In a new interview with Turkish TV channel, NTV, U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack announced that the American military would be significantly reducing its footprint in Syria.
“Our current policies toward Syria will not resemble the policies of the past 100 years, because those policies did not work,” Barrack to NTV. Additionally, Barrack confirmed that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were still considered an important ally for Washington.
Crucially, the ambassador gave concrete numbers regarding America’s “reconsolidation” of its presence in the country, saying, “from eight (military) bases, we will end up with just one.”
The reduction is “happening,” he added, noting that regional partners will need to take part in a new security arrangement for Syria. “It’s a matter of integration with everyone being reasonable.”
This jibes with today's news that the U.S. has already withdrawn 500 troops from the estimated 2000 it had in the country, according to Fox News.
Moreover, after his meetings last week with new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Barrack signaled that the U.S. was not going to try to run Syria but transition to a support role for the new Syrian government, “enabling it.” He also announced that President Trump would be removing Syria from its list of states that sponsor terror.
The Trump administration has been signaling for months that it would reduce America’s presence in the country. An unnamed Department of Defense official confirmed in February that the Pentagon was drafting plans for a potential exit. Trump also ordered all sanctions to be lifted from Syria in May to give the country “a chance at greatness.”
The Syrian Civil War that started in 2014 came to an end in December 2024 when then leader, Bashar al-Assad, was ousted and replaced with the current president, Ahmad al-Sharaa.
In addition to internal conflict, Syria has been the victim of recent Israeli attacks, as well as an invasion beyond the UN buffer zone in southern Syria. Barrack said confidently that “America’s role is simply to start having a dialogue,” when referring to Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Photo: A soldier deployed to At-Tanf Garrison, Syria, fires an M3 Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle during a familiarization range hosted by Special Forces July 19, 2020. (US Army Photo by Spc. Chris Estrada)
This week, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene became the first in her party to call the Gaza crisis a “genocide.”
“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct. 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” the Georgia Congresswoman said on X Monday evening.
That language is newsworthy. Her stance, even more so.
As the bloodshed and chaos continues in Gaza — as does U.S. aid to Israel — the Republican Party has been primarily split into two camps. The first represents the majority of GOP lawmakers who contend that Israel’s government and military maintain the right to retaliate, virtually unconditionally, after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack by Hamas. It also supports continued and unfettered U.S. diplomatic support and military aid for that effort.
The other camp, much smaller in number in Congress but I believe is becoming more influential online and outside Washington, particularly among conservatives under 30, also condemns the Hamas attack in which 1,195 people were killed in Israel, including 736 Israeli civilians and 79 foreign nationals. But it also questions whether Israel’s government has gone too far, creating a humanitarian crisis that looks more like collective punishment of the entire Gaza population.
Voices in this camp reacted fiercely to the bombing of Gaza’s only Catholic church on July 17, killing three and wounding several others, including the priest. They also question if the U.S. should continue to fund Israeli’s war which has already caused more than 60,000 deaths, mostly civilians, including more than 18,000 children, and has destroyed or damaged 70% of civilian structures including homes, hospitals, schools and shelters.
Rep. Greene or “MTG,” has served as the tip of the spear in defining MAGA. Brash and controversial, she has been the embodiment of President Donald Trump’s movement on Capitol Hill and has had the president’s back at almost every turn.
Except, seemingly, where she perceives Trump might stray from MAGA principles. In June, Greene initially supported but then turned against the heavily Trump-promoted “Big Beautiful” spending bill. Earlier this month, she also opposed the president’s decision to continue sending aid and weapons to Ukraine.
She’s now come out swinging against Israel’s war in Gaza and U.S. support for it.
“I can unequivocally say that what happened to innocent people in Israel on Oct 7th was horrific,” Greene posted on X on July 27. "Just as I can unequivocally say that what has been happening to innocent people and children in Gaza is horrific.”
“This war and humanitarian crisis must end!” she added.
"AOC, the darling of the progressive left, the one that claims to be against all the wars and wants to lead...did not vote for my amendment. She would not do it and she got called out hard.” (Progressive Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib did vote with Greene in support of this legislation, as did her colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar). Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the only other Republican on the Hill who has been as vocal a critic of Israel in Gaza as Greene, also voted with her. He was the only Republican to do so.
Harshly criticizing AOC, whether the Congresswoman is essentially right or wrong, is a typical thing for MAGA to do. But what Greene did next was even more interesting.
Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine may be the most extreme version of that camp of Republicans who believe Israel can do no wrong. He actually encouraged Palestinian children to "starve away" in an X post.
On Monday, Greene took to X to express how she felt about Fine (it was the same post in which she called out "genocide"). “I can only imagine how Florida’s 6th district feels now that their Representative, that they were told to vote for, openly calls for starving innocent people and children."
On Thursday, MTG, who is an evangelical Christian, continued her appeal to American Christians in particular:
Yesterday I spoke to a Christian pastor from Gaza. There are children starving.
And Christians have been killed and injured, as well as many innocent people.
If you are an American Christian, this should be absolutely unacceptable to you.
Just as we said that Hamas killing and kidnapping innocent people on Oct 7th is absolutely unacceptable.
Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?
The secular government of nuclear armed Israel has proven that they are beyond capable of dealing with their enemies and are capable of and are in the process of systematically cleansing them from the land.
Most Americans that I know don’t hate Israel and we are not antisemitic at all.
We are beyond fed up with being told that we have to fix the world’s problems, pay for the world’s problems, and fight all the world’s wars while Americans are struggling to survive even though they work everyday.
This line in the sand on Gaza that Greene continues to draw is important in terms of not only what MAGA and the Trump coalition are, but what they become. The president as of late has seemed to favor the foreign policy preferences of extreme pro-Israel hawks, like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and talk host Mark Levin, over those of Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon, both of whom have become highly critical of Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says there is no starvation in Gaza. Greene says otherwise. Late Tuesday, Trump agreed, telling reporters that anyone could tell that there was “real starvation” in Gaza “unless they're pretty cold-hearted or, worse than that, nuts,” and promised aid on that front.
You can feel any way you like about Greene, who Trump once called (if negatively) the “Queen of MAGA.” But her full-throated posts about the carnage in Gaza and her being the first to call what is happening “a genocide," may be a significant watershed moment, allowing the MAGA faithful to see what is happening in a new light, and maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump might, too.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump signs two executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on Thursday, January 30, 2025. The first order formally commissioned Christopher Rocheleau as deputy administrator of the FAA. The second ordered an immediate assessment of aviation safety. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA
It’s a time for choosing in the Russia-Ukraine war.
President Donald Trump’s decision to considerably shorten his 50-day deadline for Russia to agree to an unconditional ceasefire with Ukraine reflects his mounting frustration with what has proven to be a difficult peace process.
The President acknowledged on Monday this move is unlikely to shift Russia's position. “If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait?” he said.
As the White House ponders next steps, it’s worth reflecting on the geopolitical moment President Trump finds himself in. It was only eight months ago that any talk of a viable diplomatic settlement was traduced by the previous administration as a naive, shortsighted capitulation to autocracy.
The Trump administration deserves no shortage of credit for lifting the three-year blockade on dialogue with Russia, a grave mistake by Western leaders that has exacerbated the diplomatic logjam Ukraine is now in.
Direct high-level channels between Russia and the U.S. were restored almost immediately upon Trump’s assumption of the presidency. Months of dialogue between Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as well as the relentless diplomatic efforts of special envoy Steve Witkoff, have de-escalated bilateral U.S.-Russia tensions and generated a clearer, even if ungenerous, picture of Russia’s framework for a peace settlement.
Most importantly, President Trump has conclusively refuted the strategic bankruptcy and political nihilism of the “as long as it takes” mantra that has colored the Western approach to Ukraine under the previous administration. There is now widespread agreement, spearheaded by the White House, that the war must end through substantive diplomacy.
But the administration is now faced with a dilemma that, if left unresolved, threatens to undo the real diplomatic progress that has been made since January. This is a bilateral conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but there is also a level on which it is a confrontation between Russia and the West that is unfolding on Ukrainian soil. Both of these prongs must be addressed as part of any sustainable settlement.
Prioritizing the former and largely ignoring the latter by treating this war as a narrow deconfliction/delimitation problem is a recipe for failure.
To be sure, Trump is fully justified in taking the view that this crisis was compounded and badly mishandled by actors he has nothing to do with, including, as it were, some of the loudest promoters of the false Russiagate narratives that derailed his first term and left a malign imprint on U.S. national security discourse.
Many of these same actors are now urging Trump to abandon the sound judgement behind his pledge to keep America out of endless military entanglements and to instead adopt a lightly repackaged version of the failed Biden-era policies that he rightly denounced.
This crisis was foisted on Trump by forces outside his control, but it is nevertheless his to resolve, and the choices made by the White House in coming weeks will augur fateful results not just for the Ukraine peace process but for the administration’s ability to deliver on its larger foreign policy vision. There cannot be a sustainable reprioritization of U.S. resources away from Europe to the Indo-Pacific while this war roils on, nor if it ends with a volatile Europe teetering on the brink of direct confrontation with Russia.
There is no “walking away” from this, except in the purely tactical sense of leveraging U.S. aid to smooth the way to a viable peace deal. Nor is it technically possible or the slightest bit desirable to revert to the Biden-era malaise of aiding Ukraine from one aid package to the next with no endgame in sight. U.S. security assistance and sanctions can impose costs on Russia in a way that prolongs the conflict, but these tools were never enough to put Ukraine on the winning side of what has been a grinding attrition war against a vastly larger enemy.
It should be recognized as part of any diplomatic point of departure that Russia will never agree to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Imposing deadlines in service of this goal, regardless of length, does nothing to assuage the underlying logic that Russia will never surrender its principal source of leverage – namely, its military advantage and escalation dominance over Ukraine – without substantial concessions from Kyiv and the West. There is little the U.S. can offer, in terms of affecting the bilateral military dynamics between Russia and Ukraine, that Russia cannot take by force if the war continues into 2026.
The only way out is through sustained, creative diplomacy that takes into account the full scope of challenges and opportunities in U.S.-Russia relations. The stakes extend well beyond Ukraine; President Trump has a window to not just put an end to the carnage and tragedy wrought by this war, but to do so while advancing American strategic interests in a way not seen since Richard Nixon’s opening to China. But to seize this opportunity, the White House must treat the Ukraine war as the complex, multilayered problem that it is.
The question of Ukraine’s postwar orientation must be at the core of any roadmap to a ceasefire and durable peace. Here, the starting point for negotiations should be guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO and that no NATO troops will be stationed on Ukrainian soil, in exchange for Moscow’s reaffirmation that it has no objection to Ukraine’s pursuit of European Union membership.
The Trump administration should outline concrete steps to restore U.S.-Russia commercial ties and reintegrate Russia into Western-led financial institutions as part of a package deal premised on Russia’s willingness to soften its territorial claims. The White House should likewise make clear that a negotiated settlement in Ukraine would generate the goodwill and confidence-building mechanisms necessary for constructive dialogue on arms control and NATO’s force posture in Eastern Europe, both questions of acute concern to the Kremlin.
Creative solutions will have to be developed to address Ukraine’s postwar security needs in a way that doesn’t feed into future escalatory spirals between Russia and its neighbors; my proposal for an off-site stockpiles aims to accomplish just that.
In short, the key to a successful negotiating posture on Ukraine is to refocus the talks away from immediate deconfliction to underlying strategic issues that both Moscow and Washington have vested interests in addressing. This can only be accomplished by accepting and consistently acting on the reality that the main sources of American leverage are to be found off the battlefield. No one said this would be easy, but the costs of inaction – both for Ukraine and U.S. global interests – are far higher.
Peace through strength has always meant more than maintaining military readiness, important as that is. The true measure of strength is being able to tap all the tools at your disposal in pursuit of concrete national interests, and nowhere is this sense of hard-nosed pragmatism more urgently required than the Ukraine crisis. President Trump’s instincts as a dealmaker have gotten him this far – now is the time to bring it home.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Times of India/You Tube/Screengrab: US contractors deployed in Gaza in February 2025.
Americans working for a little known U.S.-based private military contractor have begun to come forward to media and members of Congress with charges that their work has involved using live ammunition for crowd control and other abusive measures against unarmed civilians seeking food at controversial food distribution sites run by the Global Humanitarian Fund (GHF) in Gaza.
UG Solutions was hired by the GHF to secure and deliver food into Gaza. The GHF, with the help of the PMCs claims to have provided nearly 100 million meals to Gaza. Israel put GHF in control of what used to be the UN-led aid mission.
UG Solutions is one of two American contracting outfits working at the food centers. Both have vehemently denied the contractors’ claims, as has the IDF. The GHF has also put out extensive responses calling the charges categorically false.
Needless to say this raises a ton of questions about the use of American contractors in this particular conflict zone, but also about who they are. From all available information about UG Solutions, they are not operating under the banner, nor protection, of a U.S. agency contract, but of a foreign entity. This expansion of scope, I contend, makes UG Solutions a full-fledged mercenary organization and takes the industry down a very dark path.
What is a mercenary?
The use of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) in Iraq created a gray area between war fighters and private civilians filling combat roles in a war zone. The U.S., not wanting to be seen as occupiers, handed over the governance of Iraq in 2004. In theory, this meant the military mission ended, and the diplomatic mission began.
In practicality, the war raged on and diplomats needed to be protected by non-military members. Civilians working for companies like Dyncorp and Blackwater protected the people tasked with helping the nascent government of Iraq rebuild. Were they mercenaries? The short answer is: Sort of.
Is specially recruited to fight in an armed conflict
Directly participates in the hostilities
Is primarily motivated by private gain (promised significant compensation)
Is not a national of a party to the conflict
Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict
Has not been sent by a state on official duty
Lawyers can haggle over the legal definition of each criterion but, by my count, and having worked for Blackwater in 2004-2005, PMC’s meet four of the six criteria (1, 2, 3, and 5).
Is UG Solutions the next Blackwater?
No. But they share similarities. Blackwater gained notoriety protecting diplomats in Iraq in 2003. The contract to protect the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, led to contracts under the U.S. Department of State (DoS) protecting the diplomats, Other Government Agencies ( CIA, FBI, etc.), U.S. Senators, and anyone else who wanted to check on the progress being made in Iraq.
Ours was primarily a defensive operation where we protected people and places but had to move around the country to do so. This is also a gray area we had to move around the country with, and without, the people we protected. This meant clearing traffic using the same weapons issued to the U.S. military. Some could argue this was still defensive but the videos of us on YouTube look a lot like offensive operations.
These contracts were issued by DoS to Blackwater who then hired independent contractors (me) to work for them in Iraq. With multiple layers of separation between the grantor of the contract (DoS) and the men doing the work on the ground, it’s been said that Blackwater wasn’t a mercenary group but it hired them.
Going back to the UN definition of mercenary, I contend, this meets four of the six criteria: We were recruited to fight, participated in hostilities, were motivated by private gain, and were not members of the armed forces in the conflict.
Leaking into the gray area created by hiring PMC’s I could make an argument we were also not a national of a party to a conflict as the war was now a “diplomatic” mission between the U.S. and Iraq where Iraq requested U.S. military assistance so we weren’t technically “at war” with Iraq any longer. But hey, I got a diplomatic passport and was told by Blackwater we had diplomatic immunity so I was definitely sent by the state on official duty.
Is UG Solutions the next Wagner Group?
No. Honestly, they don’t share any similarities. Wagner is commonly referred to as a mercenary group but, by the UN definition, they are not. They are an extension of the Russian military. Granted, they recruited from prisons and have committed war crimes, but they aren’t mercenaries. Of the three companies, they are the one which can claim they are not mercenaries.
The primary difference between Wagner and Blackwater is Wagner is a military unit. They conduct offensive operations, take and hold land, and are sent to places where Russia wants to exert influence. It wasn’t until 2023 that Vladimir Putin confessed Wagner was funded by the government. They also have a rank structure and code of conduct similar to the U.S. military. Granted, they don’t seem to abide by it in the same manner as U.S. service members are regulated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but it exists. That’s more than Blackwater had.
Based on this, they aren’t any more a “mercenary army” than the U.S. military. I know this is going to ruffle some feathers but I didn’t create the criteria so don’t get mad at me.
Is UG Solutions a new kind of mercenary?
Yes. UG Solutions is a mercenary group. They meet every criterion. They are not a party to the conflict in Gaza, were recruited to participate in hostilities, were not sent by the U.S. government, are not a national of a party in the conflict, are not part of a military, and are there for personal gain. I want to make a distinction that UG Solutions, as a company, is a mercenary group. The men working for them are also mercenaries.
Similar to Blackwater, they are primarily doing defensive operations and the U.S. State Department has helped fund the GHF but they are headquartered in the U.S. working for a foreign entity, in a combat zone, for money. It’s time to call it like it is – U.S. companies are directly involved in mercenary work and trying to shield themselves under the guise of being a Private Military Contractor.
So what does this mean?
UG Solutions took the PMC model and moved it forward by contracting with a foreign entity. There is no connection to the U.S. government. No way for them to shield themselves under the American flag. Granted, their mission is ostensibly humanitarian — pointing out that the UN uses contractors for similar operations. They have a point, albeit, a flimsy one. Whistleblowers have come forward to say that they have been engaging in aggressive offensive tactics against an unarmed population of Gazans coming to the GHF sites for food.
The use of PMC’s here has evolved to the point where there is little space between contracting and mercenary work. UG Solutions has moved the line of what is appropriate for U.S. based PMCs both ethically and legally by throwing morality to the wind and working for an organization unaffiliated with the U.S. government. Politicians sit silently as sea change happens refusing to acknowledge, let alone regulate, the private companies working as military proxies. Sadly, this will continue until an incident like the ambush of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, 2004 happens again.
It's time to call this out for what is: mercenary work. If we refuse to define it, we’ll never have the conversation of whether or not we should continue to use PMCs as a proxy for U.S. military and foreign policy. We owe it to ourselves to address this scope creep before it leads to the more U.S. civilians in a combat zone.
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.