all 1 comments

[–]chakokat[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are of course other alternatives and 'risk-free solutions'.

Under international law U.S. military bases in Syria are illegal. There is no UN Security Council resolution that allows for a military intervention in Syria nor has there been an invitation of U.S. troops from the Syrian government.

The U.S. position in Iraq are likewise illegal. The Iraqi parliament has voted against all U.S. bases in its country. The government of Iraq has demanded that U.S. troops leave and seeks negotiations to make that happen. The so called Iraqi militia and its commanders are by the way an integrated part of the official Iraqi army. Any attack on them is an attack on the Iraqi state.

The U.S. could simply recall its troops from Syria and Iraq. That would surely end all attacks against them.

The U.S. has intervened in Yemen by bombing troops of the Ansar Allah government which was seeking to blockade ships related to Israel until it lifts its siege from Gaza.

U.S. related ships were only attacked after the U.S. launched what amounts to an all out war on Yemen.

The U.S. is free to pull its military from its position in Syria and Iraq. The U.S. could stop its attacks on Yemen at any moment. That would immediately end Yemeni attacks on U.S. assets without changing anything else. The U.S. could refuse to support the genocidal war against Gaza.

All these moves would stop the current hostile action against U.S. assets.

But nether of these alternatives is ever mentioned in Baker's piece. There are no alternatives in it because he refuses to provide and discus them.