As tensions continue to mount around the Al-Qaeda-held province of Idlib in Syria, the New York Times has published an op-ed by virulent neoconservative war whore Bret Stephens explaining that the US should intervene militarily in order to thwart the geopolitical agendas of Iran. He argues that any movement to recapture Idlib should be met with a full-scale assault on the Syrian government, crippling its air force and attacking Bashar al-Assad’s presidential palaces. Stephens says this must be done to prevent Tehran from “consolidating a Shiite crescent stretching from Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.”

Sometimes all you can do is laugh. These propagandists keep giving us all these different, unrelated reasons why the US and its allies should definitely totally intervene in Syria and overthrow its government. It’s because the Syrian people want freedom and democracy. Wait, no, it’s because Assad is violating international law by using chemical weapons. Actually, it’s to thwart Putin’s agendas. Scratch that, it’s to stop Iran. We’re being given all these different stories about why a regime change intervention in Iraq’s next-door neighbor Syria is needed, and the only thing those stories seem to have in common is that they all require a large amount of expensive weaponry being discharged upon the human beings who back the Syrian government. Maybe, just maybe, taking out the Syrian government has always been the real goal, and they’re just making up different excuses to see what sticks?

They’re having a very hard time getting anything to stick with much conviction, though, so I figured I should give them a little assistance in seeing why that might be. Here are a few of the things which prevent interventionism in Syria from being a sane and appropriate thing for the US and its allies to do:

1. US-led military interventionism in modern times is literally always disastrous, literally never helpful, and literally never accomplishes what its proponents claim it will accomplish.

Argue against US warmongering for any length of time and you will invariably run into someone who brings up World War II. “If people like you were in charge back then, we’d all be speaking German!” goes the common refrain. They bring up World War II when arguing in favor of US-led military interventionism because that’s how far back into history they have to reach to find an example of it that was arguably not disastrous. From Vietnam to Iraq to Libya, any time the US has led a military campaign against a nation’s government has been a completely indefensible disaster unless you reach all the way back to the cusp of living memory to a time when the world was unrecognizably different from what it is today.

Since World War II ended in 1945, the US has become an unrivaled superpower with such strong alliances that it is effectively a globe-spanning empire whose agendas are seldom in the broader interests of the rest of humanity. In modern times, depraved war propagandists like Bret Stephens are incentivized with money and prestige to promote military agendas which just so happen to align with the agendas of imperial plutocrats and the intelligence agencies they form alliances with. Then, when those military agendas prove disastrous, neocon pundits like Stephens move in to claim that it’s only because they weren’t carried through properly by whoever happened to be in charge at the time. Happens every single time, without a single solitary exception.

The same monsters who butchered a million Iraqis and destabilized an entire region have no moral authority to intervene in Iraq’s next-door neighbor, and indeed are the very last people in the world who should be deciding when military interventionism is warranted.

2. All of the violence in Syria is entirely the fault of the US empire in the first place.

As I’ve been mentioning a lot lately, there is an abundance of primary-source evidence that Syria is a longtime target for regime change by the US and its allies, and that this alliance actively plotted to create a violent uprising in Syria exactly as it ended up unfolding in 2011. The establishment narrative that western involvement only began after Assad responded to peaceful protesters with brutal violence is utterly false; they’ve been up to their elbows in Syria since long before the violence began. Let’s go through it once more:

  • Here is a 2006 WikiLeaks cable in which the US government is seen exploring possible factions which could be incentivized to rise up against Assad, and ways in which psyops could be used to ensure widespread violence.
  • Here is a declassified CIA memo from 1986 in which the Central Intelligence Agency is seen exploring ways in which sectarian tensions can be inflamed to provoke a violent uprising in SyriaHere is a useful article featuring excerpts from the memo showing some jarring parallels between what was being planned and what happened a quarter century later.
  • Here is a video clip of General Wesley Clark naming Syria among the countries scheduled by the Pentagon for regime change in the wake of 9/11.
  • Here is a video clip of the former Foreign Minister of France stating in plain language that he was informed by British government insiders in 2009 that a violent Syrian uprising was being planned, two years before the violence erupted.
  • Here is an article featuring a video of the former Qatari Prime Minister stating that the US and its allies were involved in the violence from the very beginning.
  • Here is an article from May of 2011 reporting on some of the extremely suspicious provocations that led to the outbreak of widespread violence. Here’s another from March 2011. Here’s another from December 2011.

These are not conspiracy theories, these are conspiracy facts. Every violent death in Syria is the fault of the US and its allies. The narrative that there is a bad guy who that same alliance needs to protect civilians from is the exact opposite of the truth. The Syrian government is trying to restore stability to a region the US-centralized empire is solely responsible for destabilizing. A sovereign nation has every right to undo the damage that was done to it by western imperialism, and western imperialists have no right to stop it.

3. The narrative that Assad is gassing civilians makes no sense.

As the always excellent Moon of Alabama recently put it, “Chemical warfare is ineffective. That is why everyone agreed to ban it.” There is nothing about chemical weapons that is inherently more horrific than, say, nuclear weapons; the difference is that they’re just not a very efficient way of killing a large number of people, whereas nuclear weapons are. The Syrian government and its allies are having military victory after military victory over the occupying militias which had taken over large territories, and they have been doing so using far more effective conventional munitions.

Why, after all that success, would Assad suddenly switch to using an ineffective, banned military tactic that is guaranteed to provoke western retaliation and potentially bring about his own downfall? Even if he’s the worst person in the world, there is no motive for him to do such a thing and there is every incentive not to. The only possible explanation would be that Assad receives some kind of personal gratification from committing war crimes, perhaps sexual in nature, and that this bizarre, unheard of kink is so alluring to him that it would overwhelm his desire to remain in power and stay alive. Furthermore, he would have to have only discovered this strange, unique sexual fetish a few years ago, coincidentally around the same time the US and its allies decided it was time to remove him from power.

Nonsense. Add to this the fact that America’s own State Department already admitted last year that there are terrorist factions in Idlib with a history of using chemical weapons, and the entire narrative becomes even more laughable. While Assad has no incentive to use chemical weapons, the Al-Qaeda affiliates in Idlib have every reason to make a last ditch attempt to make it look like he did, especially now that the US government has assured everyone that Assad will immediately be blamed for any chemical weapons used.

4. We know that they are lying to us.

One has only to glance at the incredibly fake Bana Alabed interview conducted on CNN or the clearly staged footage from BBC’s Saving Syria’s Children to know with certainty that there is a pervasive war propaganda campaign geared at manufacturing consent for regime change interventionism in Syria, and that that campaign runs all the way up to the most mainstream western news media outlets in existence. Just watching CNN’s Alisyn Camerota solemnly exchanging scripted dialogue with a seven year-old Syrian girl on nationwide television assuring America that Assad is guilty of chemical weapons attacks is enough to assure any thinking person that there is no limit to the lies these people will advance to get their war. The notion, for example, that the “White Helmets” are participating in a western-backed propaganda campaign pales in comparison to what we’ve already seen with our own eyes in that interview. If they’ll do that, they’ll do anything.

We know that they are lying to us, just like they lied to us about Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya. If there were a legitimate reason for military interventionism, they wouldn’t need to lie about it. There is no legitimate reason for any military force to be in Syria without the invitation of the Syrian government. Get out, you murderous bastards. Get out now.


The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

19 responses to “Four Reasons Why Interventionism In Syria Is Crazy And Stupid”

  1. Thank you for your comment, Ishkabibble. you have hit the nail on the head.

    Profit from war must be reduced to no more than a reasonable defence (not war) budget. There will be plenty of jobs to replace war-associated industries: decent social systems, a world-class education system, healthcare for all, clean energy, workable public transport systems, upgrades of existing infrastructure (eg didn’t I read that 55,000 US bridges are structurally unsound) and new infrastructure. And there must be a liveable basic wage. Some will call it socialism, but they will have to go beyond useless labels and argue the case on its merits. They would have to argue AGAINST peace, against a healthier better educated employed population with enough income to lead a satisfying life and raise children, against setting a positive example to the rest of the world.

    Meanwhile, pointing out why war is crazy and stupid will do nothing. The instigators of war know as well as we do the human costs – they can read. But they have ZERO empathy, they are too busy counting their money and laying the groundwork for the next war. So pointing out suffering will never cut it. Until people wean themselves off the MSM and are better informed, there is practically no chance of change for the benefit of all.

    1. The defense industry does not argue against peace, and in fact they don’t argue at all. They let the politicians they have bought and paid for argue for “security”. More than anything, people are afraid of injury and death, and the defense industry, through it’s proxy politicians, has convinced most Americans that the only viable way to achieve “security” is to attack anyone and everyone. Meanwhile, war supplies at consumed and replenished at ridiculous prices. Everything else takes a second seat to military spending, including health care, education, climate, and infrastructure. Further, in addition to consuming huge amounts of tax dollars, the military contractors do not pay taxes thanks to built-in loopholes, courtesy of their captive politicians.

      The probability of disrupting this system is somewhere approximating zero. We have created a monster, and now we must live (and die) with it.

  2. Why has the US been doing what it has been doing, and continues to do, since at least the end of WW II? WHY?! Here is the answer.
    A short statement by George Kennan in about 1987, just a few short years before the end of the USSR explains absoutely everything:
    “Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
    When he said that, Kennan meant EXACTLY what he said, and what he said has been proven true every day since the end of the USSR. What people today must somehow understand and fully appreciate is that what Kennan said over 30 years ago IS EVEN MORE TRUE TODAY. Here’s why, in black and white.
    Government Contracts
    United States of America
    Defense Department
    On the right side of the above page select “contractors by state”. On the next page select, for example, “Virginia” and notice on the page that opens the value of “defense” contracts awarded to Virginia contractors from 2000 to 2017 and the amounts spent in each year during that period. This is in a state that has a population of around 8.5 million. Then check California, etc. How many Virginia etc. voters are going to vote for a peacenik presidential candidate? Few, if any, because those voters would rather accept perpetual war, even nuclear, than have peace break out and no job.
    Outright peacenik candidates like Ron Paul, Nader, Stein, etc. will never get elected. Trump, the accidental president, the political “immaculate conception”, unlike all the other R and D candidates, does not want nuclear war, but the US Elite and their Deep State are now so warped that they will try to destroy any prospect for peace. This is the sole reason that explains absolutely everything about what’s going on in Washington — McWar’s funeral, the 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russia hysteria, former presidents and heads of CIA, FBI, etc. railing against the sitting president, etc.
    Therefore, what must happen is that the war contract system has to, at least for some period of time, be transformed into a peace contract system, so that there is no economic catastrophe (depression like the ’30s) as peace breaks out. All those weapons systems will be peace systems — solar power systems, bullet trains instead of bullets, etc. But this would be regarded as communism or socialism and “we” can’t afford that. Far better to borrow for bombs and perpetual war. That’s how fucked the present system is. There is no political constituency for peace because “prosperity” in the US depends upon, as Kennan said 30 years ago, perpetual enemies and perpetual war.

  3. Caitlin, there was a glitch that occasionally appears when commenting. I attempted to post the following, but got the response that the capcha didn’t function properly and told me to go back and do it again. Usually that works. However, this time, when I did it, I got the reply that ‘it looks like you’ve already entered that. So, I went back to check and could not find it. so, tried again, but got the same result. I am including this notification in front of the comment, in the hopes that it will be treated as a completely new comment. Here it is:
    I could comment on all four titles, but have a simple one in reference to WW II – and, with regard to all incursions that followed, I can do it without placing blame on any country but the U.S.
    Not only do you have to go back to WW II to find a time when U.S. led aggression was not disastrous, but it really was a different time – and the U.S. neither created the international violence, nor struck the first blow. Unless the history books are completely wrong, as a nation the U.S. stayed out of it, until it no longer could do so. So while it may have led the aggression, it was not the initial aggressor and did not do it in order to make the wealthiest of controlling oligarchs both wealthier and more powerful.

  4. I could comment on all four titles, but have a simple one in reference to WW II – and, with regard to all incursions that followed, I can do it without placing blame on any country but the U.S.
    Not only do you have to go back to WW II to find a time when U.S. led aggression was not disastrous, but it really was a different time – and the U.S. neither created the international violence, nor struck the first blow. Unless the history books are completely wrong, as a nation the U.S. stayed out of it, until it no longer could do so. So while it may have led the aggression, it was not the initial aggressor and did not do it in order to make the wealthiest of controlling oligarchs both wealthier and more powerful.

    1. Google “Theodore Roosevelt”.

  5. without constant war, capitalism doesn’t work…

  6. If we lived in the land were everyone is lying all of the time, we might be able to make some sense of it.

    We live in the land where most people tell the truth about many things most of the time – to lower your guard for when there is something they need to lie about.

    There are some things about which they must consistently lie to maintain a narrative. In most cases we do not have sufficient, reliable information to know the truth.

    We tend to believe what we want to believe.

    Most of what we think we know about history is very likely a lie.

    In learning about history it seems we learn that this is not a new situation. The mistake was in thinking that we had evolved.

    I beleive it is not an accident that there are only a handful of companies controlling our access to (and perception of) the internet.

    Handheld devices foster skimming of information and now video – discourages reading.

  7. Caitlin

    I strongly disagree and find this argument disingenuos/misleading.

    There are many people who have profitted and continue to profit immensely from these military endeavors. To claim that it is foolish or pointless really misses the point and misrepresents what we are dealing with. With each of these the Borg becomes stronger and bolder and those who would resist become weaker and more dispirited. We are nearly defeated and look to our cell phones for distraction – pretend we don’t know what is being done in our name.

    Say what you want if it makes you feel better and reinforces the complacency.

    This is an Irish story – there’s no happy ending.

  8. Caitlin, you should send your trove of evidence to the Head of the United Nations, and to the Head of the World”s Criminal Court in The Hague asking them to stop the USA from murdering more innocent people in the USA plan of unending war until the USA is Ruler of The whole World.

    This suggestion will at least make those (do nothing about it, executives) think about it and know that something has to be done, if not by them, then it will be done by we citizens who are fed up with the USWA War machine and its war Mongering Allies!

  9. “Argue against US warmongering for any length of time and you will invariably run into someone who brings up World War II.”

    The U.S. is Germany these days. The wars America fights are colonial wars. There was a story about 10 years ago about a military staffer working at CNN to shape the news.

  10. “The highest-level officials of the US government under Bush, for whom Bolton worked, were guilty of war crimes in Afghanistan and in European states for their policy and extraordinary rendition which is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearance of human beings and torture. Under the Rome Statute, when this is widespread or systematic, in this case it’s both, [it’s a] crime against humanity.”

  11. Dear Team Caitlin:

    You cannot re-state these uglinesses often enough. There are always newer readers – and older brains like my own need these reminders!

  12. Obtaining Political control over Syria & Iran is just another push back toward a uni-polar globe that the US & its Western Whores have been working toward for many decades, has now become a multi-polar world, thanks to both Russia & China! Without these two major and powerful Nations, Uncle Sam (Zionists) would already have his boot, across Syria’s throat. My full Support to Syria, Iran, Russia & China!

  13. The fact is, US foreign policy has never deviated from the 1990s zionist-inspired Wolfowitz doctrine.
    One of its critics General Wesley Clark, retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO made it clear in 2007.
    The targets include Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
    A Greater Israel will also benefit.
    The aim is to establish the United States as a sole super-power regardless of the level of terrorism required to destroy any sovereign state that stands in its way.
    The rest is just distraction.
    Nothing has changed.

  14. U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War II.
    (does not include those killed since this was published in 2007)
    James A. Lucas, 24-Apr.2007
    But not very many bleeding-heart capitalists seem to care very much about the human cost of empire.

    1. Nor the bleeding heart liberals who are falling for this BS, hook, line and sinker because RUSSIA is on the side of Syria. The absurdity of it all would be laughable were it not for the human suffering it is causing. We in the U.S. could be in store for some major payback.

  15. Powerfully argued, Caitlyn, but you’re coming at it as a compassionate human being who cares deeply about every human blown up and every country destroyed. But these shows are run by people with ZERO compassion, whose only concern is their personal wealth and the profits of the corporations they represent. We want oil/gas/whatever? Don’t trade, invade. Millions will die? Infrastructure/art/history/communities will be destroyed? THEY DON’T CARE. So your logic is limited. It doesn’t apply to them. The only outcome they’re interested in is MONEY.

  16. Great analysis, thank you for your work.

Leave a Reply