Why is the United States involved in the Syrian civil war? The Assad regime has not attacked the United States, nor has Congress declared war on Syria.

There is no defensive — or for that matter even legal — rationale for a U.S. military presence in Syria. Whatever horrors of the Syrian civil war, American military adventurism makes them worse, not better. It perpetuates instability rather than bringing peace.

Donald Trump ran for president on a platform of reducing U.S. military meddling in other countries’ affairs. It’s time for him to follow through and order a U.S. withdrawal from Syria. Our senators Cruz and Cornyn and representative Weber support the intervention. If you disagree, let them know.

Bruce Niebuhr



(28) comments

Steve Fouga

I actually agree with the strike, if it's the first step in a coherent policy for dealing with Syria.

I feel it's our responsibility to oppose dictators like Assad, and to oppose the use of WMDs.

On the other hand, if we have no coherent policy to deal with Syria, or if we are in cahoots with Russia, then we just wasted 60 TLAMs. I guess we'll eventually see what the real state of affairs is when the investigative reporters have their say, because we're getting nothing but gibberish from the Administration. Sean Spicer and Secretary Mattis sound like schoolboys. And nothing at all from President Trump.

Very disapointing. I expected more, at least from Secretary Mattis. [unsure]

Carlos Ponce

This says it all:
"Syrian survivor to Trump: Thank you"

Jim Forsythe

It may say it all to you, but not to me.
What was the goal of the attract ? To make them to get rid of the gas? Do they still have gas?
Could you make the same point with one missile? At the cost of 1Million per missile, did we need to spend the 60 Million.
Was it to make a point , and say, if you do it again? If they do it again , then what?
To scare Russia, China , North Korea . If Russia had fire back at our ship that fired the Missiles, and killed some of our troops ,it would have escalated to all out conflict. This is why a President should talk to the Senate and House, and let them know what is going on.

Carlos Ponce

"It may say it all to you, but not to me." That's says a LOT about you, Jim.
The goal of the attack was to send a message: The US will not sit back while the Assad violates the laws of civilized nations.
Why only one missile? You sound like Barney Fife who carried only one bullet with him that he kept in his shirt pocket. To me it wasn't enough but that's what the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended. They may know more about the situation than you or me.
Since no one stood up to that BULLY, the United States had to. And despite what the Liberal media says, Syrians want to remain in Syria but under protection. "THANK YOU MR.TRUMP" is what that man said.
"This is why a President should talk to the Senate and House, and let them know what is going on." Jim, ALL INVOLVED KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. If you viewed something other than Liberal News, you would too.
No one wants war but we also don't want appeasement and sit back while people are killed by banned weapons. No one with sense and a set of morals that is.

Carlos Ponce

Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Monday that the US missile strike against the regime of Bashar al-Assad destroyed 20% of the entire Syrian air force - that's why more than one Tomahawk was used.

Don Schlessinger

To me the attack was a statement, don’t do that again! I don’t believe a “policy going forward” on Syria is needed, the next time we see them, as we did this time, use gas on their citizens, hit them again. After a couple of attacks that destroy more their air force in response to gassing their citizens maybe they will decide not to do it anymore.
And there is a defensive reason to bomb Syria for gassing their citizens. If other radical governments see us standing by not doing anything they won’t have a problem using gas. If Obama had used 60 TLAMS as a response to gassings in Syria when It first happened we might not have had to use them now.
As to legal, was it, maybe not, but the left has no problem with 12+ million illegal aliens crossing our southern border. They don’t mind if legal Americans support these 12+ million criminals with billions of dollars, so why would they whine when we spend 60 million to destroy 20 Migs, and hopefully a sizable amount of Sarin and Mustard gas? Destroying the mechanism for gassing people still seems to be a good thing to me, maybe it will slow the murder of Syrian children.

Jim Forsythe

If we "hit them again" , we will be hitting Russia. Is this this path we want to be on.

Did the  Syrian Civil War end. Did the killing stop. If the only thing we are worried about is the gas, than it should be up to the world to take care of the problem.
Has Trump changed how he how he wants to handle problems for others . What is going to be his way forward?

Trump blamed much of the country's budget deficit on America's role as world policemen.
"One of the reasons we're a debtor nation: We spend so much on the military, but the military isn't for us," he said. "The military is to be policeman for other countries."

Thursday, 01 Oct 2015
"GOP front-runner Donald Trump Thursday said he thinks the United States should not "move too fast" when it comes to Russian airstrikes possibly being aimed at Syrian rebel forces, rather than at ISIS targets, saying the United States government may be supporting rebels when "we have no idea who they are."
"I spoke to one of the generals, they didn't even know who they are we're fighting for," Trump told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program, asking if the rebels who want to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would be worse than the leader already in power".

Carlos Ponce

"If we 'hit them again' , we will be hitting Russia. Is this this path we want to be on." It's not the path we want to be on but we must do something to stop the genocide.
Wilson did not want to enter The Great War.
Roosevelt did not want to enter WWII.
Shall I quote them for you like you're quoting Trump's campaign rhetoric". This is 2017, not 2015. Now ponder this:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out." Martin Niemöller

Carlos Ponce

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 24 [1940]—(AP)—In the first of five announced campaign speeches to be delivered before the national elections, President Franklin D. Roosevelt last night listed seven opposition statements which he termed "falsifications," gave the nation "most solemn assurance" that his administration has no secret pacts with any nation and renewed his pledge
to do everything possible to preserve America's peace. "It is for peace I have
labored," he said; "it is for peace I shall labor, all the days of my life."

Did FDR want war? No, he did not. History shows that events force presidents to go contrary to campaign rhetoric. Jim posts Trump from 2015 as a "GOTCHA". So sad.[sad] Looks like the sight of babies killed by Assad mean NOTHING to some.[sad][sad]

Jim Forsythe

"You sound like Barney Fife who carried only one bullet with him that he kept in his shirt pocket. To me it wasn't enough but that's what the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended"
Barney was so important, that  the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended for him to only have one bullet with him .LOL

" The goal of the attack was to send a message"
" The message was what? The message was for whom? If it was for Assad , did he get rid of the gas? Did he stop the bombing? If the message is, we will only be back if you use gas, what does it say about us? Killing of  ten's of thousands is ok , but do not use gas
Would the message have been a different one if it had been, 1, 59, 159, 1059 missiles? The people we are dealing with, already know what we have to use on them.
"Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Monday that the US missile strike against the regime of Bashar al-Assad destroyed 20% of the entire Syrian air force - that's why more than one Tomahawk was used."
I was under the impression that it was to send a message, not to destroyed 20% of the entire Syrian air force. Is this not a act of aggression, and not a message?

"All INVOLVED KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON" and this would be whom ?
"What do you call it,  when the principle ally of the target knows in advance that it is coming, but our own Congress and State Department do not. Might that be called collusion with the enemy?"
Did our Senate know? if not, why not.

 Do you think Syria is calling the shots, or Russia.
 Russia is using them as a pawn. and  Russia is using En passant, and we are just reading the rules, and have no clue what just happen. ,
"Syrians want to remain in Syria but under protection" Are we going to provide the protection, for how long and at what cost ?
If not us, whom is going step up?

More important, is what  going on with North Korea. As we have about 28,000 troops in the area. More now, that we have sent more ships Into the area. Japan is also sending ships.
This area  is becoming a very hot spot.

Carlos Ponce

"I'd rather be right than be consistent" - Sir Winston Churchill

Jim Forsythe

"It's not the path we want to be on but we must do something to stop the genocide" and it has stopped?
"Trump's campaign rhetoric" is another word for saying anything to get elected,  but do not hold me to what I said.
Some seamed to only to be concerned about the ones that were gassed, not the thousands killed in Syria
"as a "GOTCHA".  If a man does not mean it , he should not say it.

Kelly Naschke

Jim sounds like a spineless jellyfish that would sit back waving a white flag while someone assaulted his mother and sister. Real men don't sit back and watch women and children brutalized. PERIOD. Now go ahead and pen a 500 word diatribe about what constitutes a real man Jim....I am holding my breath......

Carlos Ponce

"and it has stopped?" It will. Message sent.
"If a man does not mean it , he should not say it." Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, F. Roosevelt, Hoover etc are guilty of violating the Jim Forsythe Doctrine. NO ONE CARES IF IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

From http://www.scouting.org/Training/YouthProtection/bullying.aspx
1.Stop the abuse, bullying, or policy violation.
2.Protect the Scout/Youth
3.Summon assistance needed from other leaders, authorities etc
Looks like Trump is following what a Boy Scout would do but on an international level.

Jim Forsythe

Kelly, As we speak, Syria is or getting ready to attract it citizens. If you think it makes me spineless to want our President to work with the Senate and House and not just act on his own, so be it. He may be committing us to a long term conflict, and I hope both he and Congress are on the same page. Once he gets Congress OK , its time for action
Action should be more than just a few missiles and the only message they should get should be on the phone, saying if they do not.stop this action of killing their own , we will take them  out!
"Real men don't sit back and watch women and children brutalized. PERIOD". What has the USA done about the ,  
"More than 10,000 children have been killed in the Syrian civil war, the United Nations says, while many more are subjected to "unspeakable" suffering, including rape, torture and recruitment for combat".(this was as 12:26amThu 6 Feb 2014,) and counting.

Wayne Holt

It's interesting to be on the other side from those on here who I usually agree with...but I'm firmly in the camp of NO on the Syrian adventure.

I suggest anyone who is not conversant with the plan to run a natural gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe to undercut the Russian gas monopoly get up to speed on the facts. It would run clear through Syria...which has been a Russian client state for at least 50 years and the Russians' sole port in the Mediterranean.

This has ZERO to do with the human dimension of the tragedy unfolding in that part of the world and everything to do with big money, strategic control and brinksmanship with a nuclear rival that clearly has the ability to turn the US into a sea of molten glass.

The "moderate" Islamic rebels we support in Syria routinely pass US weapons to their more radicalized Islamic brothers there. Do the alt-Rightpeople on this board--who usually exhibit such good judgement and clear insight--really want to have our tax dollars going to fund those who have been involved in murdering Christians throughout that area?

Bottom line: It is ABSURD to think Assad, who was easily pushing back the rebels with Russian support, would resort to chemical attacks on his own people as incidental damage and risk the opprobrium of the world. Look at the pictures of the "aid workers". They are not even wearing protective gloves. If this was a sarin attack as claimed, every one of those workers would be dead.

To Carlos et al: There is a simple reason the Left has discovered a side of Trump that is worth supporting..because he is sinking into the same morass of Mid-East militarism that the MIC and intelligence agencies want us to be involved in. Trump was not elected to go to war in Syrian based on likely false flag events, to promote a gas line that will make a few of the usual suspects even more obscenely rich.

Do yourself a favor. Look up the easily obtainable info on how long we have had this strategy in mind. Recently leaked CIA documents show that at least as long ago as the 1980s there were plans in place to bypass Russia with a Syrian pipeline.

There is nothing remotely worth supporting in the Syrian incursion. The sooner we are out, the sooner those poor people can begin to put their shattered country back together. US OUT OF SYRIA.

Carlos Ponce

"It is ABSURD to think Assad, who was easily pushing back the rebels with Russian support, would resort to chemical attacks on his own people"
My Pentagon sources disagree with your assessment.

Wayne Holt

Again, agree with what you write about 98% of the time, Carlos. On this one, we are being taken for a ride BIG TIME. If the Pentagon could be trusted for independent verification, I doubt if President Eisenhower would have felt the need to warn us about the military industrial complex and their drive for control of the narrative. I believe that was in January of 1961.

The Russian air force made more progress in stopping ISIS in one month than the US and its allies managed to do in a year. It's not because we have an inferior military. It's because the destruction of ISIS is only incidental to taking down Assad.

We are on the wrong side of history, and decency, on this. America has become a one trick pony, using military might for every situation. I don't know about you, but I voted for Trump to end the military adventurism. I am more than disappointed...I am disgusted with him, Cruz, Cornyn, Weber and the rest of the Republican war hawks. If I don't see major changes in Trump's actions, I will consider myself betrayed by him and will vote accordingly in the mid-term elections.

Carlos Ponce

Let me repeat, "My Pentagon sources disagree with your assessment." That and along with radar surveillance of Syrian air space CONFIRM the Syrian air force used chemical weapons against their own.
Do you also believe Assad's absurd assertion the dead children were "actors"?

Wayne Holt

More to the point, Carlos: Do I believe false flag events are routinely carried out by governments and terrorist groups, with actors, actresses and staged events as well as real acts of terror committed on innocents? Absolutely...because there is ample historic evidence for the record. This is not a new phenomenon, at least not for the good ol' USA and I doubt for others.

Were you aware the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to Jack Kennedy that planes being blown out of the sky, US ships sunk and terror attacks be staged in US cities then place the blame on Cuba to invade in 1962. If not, I suggest reading about Operation Northwoods at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

We have a long history of such operations in Central America, Asia, the Middle-East, involvement in creating the Red Brigade terror in Europe in the 80s, etc. We are no stranger to this behavior.

Honorable people like yourself, Carlos, are being played like a fiddle for the warmongers in charge, both in Democrat and Republican administrations. The American people who look the other way, or worse, enable the killing by support of these policies, must face the fact we have the blood of many hundreds of thousands on our hands. That's you and me, Carlos.

It is a painful coming of age to see--and admit--what the government of the United States has become. If we are ever to see American leadership of a peaceful, positive ,and yes, secure world, it's going to require us taking off the blinders first. People of compassion and commitment have to start...because those who are marching us into yet another war are only in it for the money and control.

Carlos Ponce

Not being played like a fiddle. But without proof, you sound like you're being played. I trust this administration. Do I doubt there were staged events in other administrations? No, I don't. But there is a reason why Evangelicals, Church going Catholics and other religious groups voted for Trump. At a meeting held at La Marque on November 7, 2016 at Abundalife Life on Delany, tele-evangelist Perry Stone had some revelations involving 2017; that the corruption of the previous administration would be unveiled. Many other things were said pointing to the election of Trump on Tuesday November 8th. Perry could not come out and say Trump would win due to the Johnson Amendment but he dropped plenty of hints.

Steve Fouga

"I trust this administration."

Why? I can see reasons why you'd agree with some of their ideology, but I don't understand why you'd trust them.

Carlos Ponce

If you set aside your Leftist ideology, your reliance on leftist news sources and view this administration with an OPEN MIND you would see Trump is doing a good job. He has appointed good people who don't fit the mold of previous administrations - and that is good. When you first started posting, Steve, you wrote you would be objective with no pre-conceived notions of ideology. Your posts show otherwise. The scoreboard is in Trump's favor but some refuse to see it.

Steve Fouga

Carlos, I asked why you trust them, not whether you believe in what they're doing. And I believe I AM being as objective as my dislike for the president will allow. Believe me, that's a tall hurdle, because he has several of the traits I find most distasteful in a human being.

Sure the President has made some good appointments -- Mattis, Pompeo, Haley, etc. -- but also some that could have disastrous effect: Sessions, Tillerson, DeVos, Bannon...

I find his reliance on family to be appalling. Kushner, even if he turns out to be a genius, is so over-stretched it's absurd. Ivanka is an accomplished person, maybe even brilliant, but in no way qualified for a senior advisory post. Not yet.

Although I agree with his generally tougher instincts, he's rudderless and impulsive on foreign relations. His Syrian strike needs to be followed up with a sound Syria policy, or we'll quickly be back to the same soft stance of the past 8 years.

It looks like he might find it impossible to get anything done legislatively. That might be a good thing or bad, depending on what he tries to get done -- which is unpredictable because he keeps changing his mind. He and the Dems hate each other, and he hasn't pulled the Repubs together. My assessment, based strictly on observation, is that even his own party doesn't know whether they can trust him.

He seems to have no scruples, no sense of honor, maybe not even a sense of right and wrong. I can agree with some of what he's done -- a few appointments, the rule of law, the Syrian strike -- but I can't trust him or his administration. Not yet. They need to show me more than a few weeks of ineptness and flip-flopping before I'm ready to believe in them.

Carlos Ponce

"Carlos, I asked why you trust them, not whether you believe in what they're doing."
I trust them because I believe in what they're doing. Trump is keeping his promises..
I got a good laugh on your claim you're being objective.[beam]

Steve Fouga

"I got a good laugh on your claim you're being objective."

Then you're easily amused. Judging from your posts, which I enjoy reading, you're among the 2 or 3 most biased people on these boards. You're almost like a Trump advertisement, a Galveston County version of Sean Spicer. Of course that's just my conclusion from reading your posts.

I won't insult you by listing the President's broken promises, flip-flops, and wishy-washy stances. You know all of them, but won't admit to them on this forum. I took you for a keener political observer than I when I started posting a few months ago, but I have to conclude you're simply too avid a Trump supporter to see the mistakes he's making. But give him time; he'll make a non-believer of you.

Carlos Ponce

Biased? Biased in favor of the law. Biased in favor of the Constitution,. Biased in favor of what scripture proclaims.
You have to remember I was a Geometry teacher. Remember two-column Proofs? There was a column labeled "Statement" and one labeled "Reason". I approach each post like a geometric proof. Notice I supply links to my statements as my "reason". Yest I am biased in favor of "Truth, Justice, and the American way". God Bless America!

Carlos Ponce

And the "mistakes" you claim Trump is making is that he does not fit the mold of previous adminstrations especially Liberal ones. I find that "refreshing".

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.