Rational people are often confused by the war media's agitation for war. The reason for the confusion is they are lying to us. Whenever I'm confused by the war media, I conclude they must be trying to start another war. They're pressing this button too often, though. Compare the results in Syria to those in Libya...
Assuming "their" refers to the war media, motives vary. Younger folks are just trying not to get fired. (Those who haven't even gotten hired yet have to cultivate a very careful Twitter persona even to be considered.) More experienced journalists can't get frozen out by official sources, whether that's the spooks, the brass, the lobbyist-owned politicians, or the surveillance-owned politicians. Editors/producers/executives have to worry about pissing off big advertisers. Lots of people on the talking-head shows are think-tankers, intellectually totally beholden to whatever shadowy reptiles have funded their sinecures and sabbaticals. Even if motives went the other way, at this point habit keeps them doing their masters' bidding, as witnessed by the schizophrenia regarding Julian Assange.
But, really, asking about motives is just another way to ignore this. Motives will always be squishy and deniable. Look at what actually happens. They lied us into Vietnam with the Tonkin Gulf Deception. They lied us into the First Gulf War with the incubator babies. They lied us into the Second Gulf War with WMDs. We went to war in Afghanistan and Osama turned out to be in Pakistan. They lied us into Libya with some random exiles living in Switzerland plus a French philosopher. They lied us into Syria (thankfully not all the way) with gas attacks staged by our ally Al-Qaeda. They're trying to lie us into Venezuela with a recession caused by our own sanctions plus staged attacks on soi-disant "aid convoys". Now they're trying to justify a war with Iran with a video of CIA operatives in a boat. If you prefer older history, "remember the Maine!" was also a lie.
