American Muslim voters' attention to U.S. policy failures in conflict zones has drawn them toward candidates promising bold alternatives.
Adham Sahloul is a foreign policy analyst. His research has been published by the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute, and the Center for Global Policy. He worked previously in the humanitarian field on mass atrocity prevention in Syria. He holds an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Views are his own.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
At an April 27 hearing at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on policy options in Syria titled “After the Missile Strikes,” Charles Lister, a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, cautioned the dais on the need to “not rush Raqqa.” On May 9, the Pentagon announced that indeed U.S. President Donald Trump intends to do just that.
On Friday, President Donald Trump set into motion the fulfillment of one of his cornerstone campaign promises—restricting the entry of refugees and immigrants for the purposes of national security. Advocates for immigrant and refugee rights (and immigrants and refugees themselves) have taken to the streets and to the media, expressing their disappointment and fear, and they have also gone to court.
On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry told the audience at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum that the events of August 2013—when Obama reneged on his intent to bomb Syrian military sites in response to the Ghouta Chemical Massacre—have been “misinterpreted.”
The United Nations this week said it is “deeply alarmed” by the situation in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo. The battle for Castello Road, which connects Aleppo to Turkey and is the key entry point into eastern Aleppo for all cross-border humanitarian aid, is one of heavy consequence.