SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us military
Trump Says 'We Will Retaliate' After Americans Killed, Wounded in Syria
US Central Command said that the "lone ISIS gunman" who targeted the Americans "was engaged and killed."
Dec 13, 2025
Despite publicly seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, President Donald Trump on Saturday told reporters that "we will retaliate" after US Central Command announced that a solo Islamic State gunman killed three Americans—two service members and one civilian—and wounded three other members of the military.
"This is an ISIS attack," Trump said before departing the White House for the Army-Navy football game in Baltimore, according to the Associated Press. He also said the three unidentified American survivors of the ambush "seem to be doing pretty well."
US Central Command said that the "lone ISIS gunman" who targeted the Americans "was engaged and killed," and that in accordance with Department of Defense policy, "the identities of the service members will be withheld until 24 hours after their next of kin have been notified."
Citing three local officials, Reuters reported that the attacker "was a member of the Syrian security forces."
The news agency also noted that a Syrian Interior Ministry spokesperson, Noureddine el-Baba, told the state-run television channel Al-Ikhbariya that the man did not have a leadership role.
"On December 10, an evaluation was issued indicating that this attacker might hold extremist ideas, and a decision regarding him was due to be issued tomorrow, on Sunday," the spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at the think tank Defense Priorities, said in a statement that "the deaths and injuries of US personnel in Syria today are tragic reminders that foreign military deployments are risky, costly, and should only be undertaken when vital national security interests are at stake. Sadly, Syria doesn't pass that test."
"The US military destroyed ISIS as a territorial entity more than five years ago, and its fighters pose no threat to the US homeland," Kelanic continued. "The only reason ISIS was able to strike US troops in Syria is because we senselessly left them in harm's way, long after their mission was completed. We must not compound this tragedy by allowing US troops to remain vulnerable to attack on a nebulous mission with no end date. The US should withdraw all forces from Syria and Iraq and let those countries manage their own problems."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Why Is This Hard?' Schumer Won't Say He Opposes Regime Change in Venezuela
"Twenty-five years ago, Chuck Schumer and Susan Collins both voted to send me and friends to kill and die in Iraq," said US Senate candidate Graham Platner. "Apparently neither of them have learned a thing."
Dec 11, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna suggested on Thursday that the top Democrat in the Senate had offered the latest evidence that the party needs "a new generation to lead... with moral clarity and conviction" after Sen. Chuck Schumer refused to denounce the Trump administration's threats of regime change in Venezuela.
"Why is this hard?" asked Khanna (D-Calif.) after Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, told CNN's Jake Tapper Wednesday evening that "everyone would like" it if Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro "would flee on his own" instead of stating that the US should not try to force out the South American leader.
When asked point-blank if he disagrees with President Donald Trump's "ultimate goal of regime change in Venezuela," Schumer turned his focus to the lack of clarity in the White House's strategy.
"The bottom line is President Trump throws out so many different things in so many different ways. You don't even know what the heck he's talking about. You know, obviously, if Maduro would just flee on his own, everyone would like that. But we don't know what the heck he's up to when he talks about that," said Schumer. "You cannot say I endorse this, I endorse that when Trump is all over the lot, not very specific and very worrisome at how far he might escalate."
Chuck Schumer won't say if he opposes regime change in Venezuela.
JAKE TAPPER: Do you disagree with President Trump's ultimate goal of regime change in Venezuela?
CHUCK SCHUMER: Look, the bottom line is President Trump throws out so many different things in so many different… pic.twitter.com/kwjWMsBgM8
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) December 10, 2025
Schumer's response, Khanna suggested, should have been: "Yes, Democrats oppose regime change war in Venezuela. Instead of wasting trillions on endless wars, we must invest in jobs, healthcare, and housing for Americans."
The CNN interview took place hours after the US military seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in what one think tank called an "illegal" escalation. In recent weeks Trump has claimed he's ordered the airspace above and around Venezuela closed—an action experts said he had no legal authority to take—authorized covert CIA action in the country, and this week said the US plans to "hit ‘em on land very soon," threatening strikes against Venezuela as well as Mexico and Colombia.
The White House has aggressively pushed a narrative about the need to stop the trafficking of fentanyl from Venezuela—despite findings by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the United Nations that the country plays virtually no role in the flow of the drug into the US. At least 87 people have been killed in US military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since September—bombings that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Trump have claimed without evidence have targeted "narco-terrorists," but which Latin American officials, the family of one victim, and legal experts have denounced as extrajudicial killings and homicide.
Trump has previously signaled a desire to take control of Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
On November 21, Trump reportedly spoke to Maduro in a phone call and offered him safe passage out of Venezuela if he abdicated power, in the most explicit confirmation that the administration is seeking regime change. A CBS/YouGov poll released two days later found that 70% of Americans oppose any military action in Venezuela.
Labor attorney Benjamin Dictor and Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner of Maine were among those who joined Khanna in condemning Schumer's refusal to unequivocally reject the goal of forcing Maduro out through military action.
"Chuck Schumer is so spineless he can’t even affirmatively oppose illegal, unauthorized regime change by military force," said Dictor.
Schumer has called for the passage of a war powers resolution to block the deployment of US forces in Venezuela. As Trump has continued the boat bombings and built up military presence in the Caribbean, two war powers resolutions aimed at stopping the US from striking boats and targets inside Venezuela have failed to pass.
But his refusal to speak out comes two months after journalist Aída Chávez reported that a "senior Democratic staffer" was "discouraging Democrats from coming out against regime change in Venezuela... arguing that opposing Trump and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio's regime change amounts to supporting Maduro."
After Schumer's interview, Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy joined in calling for "regime change in the Senate Democratic Caucus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
When Orders Cross the Line: Why US Troops Must Refuse an Illegal War in Venezuela
A soldier’s oath is to the Constitution, not to unlawful commands. If the United States launches a ground invasion of Venezuela without congressional authorization or international sanction, service members have a duty to say, “No.”
Dec 11, 2025
Every man and woman who enlists in the United States Armed Forces raises their right hand and swears a solemn oath. It is a ritual of profound transformation, marking the passage from private citizen to guardian of the Republic. Yet buried within the cadence of those familiar words lies a paradox that has haunted battlefields from the Ardennes to the Euphrates. We swear to obey the orders of officers appointed over us, yes—but first, we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That order of precedence is not accidental. In the American military tradition, loyalty to principles supersedes loyalty to any person, rank, or administration. This hierarchy of allegiance creates the most difficult, perilous, and essential duty a service member holds: the duty to refuse an unlawful order.
Today, that duty is no longer theoretical. When political leaders announce intentions to “soon” strike Venezuela on land, they are not merely rattling sabers—they are proposing an act that would be illegal under both US law and international law. The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the authority to declare war. Absent congressional authorization, a unilateral ground invasion would be unconstitutional. Under the United Nations Charter, such aggression would also violate international prohibitions against war absent self-defense or Security Council approval. To obey such a command would not be discipline; it would be complicity in a crime.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is explicit. Article 90 requires obedience only to lawful orders. This distinction is the firewall between a professional military and a Praetorian Guard or armed mob. A lawful order relates to military duty and promotes the well-being of the unit. An unlawful order—one that directs a crime, violates the laws of war, or targets civilians—is not an order at all. It is a solicitation of conspiracy. To obey such a command is not fidelity to the oath; it is betrayal of it.
A military that follows orders without question is a weapon that can be turned against the very people it was built to protect.
The ghost of Nuremberg hangs over every discussion of this duty. Following World War II, the United States led the world in establishing that “I was just following orders” is no defense for atrocities. We hanged men who claimed they were merely cogs in a machine of state violence. We cannot, morally or legally, hold our enemies to a standard we refuse to apply to ourselves. If we demand recognition of human rights, our own bayonets must be clean.
We have our own examples of this precipice. In 1968, amid the horror of My Lai, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Jr. saw American troops slaughtering unarmed Vietnamese civilians. He did not follow the flow of the operation. He landed his helicopter between villagers and advancing Americans, ordering his gunners to fire on his countrymen if they continued the massacre. Thompson was treated as a pariah for years, but today he is recognized as a paragon of military ethics. He understood his oath was not to the madness of the moment, but to the enduring values of the nation he served.
We must acknowledge the terrible weight this places on the individual soldier, marine, sailor, or airman. In the fog of war, where adrenaline spikes and intelligence is imperfect, distinguishing lawful from unlawful orders is agonizing. A soldier is trained to react instantly; hesitation is often synonymous with death. Asking a 19-year-old lance corporal to act as a constitutional jurist in the heat of battle is an immense demand.
Yet it is a necessary one. The complexities of modern conflict—counterinsurgency, urban warfare, domestic support operations—blur the lines between combatant and civilian. In these gray zones, the moral compass of the individual service member is often the only safeguard against atrocity.
Furthermore, domestic political turmoil raises the stakes. Should the military ever be called upon to act on American soil in ways that violate constitutional rights, the “duty to refuse” moves from theory to the final safeguard of democracy. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army for this reason; they mitigated that fear by tethering loyalty to law, not leaders.
We must train for disobedience as rigorously as we train for obedience. Troops must understand that refusal to violate the law is not mutiny, but fidelity. A military that follows orders without question is a weapon that can be turned against the very people it was built to protect. A military that thinks, judges, and holds the law above rank is the shield of a free republic.
The uniform does not silence conscience. When the order comes to cross the line—to torture, to target the innocent, to invade a sovereign nation without lawful authority—the American soldier has a duty to stand firm, look their commander in the eye, and say, “No.” In that moment, they are not breaking ranks. They are keeping the faith.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular