Why do we still have American troops in Syria and Iraq? That is the million dollar question that the Biden Administration has yet to answer — at least with any satisfaction — for the American people. Meanwhile, our service members continue to be targets of hostile forces for a Washington strategy no one can quite articulate.
On April 7 there were reports of "two rounds of indirect fire" on the Green Village Base in eastern Syria, which is housing U.S. troops as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. U.S. Central Command said four American service members were being evaluated for traumatic brain injury as a result.
On Thursday, however, U.S. Central Command quietly announced that there were no rockets, but "but rather the deliberate placement of explosive charges by an unidentified individual(s) at an ammunition holding area and shower facility."
The release was brief and with no accompanying details, but the words echoed of the kind of Green-on-Blue attacks against coalition troops in Afghanistan during the height of the war there. As of 2017, according to counts, there had been more than 95 such attacks since 2012, killing 152 coalition service members and injuring 200.
There have been numerous rocket attacks against bases on which foreign soldiers, mostly Americans, are serving in Syria and Northern Iraq over the last two years. "Iranian backed militias" have been fingered in the attacks and they don't seem to be abating, though the administration never uses the incidents to explain or even justify why our presence continues to be useful there. Is it to stave off ISIS? Bashar Assad? Iranian militias?
"The United States has no compelling national security interest in Syria to justify an open-ended ground deployment of forces," wrote Defense Priorities' Natalie Armbruster in March, taking on each of the existing arguments for keeping forces in the region. Now that our troops can't even feel safe taking showers on base, isn't it time to get a straight answer from Washington?
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
Operation Inherent Re-solve New Zealand army Sgt. Maj. Chuck Mackay, as-signed to Task Group Taji, observes Iraqi army soldiers from 3rd Battalion, 41st Brigade participate in a confirmatory exercise for senior Iraqi army personnel at Camp Taji, Iraq, Oct. 16, 2018
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
— George Orwell
Election season in the U.S. exemplifies how far the mainstream media has strayed from its mandate to inform and educate.
Like him or not, Robert Kennedy Jr.’s exclusion from CNN’s recent presidential debate, despite the global importance of this election, highlights this issue. It is widely assumed CNN made this decision in collusion with the two main political parties. But CNN’s actions are not isolated and underscore how established media outlets fail to cover America’s real political, economic and social problems in a nuanced manner.
RFK Jr.’s rising poll numbers concern both Republicans and Democrats, as he appears to attract votes from both sides. While it’s understandable that they would try to block him, why is the mainstream media complicit?
One possible answer lies in RFK Jr.’s campaign platform. Often ridiculed for his views, he addresses important issues like the crippling federal debt, the corrupt merger of state and corporate power, the wealth gap, the chronic disease epidemic, and the broken health-care system — all of which affect Americans. He prioritizes these over divisive cultural issues.
He tackles the crisis of trust in institutions and leaders that is gripping America. Yes, he has expressed problematic views on vaccines and other topics that are not evidence based, but so have the other candidates whose voices are heard.
Mainstream media is often considered corporate-friendly due to its heavy reliance on advertising revenue. When your advertisers include pharmaceutical and food companies, defence contractors and financial institutions, addressing critical issues could be seen as corporate suicide. As Noam Chomsky put it, the media often serves as a tool for “manufacturing consent,” rather than fostering informed public discourse. He emphasized that certain topics are confined within allowable boundaries set by powerful institutions, limiting the range of acceptable discussion.
Given this reality, where can one find news, facts and opinions free from corporate influence? A potential answer is the shift in tone from former mainstream media personalities who have left networks like CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Many of these individuals are now reporting from independent online platforms, where they may have more freedom to express their views.
I spend significant time listening to podcasts from all political sides. Former cable TV personalities like Fox’s Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, CNN’s Chris Cuomo, and MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan are now expressing views they would never have aired under corporate influence. Freed from those constraints, they discuss sensitive topics such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s influence on American foreign policy, the media’s cosy relationship with big corporations, the role of media in fostering cultural animosity, and the reasons behind America’s seemingly endless wars.
These online platforms significantly impact mainstream media viewership. Consider Joe Rogan, the king of online podcasts. With an average of 11 million daily viewers, he surpasses the combined viewership of all mainstream news talk shows. While he delves into wacky topics and conspiracy theories, he also fearlessly addresses “no-go” subjects ignored by CNN and Fox.
While at Fox, Tucker Carlson averaged of 3.4 million daily viewers. Since his firing and move to X (formerly Twitter), his viewership has increased substantially, with his first three episodes averaging 19.3 million views. Carlson has noticeably transformed since leaving Fox. I have never been a fan of Carlson, but lately he comes across as more likeable and humbler and is now critical of the mainstream media, especially regarding American hawks and their endless warmongering. And it’s not just RFK Jr. or conservative-populists like Carlson whose voices are muted; even opinions from the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and the democratic left in America are rarely heard on CNN or Fox.
If there is one platform that unsettles the establishment, it’s TikTok. With 127 million U.S. users and as the preferred news source for generation Z, it has captured the attention of politicians from both sides of the aisle. Despite the ACLU asserting that banning TikTok would violate the First Amendment, Congress shows broad bipartisan support to either force a sale or ban it entirely due to its China connections and national security issues. However, some argue that China isn’t the primary issue behind this potential ban. For instance, recent college protests calling for a ceasefire in Gaza gained traction through TikTok. Views on Israel-Gaza are significantly divided by age demographics, with 18–24-year-olds more in favour of a ceasefire than older groups.
Whether it’s Gaza or Ukraine, the mainstream media seems completely divorced from the nuance associated with these conflicts and most never talk about peaceful solutions in spite of the difficult compromises any solution would entail.
This trend has not gone unnoticed by the political class.
In a recent Sedona Forum conversation between Sen. Mitt Romney and U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken on the narrative of Israel’s war in Gaza, Romney remarked: “Typically, the Israelis are good at PR — what’s happened here?” Blinken offered as one reason the “intravenous” feeds of perpetual news. “You have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost and the emotion, the impact of images dominates … and it has a very challenging impact on the narrative.”
Romney added: “Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts.”
Political opinions are a personal choice. I am not advocating for the left or the right. Nor am I a populist or prone to buying into the conspiracy theories of some of the above-mentioned candidates or media personalities. But whether or not you agree with the diagnosis of the nonmainstream voices regarding the current situation, and especially their prescription of what’s required to address America’s myriad problems, it’s crucial to hear these voices directly, without a biased filter.
Personally, I’m fortunate to have the time to explore various news platforms online, allowing me to sift through data and verify what appears closest to the truth. Unfortunately, many Americans lack this luxury and rely on mainstream echo chambers, leaving them misinformed, angry and beholden to prevailing dogmas.
Until a media platform emerges that thoroughly sifts through all the news to present facts that more accurately represent reality, consume your daily media menu with a grain of salt.
This piece, originally published on July 10, has been republished with permission from The Toronto Star.
keep readingShow less
Relatives of American-Israeli hostages speak at roundtable on Tuesday. (Photo: C-SPAN)
The families of the eight American citizens still held hostage in Gaza blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday for not striking a ceasefire deal that would free their family members, and urged members of Congress to pressure the Israeli leader on this front while he was here in town.
The family members were speaking at a roundtable at the House Foreign Affairs Committee in advance of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Wednesday.
Some of the hostages’ relatives are based in Israel and traveled to Washington with Netanyahu earlier this week. The group also included the parents of Itay Chen, who was killed on October 7 and whose body is being held by Hamas; and Aviva Siegel, who was released during the hostage deal in November, and whose husband remains in captivity.
“It is time now to end this war, to end our suffering, and along the way, to end the suffering of millions in Gaza,” said Jonathan Dekel-Chen, the father of one of the hostages, who lives in Israel but refused to travel with Netanyahu . “I implore Democrats and Republicans to do all that you can to let our Prime Minister know that the U.S. knows that the time is now.”
While the Biden administration has said that Israel has agreed to an “enduring” ceasefire plan, the families present accused Netanyahu of keeping the war going for political purposes and said he was not devoting enough energy to securing the hostage release.
“Last night, we met Prime Minister Netanyahu again. I have to say the urgency of the matter did not seem to resonate with him,” said Daniel Neutra, whose brother is being held hostage by Hamas.
“We had hoped that he would come to Washington to announce that he had sealed the deal to bring our kids home,” said Adi Alexander, father of Edan Alexander. “Anything short of it will be a total failure for us.”
“There’s a myth out there that there is a better deal somewhere if Israel just delays a little longer, fights a little further,” added Dekel-Chen.
Netanyahu has said that there will be no durable ceasefire until Hamas’ military and governing capabilities are destroyed.
But Dekel-Chen countered that “All of the Israeli security apparatus and intelligence services have clearly stated that conditions are right today to complete the deal that’s on the table. Any true friend of Israel today must pressure our Prime Minister to finish the deal now.” President Joe Biden has also said that Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out a large-scale attack on Israel.
He went on to say that there was no reason to believe continuing the military operation could free their loved ones.
“There is no proof of concept,“ Dekel-Chen said. “There is no military force on earth that knows how to get hostages out from under ground. Whatever has been tried has not been successful, it's been ten months.”
The witnesses also blamed Netanyahu for using other external threats from Hezbollah or Iran as a pretense for keeping the war going, instead of focusing on the more immediate issue of ending the war in Gaza.
“I am sure that Mr. Netanyahu is going to speak to the joint session tomorrow about the credible, real threats to the state of Israel,” said Jon Polin, father of Hersh Goldberg-Polin . “Now is not the time to go up to the cancer ward and deal with the sick people who need treatment, when there are people dying right now on the floor of your hospital. (...) The single event that can happen right now that can be most influential in releasing pressure across all fronts in the Middle East region is bring home to hostages.”
Some of the family members also noted that the recent news of Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election meant that he could focus on doing the right thing in the Middle East, divorced from U.S. domestic politics.
“Part of your legacy, Mr. President, is that you get the credit for saving the lives of as many of these hostages as possible and doing the thing that releases the most pressure in the region,” by pushing Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire agreement, said Polin.
A report from shortly after the roundtable said that Biden would invite the families to his meeting with Netanyahu on Thursday.
Now that President Joe Biden has made the unprecedented decision to end his reelection campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president, we need to ask: what will be her foreign policy if she wins in November?
It is safe to assume that there will be broad continuity with the Biden administration’s overall approach to the world, but there is some evidence that Harris might guide U.S. foreign policy in a somewhat less destructive direction than where it has been going under Biden.
First off, Harris did not run for president in 2020 on foreign policy and has relatively little foreign policy experience from her short time in the Senate and her tenure as vice president. While she has cast a number of tie-breaking votes in favor of Biden’s domestic agenda in the Senate, she has played a smaller role in foreign policy by representing the U.S. at international meetings that the president has been unable to attend. She was tasked by Biden to focus on the “root causes” in Latin America leading to the undocumented migrant issue at the nation’s southern border, drawing mixed reviews at best.
Meanwhile, her voting record in the Senate offers some bright spots, including her opposition to U.S. backing for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and her early opposition to arms deals with Riyadh. She joined with her Democratic colleagues in objecting to Trump’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and she has been generally supportive of arms control and nonproliferation measures.
During her 2020 presidential run, she signaled openness to “rewrit[ing] the Authorization for Use of Military Force that governs our current military conflicts.” And while Harris has a history of close tiesto AIPAC, she called Trump’s Iran nuclear deal exit “reckless” during the 2020 campaign and vowed to re-enter the JCPOA as president.
But no one should expect any radical overhauls under Harris. She is a conventional liberal internationalist for better or worse. There are some hints that she might have a different approach to the war in Gaza than Biden, but these have mostly been differences in tone rather than major disagreements over policy so far. In contrast to the president, Harris has shown more genuine empathy for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. She also called for a ceasefire earlier than Biden did, but on the whole she has followed the administration’s script as one would expect from a vice president.
Harris has indeed been required by her position as vice president to be a vocal supporter of the president’s policy agenda, so to some extent we will have to wait to find out what Harris’s own views are and how much they might differ from Biden’s. This is definitely the case for the Ukraine War where she has been in absolute lockstep with the president if she talks about it at all. In her remarks at the Munich Security Conference, she echoed the administration’s framing of this as a war between democracy and autocracy:
"No nation is safe in a world where one country can violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another where crimes against humanity are committed with impunity; where a country with imperialist ambitions can go unchecked.
"Our response to the Russian invasion is a demonstration of our collective commitment to uphold international rules and norms. Rules and norms which, since the end of World War Two, have provided unprecedented security and prosperity not only for the American people, not only for the people of Europe, but people around the world…
"Again, the United States will continue to strongly support Ukraine. And we will do so for as long as it takes."
Her previous opposition to backing the Saudi coalition in Yemen suggests that she might be more open to curtailing or ending U.S. support for the war in Gaza, but that remains to be seen. Given all of Biden’s political headaches in swing states like Michigan, the war in Gaza is clearly one issue where Harris would stand to benefit by breaking with current administration policy.
Some of the former government officials that resigned in protest over U.S. support for the war in Gaza are cautiously optimistic about Harris. After Biden’s unconditional backing for the war, any alternative is an improvement in their eyes. Josh Paul, the first State Department official to resign in protest, told Politico, “I would say I have cautious and limited optimism — but also a deep sense of relief that the Democratic party will not be nominating for the Presidency of the United States a man who has made us all complicit in so much and such unnecessary harm.”
The vice president reportedly depends heavily on her foreign policy advisers, so it is worth looking more closely at the thinking of her current national security adviser, Philip Gordon, who would presumably serve in that capacity if Harris is elected.
Gordon is a Clinton and Obama administration veteran with a background in working on European and Middle Eastern issues. He was one of the U.S. negotiators responsible for securing the JCPOA. After leaving government, he became one of the deal’s most vocal defenders.
Gordon has demonstrated that he understands the Iranian government better than a lot of his colleagues, and that could be very useful in reviving negotiations with Iran under its new reformist president Masoud Pezeshkian.
Gordon has absorbed some of the important lessons from U.S. foreign policy failures, including the disastrous interventions in the Middle East and North Africa and has written about those lessons at length in his book, “Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East.” The book reviews the history of major U.S. regime change policies of the last 70 years and in each case Gordon shows how the policies ended up leaving both the U.S. and the affected countries worse off.
It is notable that he criticized destructive Obama administration interventions just as sharply as he did the policies of other presidents. Some analysts see Gordon’s role as Harris’s top adviser as an encouraging sign that her foreign policy could be an improvement over Biden’s. Bourse & Bazaar CEO Esfandyar Batmanghelidj commented, “[Gordon] would be a big upgrade on Sullivan, especially when it comes to thoughtful approaches to the US role in the Middle East.”
There probably wouldn’t be many departures from Biden administration foreign policy under Harris. As Biden’s vice president and would-be successor, Harris has strong incentives to continue with his agenda. That said, there are a few reasons to hope that U.S. foreign policy could be smarter and more constructive if Harris takes Gordon’s best advice to heart.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.