Here we go again. The United States has found itself back in Syria, launching dozens of airstrikes to keep ISIS from filling the power vacuum left after rebels finally toppled Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year regime. It’s a tale as old as modern geopolitics: America cleans up the mess after the Middle East plays another round of musical dictators. Only this time, we’re not just dealing with a crumbling government. We’re also staring down the very real threat of ISIS turning chaos into their comeback tour.
The details are almost too predictable. After years of civil war, the Assad regime—a brutal dictatorship if there ever was one—has finally fallen. Rebels, backed by various international players with conflicting interests, managed to take him out. Good news, right? Maybe not. Because now, the question isn’t who will lead Syria, but rather, how soon ISIS can plant their black flag in the rubble. And that’s where the U.S. comes in—again.
Of course, the official line from Washington is that these airstrikes are necessary to stabilize the region and prevent a humanitarian crisis. And to be fair, they’re not wrong. Nobody wants to see ISIS regain control of anything, let alone an entire country. But let’s not pretend this is some noble effort driven solely by a moral obligation. This is about damage control—plain and simple.
It’s also worth asking why the U.S. seems to always find itself in the role of global janitor. When things fall apart in the Middle East, it’s America that picks up the pieces. But who’s really benefiting from our efforts? Is it the Syrian people? Or is it the foreign powers jockeying for influence in the region while we foot the bill and take the heat? Because make no mistake—every bomb we drop costs millions of dollars, and every decision we make earns us a fresh round of criticism from allies and enemies alike.
Then there’s the question of what happens next. If history is any guide, the answer isn’t encouraging. Removing Assad is just the beginning. The hard part is figuring out who—or what—takes his place. Will it be a democratic government that respects human rights and promotes stability? Don’t hold your breath. More likely, we’ll see a patchwork of factions vying for power, each backed by foreign sponsors with their own agendas. And in that environment, the idea of a united, peaceful Syria is little more than a fantasy.
And let’s not forget the domestic angle. How many Americans are even aware that we’re still conducting airstrikes in Syria? How many of them know why? The truth is, most people have checked out of this conversation entirely. After decades of Middle East interventions that have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, who can blame them? But apathy isn’t the answer. If we’re going to keep involving ourselves in these conflicts, the American people deserve to know why—and what the plan is for getting out.
What’s particularly frustrating is how little has changed. We’ve been here before, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya. The names and faces are different, but the script is the same. A dictator falls, chaos ensues, and America steps in to prevent things from spiraling completely out of control. And while the intentions might be good, the results often leave much to be desired.
So here we are, firing missiles into Syria while trying to convince ourselves that this time will be different. Maybe it will be. Maybe these airstrikes will buy enough time for a stable government to emerge, for the Syrian people to rebuild their country without the shadow of ISIS looming over them. But if experience has taught us anything, it’s that the road to stability is long, messy, and littered with broken promises.
For now, all we can do is hope that this latest intervention will achieve its goals without dragging us deeper into another endless conflict. But hope, as they say, is not a strategy. And if the past is any indication, we’d better start thinking about what comes after the bombs stop falling—because that’s when the real work begins.
