fat and complacent and what can only be called a soft target.

But what will happen when these amenities are taken away, by the very real and ever probable economic collapse or the war brought home to us? Suddenly these creature comforts would start to lose their importance; I for one would gladly trade my air conditioning (even in August in Texas!) for my Constitutional rights back.

I firmly believe that some folks, myself included, are beginning to suffer from national cognitive dissonance; rather than hoping for the future and our children’s future and enjoying the fruits of our past labor, we find ourselves planning on how best to defend our homes and where to plant gardens if we live in areas that are non-agricultural or if the fruits of our past labor have not been sufficient enough to afford property ownership (such as it is).

And each saber-rattling, each report of military one-upsmanship, every odorous whift of war-profiteering that comes across the airwaves works to reduce the attraction of our creature comforts.

Marc Antony saw firsthand what happened when the head of an empire was stopped just short of achieving absolute power and the civil unrest that came about as a result of it-he then predicted that Julius Caesar would be a “spirit ranging for revenge” and from hell would come back and “let slip the dogs of war.” He knew that the powerful never give up their power without a fight to the death and that usually, it takes quite a bit for citizens to finally have enough and act for the good of the republic.

I wonder and worry about the future.