Here’s a revealing exchange I heard on a podcast from The New York Times, on the issue of Syria.
Michael Barbaro (host): So by successfully–in some ways–starting to defeat ISIS in Syria, the United States’ presence there is becoming more focused and, I guess, more adversarial with Assad. It’s like, as if, when one mission ends, another one may even kind of accidentally begin?
Helene Cooper (NYT’s Pentagon reporter): Wow, I would get in so much trouble if I said that because the Pentagon would start screaming at me and saying, you know, “Absolutely, we’re not there to fight the Syrian regime.”
Of course, Cooper is kind of kidding here, and she went on to say, more or less, yes–the US has no plan to speak of, no remotely plausible endgame, and yet, it’s probably going to get more involved in the Syrian quagmire anyway.
Still it’s an interesting response because, to at least some extent, it’s true. After all, who are they, as lowly NYT reporters, to question or criticize US foreign policy? We should probably leave that to the generals.
