Of course, the U.S. simply getting out of the Middle East is never considered as an alternative. From Moon of Alabama at moonofalabama.org:
Mainstream media propagandize their readers not only by what they report but also by not reporting on certain views and issues.
A prime example is a recent New York Times ‘news analysis’ of a White House position on U.S. troops in the Middle East.
The author is Peter Baker the Times chief White House correspondent.
The headline:
As U.S. and Militias Engage, White House Worries About a Tipping Point
The number of attacks on American troops in the Middle East increases the risk of deaths, a red line that could lead to a wider war.
Another day, another barrage of rockets and another spark that American officials fear could set off a wildfire of violence across the Middle East.
The latest attack on American troops in the region over the weekend resulted in no deaths, but President Biden and his advisers worry that it is only a matter of time. Whenever a report of a strike arrives at the White House Situation Room, officials wonder whether this will be the one that forces a more decisive retaliation and results in a broader regional war.
Baker fails to analyze the White House’s assumption. He assumes that there is no alternative, TINA as the deceased British prime minister Maggie Thatcher used to say.
The only response to a deadly attack would be a wider war without it being said how that war would be waged, against whom or for what purpose.
