US 'Retaliatory' Strikes in Syria: Because Democracy Means Bombs, Not Ballots
Bloomberg dutifully reports the Pentagon's claim of large-scale airstrikes on 70+ targets in Syria, fulfilling President Trump's vow after two US soldiers were killed. This framing presents the US as a reactive force, never mind that the US has maintained troops in Syria since 2014, often without explicit Syrian government invitation or UN Security Council approval. It's a 'retaliation' for
attacks on troops who are, by strict international law, occupying a sovereign nation. Conveniently, Bloomberg doesn't scrutinize the legality of the initial deployment, nor will they connect this perpetual deployment to broader geopolitical maneuvering that has little to do with 'counterterrorism' and everything to do with regional influence. So, the US gets to bomb a country it has no legal right
to be in, claiming 'retaliation' for attacks against its unauthorized presence. One might wonder, how many times must a nation be 'liberated' or 'stabilized' before it's simply left alone? It seems 'vows' for perpetual war are the only promises Washington consistently keeps.