I asked Mats Nilsson how we should think about U.S. soldiers killed in the Middle East: we do not want them to die, but we also know they are deployed in a region where American power inflicts enormous damage.
Mats compares their position to Vietnam and Beirut in 1983.
Different circumstances, but the same strategic problem: soldiers placed in unwinnable situations, serving unclear objectives, and paying the price for political failure in Washington.
They are presented as defenders of the nation, yet often function as instruments of an empire whose goals are rarely explained honestly to the public.
The real question is why they are sent into conflicts where the national interest is vague, the risks are obvious, and the consequences are paid by everyone except the decision-makers.
WATCH our full conversation here.
All of my op-eds and podcasts are freely available, thanks to the generous support of readers like you. Nonetheless, independent journalism takes time, research, and resources. If you find value in this podcast conversation or others I’ve published, please consider sharing it or becoming a paid subscriber. Your support, whether big or small, truly matters and helps keep this work going.
—Kevork Almassian is a Syrian geopolitical analyst and the founder of Syriana Analysis.
