US Troops Die In Syria, Media Asks 'Why Are We There?' (Again)
When two US troops are killed in Syria, The Hill 's opinion page suddenly wonders, 'why were we there at all?' This query from a seemingly concerned pundit sounds probing, but it's rhetorical theater. The broader media rarely interrogates the 'why' until American lives are visibly lost. They'll publish op-eds lamenting troop deaths while simultaneously championing defense budgets and
interventionist policies for 'stability' – usually meaning policies that benefit regional allies or industries heavily invested in perpetual conflict. This same media won't connect the financial dots: the millions funneled by lobbying groups like AIPAC, who demonstrably push for robust military engagement in the Middle East, into the campaign coffers of the very politicians who vote to keep troops
deployed in places like Syria or Iraq. They'll ignore the fact that the 'why' is often less about direct US national security and more about projecting power, securing resource routes, or defending the interests of other nations, funded by your tax dollars without public debate. How many times does this exact headline need to be recycled before they acknowledge the system that creates the 'why'?