The Obama administration has so far failed to articulate a coherent strategy towards Syria. Will punitive airstrikes serve US interests?
Questions posed on the rush to a military intervention in Syria resonate in recent analysis of the US justifications.
Reports that the US is preparing for an imminent military intervention in Syria raise questions about the premise for the intervention and its ultimate goals.
Business as usual: the US won’t even consider labeling Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism despite acknowledging that the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate aids the Haqqani Network.
While the Obama administration has hailed the reopening of NATO’s supply lines into Afghanistan as a major success, the prevailing dynamic of the deal is Pakistan’s continuing duality in supporting the US’s enemies while taking its money to fight them.
A report indicates that a “mystery airstrike” targeted an AQIM convoy in northern Mali. US officials would neither confirm nor deny a strike took place.
In peace talks with the Pakistani government, the Taliban have demanded that the government close down the NATO supply lines, end the Predator strikes, and sever ties with the US.
Police don’t intentionally kill criminals. ‘Targeted assassinations’ is a far better description for the Predator strikes.