Biden Order's Airstrikes in Syria
On Thursday February 25th, President Biden ordered an airstrike of non-state militia groups in Syria. The reaction from people on both the left and the right was not particularly positive. Democrats in Congress were not pleased with the lack of congressional approval sought by the Biden Administration as well as the seeming divergence from a campaign promise to end wars in the Middle East. The Washington Post chimed in on the issue with some legitimate criticisms and analysis, ranging from what sort of message this could send to the Iran-backed troops that the strike was conducted against, bringing up the administrations past criticisms of Trump policies in the region, both comparing similarities and pointing out major differences between the two, and offering a strong criticism of Biden's actions in light of his campaign promises.
How US airstrike in Syria sends message to Iran
How consistent is Biden’s Syria strike with his team’s criticism of Trump?
Opinion: Biden ran on ending forever wars. He’s already undermining that promise.
Looking to Fox News for their coverage of the strike, there is some very solid information mixed in with some wildly misleading coverage. To begin with the helpful piece, This article does a wonderful job explaining the differences in Biden's airstrikes, and the 2017 Trump administration strikes that were often criticized by democrats, which would have been useful analysis to include in some of the previously linked articles from The Washington Post. Here we see another example of pretty fair coverage of the Republican response from several members of Congress, who approved of the rationale behind the attacks. However, unfortunately Fox News diverted from the good coverage offered in the previous two article and headed into the misleading opinions. This article would be rendered pointless to produce had they included any of the explanations of the differences mentioned in the first article. The whole point in the piece is to criticize without any rationale and show others criticizing. It attempts to call hypocrisy, while ignoring the context that makes it not hypocritical that was so wonderfully explained on Fox News in other places. And finally, we get the best spin job from Tucker Carlson. Fox News' primetime darling ranted about how this strike won't benefit anyone in America, despite the justifications that many Republicans and Fox News itself offered about the warning this sent to militants that strikes against United States personnel will not be tolerated. And finally the best part, just when it seemed like Tucker might get to something substantive when he asks, "You may be wondering, "Why are there still American contractors in Iraq after almost two decades and no obvious return?" That's a good question." I was genuinely excited as this seemed to be a very relevant discussion to have around why we are still there, and need to protect our people for the remainder of our time there. Instead Tucker says, "We'll address that some other time." Of course, because explaining how terrible it would be for the people of Iraq if we just left immediately with no further support, who are only in this situation because we invaded in the first place, would not really fit the narrative. Yes, it is terrible that we are still there. Everyone agrees. But leaving immediately would only make things worse for the civilians there. So of course, we must protect the US personnel on the ground, while we work to leave in a way that doesn't cause further harm to civilians.
Herb Porath, March 3, 2021
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog and it raises some great questions which I will attempt to answer. The strike in Syria on Iranian facilities stems from what some might consider one of the biggest mistakes the United States has made since Viet Nam, the invasion of Iraq. It was sold to the public as retribution for 9/11 which later turned out to be, well let’s say not necessarily true. There’s a Pottery Barn motto, “If you break it you own it,” that’s what we did and we now own it. If you think Viet Nam was a mismanaged war, Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. One of the outcomes was the creation of Islamic State, ISIS. The U.S. initiated the war without any knowledge of the Muslim Religion and the hatred that exists between Shiite and Sunni sects of the religion. I wouldn’t go into any more detail regarding the events of the war except it took many years and an enormous loss of lives and treasure to get things under some semblance of control. You ask why do we still have forces in Iraq? Every time we thought we could wind down our footprint and bring our troops home, forces that were either Iranian Red Guard or Iranian proxies, would attempt to take control of the siting government in Iraq, for Iranian influence to dominate the government. Iran’s Red Guard has been supporting the Syrian government from almost day one of the conflict, that by the way was a result of the Arab Spring, and as a result have facilities in Syria. Iranian forces in Syria have been attacking American troops in Iraq, more so since Biden became president, possibly as a test of his commitment to pull out American troops. If President Biden did not respond to the attacks, Iran knew they had him in their hip pocket, which would have been a considerable detriment to his attempting to renegotiate The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
I hope this helps to clarify the background and current issues facing the Middle East, It is a complicated part of the world that we didn’t understand resulting the U.S. breaking Iraq and owning it some 17 years later, with no end in sight.
America is in the wake of a new president. However, he seems to stand against the promises he made to the people of American the world. Joe Biden has recently ordered an airstrike on Syria, triggering divergent emotions among democrats against Biden's initiative to consult congress. The airstrike order was against the promises that he had made during his campaign. As a president exposed to a myriad of resources, he could apply other approaches in solving the existing conflict rather than ordering an airstrike in Syria. Comparing Trump and Biden's leadership, the United States' current president has generally failed citizens' expectations. Ordering the strike made people view Trump's administration as better than Biden's leadership, who resumed the recent past presidential office. Biden is considered to be the center of creating unity rather than increasing conflict in Syria. Besides, the president should consult congress members before making decisions. Based on the congress's reaction, Biden did not consult key stakeholders before making his orders against Syria. Biden's action suggests that he will not stick to the promises that he made during his campaign. Biden should, however, strategize on how to clean his name in public. Similarly, Biden should evaluate the effects of his actions on people before making the final decision.
ReplyDelete