Follow us on social

google cta
Dear Joe Biden: A message on Rafah from US military families

Dear Joe Biden: A message on Rafah from US military families

We may not have boots on the ground within Gaza, 'but our service members’ safety and wellbeing are still directly impacted'

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Dear Mr. President: I am a U.S. military spouse, and I am begging you to hold your ground regarding Rafah and demand an end to Israel’s current offensive there.

On March 10th, you referred to an invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza as “a red line.” When I heard you say that, I (and other military families I know) breathed a little easier. Humanitarian organizations have been warning for months that an assault on Rafah would cause unspeakable civilian catastrophe, and so we appreciated clarity from you (and repeatedly since then) that such a military misstep would not be supported by the United States.

Unfortunately, the moment has come to stand firm in your convictions. Yesterday, several outlets reported that Israeli forces have begun conducting strikes against Rafah. I shudder when I think about what is about to unfold.

After the horrific and deadly attack against Israel on October 7th, our organization joined with the international community in condemning Hamas’s brutality, and in supporting Israel’s objectives to free the hostages and defend itself within the rule of law. Over the subsequent weeks and months, we grew appalled by the nature of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military response, which has resulted in the deaths of over 35,000 Palestinians, and a spiral of retaliatory violence across the region.

There must be meaningful consequences for our ally as they progress further across this red line. You cannot waver on your commitment.

U.S. military troops may not have boots on the ground within Gaza, but our service members’ safety and wellbeing are still directly impacted by what is happening there. Many of us have loved ones deployed to the region, either for regional security purposes or to construct the aid-delivering pier you championed during your State of the Union address. Israeli attacks on Rafah will almost certainly antagonize adversaries in the region, which senselessly increases risk to U.S. service members nearby.

None of us in the military community is immune from the risk of moral injury, no matter how far we are from any line of fire. This conflict has forced many of us into an unresolvable dilemma. How can we feel proud of our service commitments to defend allies, ensure regional stability, and prevent terrorism – while at the same time, the allied troops you are asking U.S. service members to support include military units that have been credibly accused of human rights abuses by international humanitarian organizations?

Those hidden costs of war are permanent, and their impacts trickle down from the service member to their entire families. Not to mention, the military’s future as a flourishing all-volunteer institution at a time when retention and recruitment are at all-time lows.

As I close, I will commend how you’ve tried repeatedly to counsel our close ally by invoking the memory of 9/11, and the mistakes U.S. foreign policymakers made in response that led our country into an endless, unwinnable war. Those comparisons feel poignant this week in particular, as 21 years ago Americans were told by their President that the invasion into Iraq was done and settled, a declaration we later learned was far from true.

History threatens to repeat itself now, as Prime Minister Netanyahu embarks on his own ill-conceived invasion. And I fear whether it will sweep U.S. military families along with it.

You said it before, Mr President: “There’s nothing…low risk or low cost about any war.” I urge you, as one of the many military families who will live with the consequences of the decisions you make today, and as a voice representing many who are unable or afraid to speak up: remain steadfast in your condemnation of a Rafah invasion. And continue, with urgency, all efforts toward a sustainable ceasefire.

Sincerely,
Sarah Streyder

This article was republished with permission from Sarah Streyder.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

(shutterstock/Cunaplus)

google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.