On July 31st, The Independent reported that President Trump is considering withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. The leftist UK publication presented the story as bad news – as though Trump was defying his top military advisors.
The military officers who serve the President chose to serve him voluntarily, understanding that his position on war is not nearly as hawkish as those of his establishment Democrat and Republican predecessors, some who have profited off of the very wars that we’re still fighting. Looking at you, Dick Cheney.
President Trump campaigned on utterly destroying ISIS, and a foreign policy that he described as “peace through strength.” He was openly adversarial regarding the invasion of Iraq during his campaign, and questioned whether or not our taxpayer dollars could be spent more effectively in other areas besides endless conflicts in the Middle East.
“It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The middle east is totally destabilized – a total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion dollars or $5 trillion dollars; I wish it were spent right here in the United States on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart,” he said during a debate on CNN.
His campaign message was a popular one among war-weary Americans, particularly those who are currently serving in the military. The Military Times reported in late 2016 that in a poll of 2200 active duty troops, 55% “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” nation-building activities, defined as “establishing democracies in the Middle East and North Africa.” In a similar exercise, CNN, in collaboration with ORC International, a polling company, found in 2013 that 64% of Americans were “very reluctant” to use military force around the world.
So with President Trump mulling over the removal of the troops from Afghanistan – potentially ending the longest war in U.S. history – one might think that mainstream media would be supportive of the measure. Instead, we have deafening silence. It’s almost as though they have an anti-Trump agenda to protect! The American people want this. They want peace in the Middle East. They recognize the futility of putting boots on the ground to fight an enemy that continues to regenerate itself after 16 years of nonstop fighting.
The same goes for the recent announcement of the end of the United States’ covert arming of “moderate” Syrian rebels who were seeking to overthrow the Syrian president, Bashar Al-Assad. It’s the same tactic that our government has used to topple other regimes in the Middle East, including the Gaddafi regime in Libya.
It is well-known that the “moderate” rebels that we’ve been supporting are not moderate at all. In fact, they’re not even rebels. Rather, they’re radical terrorists.
Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, points out that “every rebel group in Syria has been affiliated with Al Qaeda at some point.” Historically, the “rebel” groups in the Middle East are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, and Al Qaeda. Often they go by different names – al-Nusra, Boko Haram, al-Shabab – but they’re not inherently different. They’re one in the same. They fight for the same purpose of establishing an Islamic caliphate. They worship the same warped radical Islamic ideology. They behead, rape, and pillage in the name of Allah, no matter where they are located geographically, or what they call themselves.
Why would our elected representatives choose to arm these dubious groups in the first place, especially with taxpayer funding? It deserves intense public scrutiny. It is decidedly opposed to the idea that framers of our Constitution had in mind regarding how America would conduct itself in foreign affairs. The Jeffersonian crowd would be appalled. Our founders were true nationalists. They believed in America keeping to itself unless it was directly provoked. That has not been our policy in the Middle East for quite some time. It’s refreshing to see an administration that is genuinely interested in finishing the never-ending Middle Eastern quagmire.
Instead of hailing the new “dis-arm the rebels” policy that will save countless lives and help to prevent the spread of terror in the Middle East, the media has spun it as a victory for Vladimir Putin. The suggestion is that the President Trump is working on Russia’s behalf, as Putin is aligned with Assad. It’s a small amount of life-blood for their rapidly deteriorating Russian election influence conspiracy theory.
President Trump is insistent on destroying our enemies, rather than arming them. Victories against ISIS have been overwhelming under the Trump presidency.
In early July, Iraq’s Prime Minister declared victory against ISIS in a “liberated” Mosul. ISIS is quickly losing control of it’s headquarters in Syria, which is located in the city of Raqqa. They have been driven out of 40% of the city since June. The militants have not been able to leave or enter the city, and are subject to daily airstrikes from the U.S. Military.
Consider the significance of these events: ISIS stands for the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Their goal is to set up a Muslim caliphate in the land that makes up the two nations, and now they are failing miserably. President Trump is delivering on his promise to defeat ISIS, while simultaneously de-escalating U.S. involvement in regime change and the long-fought War on Terror. This is the most significant positive development in Middle Eastern War on Terror since the death of Osama bin Laden. It is the true realization of the “peace through strength” tactic that President Trump campaigned on. We are showing strength by driving out ISIS through air raids, and promoting peace by discontinuing the flow of their weaponry so that they cannot continue to de-stabilize the nations in which they inhabit.
This should be celebrated. Instead, the stories of victory and the Trump’s push for peace in the Middle East has been largely ignored by the media. We should not expect that to change, and instead should focus on shining light on Trump administration wins.
Biden’s Syria Strikes Killed at Least 22 People – More than Both of Trump’s Strikes on the Country
Biden’s airstrike killed 22 people.
President Joe Biden has surpassed President Trump’s body-count for US involvement in Syria’s bloody and seemingly endless civil war- killing more people in one batch of airstrikes than were killed in both of Trump’s military actions targeting Syrian government forces in the country in 2017 and 2018.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has indicated that 22 pro-Assad militia fighters were killed in the airstrike, which reportedly struck three trucks after they crossed the Iraq-Syria border. The airstrikes were staged in response to missile attacks that killed an international contractor and injured US military service members earlier this month, with the Biden administration pointing to Iranian backing of Shia militias in both Iraq and Syria.
Trump’s first missile strike on Syrian government facilities in response to a chemical weapons incident in 2017. Ranges of causalities range from nine to 16 deaths. President Trump oversaw a far more aggressive military campaign to destroy the ISIS caliphate, while dealing with the Syrian government in a more conservative and measured fashion.
Observers maintain that President Trump’s second missile strike on the Syrian government didn’t even kill anyone, with the Syrian government describing six soldiers and three civilians as having been injured in the series of missile strikes that targeted scientific and alleged chemical munitions facilities.
President Trump was in office for four years and avoided inflicting casualties of the kind Biden has in just over a month- on a questionable intelligence basis. Biden’s action may suggest his administration intends to further pursue aggressive action and regime change in Syria, a long-sought priority of the western globalist establishment.
Someone should ask @PressSec her own question verbatim about Biden’s Syria bombing at tomorrow’s briefing (and while the context of her tweet was Trump’s bombing of Syrian forces, the question still applies): https://t.co/9ebYPywQPB
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 26, 2021
This military action was by every indication more lethal and serious than anything Trump implemented in Syria or Iraq during his presidency- including the killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani. The corporate-establishment media has largely glossed over the event, refusing to scrutinize the questionable intelligence behind the consequential airstrikes.
White House2 days ago
Secret Service Members Confirm That Joe Biden’s Mental Faculties are Indeed in “Bad Shape,” Dan Bongino Says
Around The World3 days ago
Biden Authorizes Attack on Syria, Kamala FURIOUS It Wasn’t Her Call
White House4 days ago
SLEEPY? Biden Yet to Deliver First State of the Union Amid Confused Public Appearances
Free Speech2 days ago
Wikipedia’s Founder is Creating New Free Speech Competitor to Website, Citing Leftist Domination
Free Speech3 days ago
Trump Preparing Case Before “Facebook Supreme Court” to Restore Platform Access
States4 days ago
SICK: California Bill Proposes to Fine Retailers That Maintain Separate Clothing and Toys Sections for Boys and Girls
States4 days ago
Michigan Republicans Demand Inquiry Into Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Murderous COVID-19 Nursing Home Policies
Congress2 days ago
Arizona’s Paul Gosar Proposes Amending Coronavirus Package to Replace Pork with $10,000 Stimulus Checks