I'm not really talking about the current administration. I'm talking about the US government's overall policy of overseas intervention that goes back decades.

I'm not really talking about the current administration. I'm talking about the US government's overall policy of overseas intervention that goes back decades. The press often criticize the government for not intervening, or for exiting an intervention. You're not going to see anyone on the pages of the NYT say that the US shouldn't be intervening in other countries, period. > How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc? > Syria The press criticized the administration for deciding to leave. Even though the Syrian civil war is basically over and the regime won. Obama was criticized for not "doing enough" even though the Syrian Civil War was the largest CIA operation in decades and the opposition was overwhelmingly made up of sectarian death-squads. Don't take my word for it, read what the NYT's Thomas Friedman said in 2017. He argues we should allow ISIS to continue existing so that it might take down the Assad regime. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-fighting-isis-in-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-figh... > Russia The liberal press has been criticized the decision not to ramp up a new cold-war with Russia. They attack anyone who opposes more sanctions. > Iraq The press uncritically promoted the invasion of Iraq and only turned against it when it started going bad. > Afghanistan If the any administration decided to pull out they would be criticized. How about the West's role in Yemen? You didn't hear anything about that in the Anglo press until recently even though the UN was calling it the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. I'm not saying the establishment press is always wrong. They serve an important purpose, but on foreign policy in particular their coverage ranges from good(leaving the Iran deal is bad) to awful(uncritical support for Syrian opposition), and sometimes it's just propaganda.