A Wall Street Journal op-ed writer, Elizabeth O’Bagby, was recently fired by The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) for lying about her credentials on her resume. She claimed that she had received a PH.D. from Georgetown University but had never done so. The story in Politico mainly concentrated on this issue, but this was the most minor offense committed by O’Bagby in my opinion.
Her recent article concerning Syria became famous when it was quoted as fact by the likes of John Kerry and John McCain at congressional hearings concerning an attack on Syria. Given O’Bagby’s occupation and affiliations, anything she published about Syria should have been heavily scrutinized. Whether she had a PH.D. or not is irrelevant, but would any of this have been exposed had she secured that PH.D.? Not likely.
The mission of the ISW according to their site is telling.
The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.
This organization is committed to war. It’s objective is to help the U.S. government execute military operations in order to “achieve strategic objectives.” This institute is a promoter and facilitator of aggressive war.
Not only was O’Bagby a senior research analyst working for the ISW, but she was also affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force. According to the article noted above in Politico, the Syrian Emergency Task Force is a “nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition.” This revelation, along with the fact that she worked for an organization whose Chairman is a retired Army General, an organization whose mission is to advance the ideas of war, is very contradictory and is certainly a conflict of interest.
Her article appeared in the Wall (War) Street Journal on August 31st, and was titled “On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War.” In that article, O’Bagby called for a “large comprehensive strategy,” with a goal of fully destroying Syria’s military while providing massive weaponry including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons systems to the “rebels.” Many if not most of those rebels are terrorists by the way. In addition she supported regime change by ousting Assad, claiming that without his removal continued atrocities would occur.
Her article, and it was an opinion article, was biased and was written more like a personal treatise for all out war than anything else. Why else would the now warmongering Kerry and the forever warmongering McCain use this op-ed piece to convince a congressional committee to approve an aggressive war against Syria?
The mainstream media does little more than totally support the fascist regime that is the U.S. government. It is simply the mouthpiece for the governing rulers, and will print what they are told to print, regardless of the truth, and regardless of the horror that is caused by this state supported “journalism.”
The story in Politico should have concentrated on the obvious conflicts evident due to Elizabeth O’Bagby’s affiliations. Instead, it concentrated on the fact that she had not obtained a PH.D., and was fired over a lie. That lie pales in comparison to the fact that she had an agenda to fulfill, and that agenda was to falsely promote a war that would cost the lives of many thousands of Syrian civilians for the purpose of gaining a “strategic objective” for the imperialists in Washington D.C.!