Tucker Carlson’s case against war in Syria

I don’t watch network television any more and, when I did, I hardly ever watched Fox News.  But in this clip, Tucker Carlson says almost everything that needs to be said about why going to war in Syria is a mistake.

The United States has no vital interests in Syria, the war has created terrible suffering to the Syrian people, and, while President Assad is a ruthless dictator, the radical jihadist fanatics being back by the U.S. would be worse, especially for the Christian minority in Syria.

The excuse for attacking Syria is the regime’s alleged use of poison gas against civilians, but there’s no proof of this, and, even if true, it would be no worse than atrocities by U.S. allies that the U.S. government ignores.

The only thing Carlson leaves out is the possibility of a clash with Russian forces in Syria, leading to a U.S-Russian war.   Invading small countries that do not endanger the U.S. is morally wrong as well as counterproductive.  Fighting a country with the power to bring about mutual assured destruction is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Congress should invoke the War Powers Act.  If President Trump starts a war without authorization by Congress, that would be grounds for impeachment.


We All Need to Unite Against War in Syria, Regardless of Ideology by Caitlin Johnstone.

This Is How Russia and America Could Go to War in Syria by Dave Majundar for The National Interest.

With Latest Syria Threats, Trump Continues to be More Confrontational Towards Russia Than Obama Was by Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani for The Intercept.  [Added 4/12/2018]

The US Empire Has Been Trying to Regime Change Syria Since Long Before 2011 by Caitlin Johnstone [Added 4/12/2018]

Tucker Carlson: The Populist Paladin of Primetime by Alan Pell Crawford for The American Conservative.

Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Tucker Carlson’s case against war in Syria”

  1. whungerford Says:

    One thing this brief article might have noted is that this attack, like an earlier one and many similar ones, will likely be ineffective in achieving its stated purpose.


  2. philebersole Says:

    Right you are! The stated objective of the attack was to deter President Assad from making further chemical attacks on civilians.

    One problem with this is that the U.S. is trying to deter a recurrence of something that may well not have happened in the first place.

    Defense Secretary Mattis admitted there is no proof that Assad ordered a chemical attack last year.


    And the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had not had a chance to begin its work before the latest attack on Syria occurred.



    Assuming for the sake of argument that Assad is responsible for the attacks, how will these attacks deter him? He will do anything necessary to assure his own survival.

    The newspaper accounts say the U.S. is “hitting Assad,” but, of course, it is not Assad personally who is being hit. The U.S. is “punishing” Assad for allegedly killing Syrian civilians by killing other ordinary civilians.

    Then again, how seriously should the avowed motives be taken?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: