Follow us on social

Us_troops_in_syria

Gaetz effort to bring troops home from Syria fails despite bipartisan vote

Support, however, came primarily from an ‘interesting mix of mostly progressives and right-wingers.’

Reporting | Middle East

The War Powers Resolution that would have required President Joe Biden to withdraw all U.S troops from Syria within 180 days did not pass on Wednesday night, with 103 members of the House voting in favor of the resolution, and 321 against. Fifty-six Democrats and 47 Republicans supported the resolution. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who introduced the bill last week, indicated to Breitbart News on Tuesday that he expected “low Democrat support” on his resolution, but the Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported later on Tuesday that the Congressional Progressive Caucus would urge its members to vote “yes.”

In the end, many of the most prominent progressive members supported the resolution, including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), as well as Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who introduced a similar amendment last year. 

But other powerful Democrats, including some who had previously supported Bowman’s 2022 legislation, like new Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and former Chair of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), voted against this resolution. In total, 74 more Democrats supported Bowman’s amendment than voted for today’s bill. 

Among Republicans, support increased from 25 to 47 votes since last summer. According to Just Foreign Policy, that represents the largest number of GOP House members to ever vote for a War Powers Resolution. 

Many of the Republican supporters are the same ones who have voiced skepticism over Washington’s continued funding of Ukraine. More than half of those who voted “yes” on this bill were also among the 30 signatories of Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-Ohio) January letter that called for increased transparency on financial support to Kyiv. 

As Insider’s Bryan Metzger noted on Twitter, the supporters were primarily an “[i]nteresting mix of mostly progressives and right-wingers. Though also some interesting names in-between, like [Democrat Jake] Auchincloss, [Republicans Tom] Emmer, [Nancy] Mace, and of course, [George] Santos.” 

“There is no role for the United States of America in Syria. We are not a Middle Eastern power. We have tried to build a democracy out of sand, blood, and Arab militias. Time and again, the work we do does not reduce chaos. Oftentimes, it causes chaos – the very chaos that then subsequently leads to terrorism. While today’s vote may have failed, my fight to end forever wars and bring our troops home has only just begun,” said Gaetz in a statement following the vote. 

During the debate over the Concurrent Resolution earlier in the day on Wednesday, Gaetz, and Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Cory Mills (R-Fla.), and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) spoke in favor of the bill. “The United States is not the world’s policeman and it is incredibly unwise to promote this level of involvement in international disputes. Democrat and Republican presidents alike have abused the power granted under the ‘01 and ‘02 AUMFs, and Congress must act to reign back the executive branch’s war authorities,” said Mills. “Continuing to dump trillions of dollars into these endless wars is irresponsible, runs contrary to America’s economic and security interests, and unnecessarily places American lives in jeopardy.” 

Many of the opponents who spoke in the debate, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and ranking member Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), agreed that it was important for Congress to discuss the AUMFs, but argued that the mission in Syria was both legally covered by the 2001 statute and important to maintaining American security. 


Members of the Coalition and Syrian partner force conduct a patrol through a local village along an established de-confliction zone in support of Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve in the Dayr Az Zawr Province, Syria, Dec. 23, 2018. Coalition Forces remain committed to supporting its partner forces to prevent an ISIS resurgence. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Arjenis Nunez/Released)
Reporting | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.