ISIS Is Defeated, Does That Mean We Can Leave The Middle East?

The White House has officially claimed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — ISIS for short — has been defeated. Trump told a crowd in Lima, Ohio that “the Caliphate is gone,” and the terrorist group has been defeated.

Of course, it is wrong for him to take credit for it. Most of the evidence points towards Kurd armies being the reason ISIS has been running, but I will take what I can get. Although, it must be pointed out that Donald — who ran on a lack of intervention — always seems to ignore the single best piece of proof the Middle East can deal with terrorism without help from the United States. Because why would an egomaniac want to give up his empire?

Here’s something to think about: We have to drone Iraq because of ISIS, which we had to occupy because of Al-Qaeda, and we needed to invade because we needed to overthrow Saddam. This is despite none of these groups supporting each other and all of them being supported at one point or the another by the United States government.

When Trump entered office, the United States was bombing seven different countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. Trump has slowed down the drone strikes of the Obama administration in Syria, but hasn’t done a thing about any of the other countries outside of sometimes talking about ending the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, he added another country to the list by starting to bomb Niger. That still leaves five countries he’s both bombing and silent on.

United States intervention has been based on the idea that we are stopping terrorist; even though evidence showed otherwise. The Taliban currently controls more territory in Afghanistan than they did when we started the war. At best, we’ve done nothing.

With the threat of ISIS — a group our own terrorist experts keep telling us only gains popularity in the Middle East because we keep messing with there politics — officially removed, the excuses go away. I expect the reasons to keep getting sillier on average and the explanations being fewer and farther between.

A few months ago, Fox Business ran a story claiming Hezbollah is active in Venezuela. The problem is, Hezbollah is primarily active in (and by that I mean run) Lebanon, which is not even in the same continent as Venezuela.

This was around the time American Media, the President, and his neo-conservative friends were constantly trying to get us into war with Venezuela. Including, asking why the country would not take aid from a regime that does not recognize the legitimacy of there leader while using a group involved with Eliot Abrams.

I call it now, within the next ten years, a new terrorist group will form that was either funded by the United States, was once allies with the United States, or only radical because of actions of the United States. The answer will be, of course, more United States interventionism even if that created the last problem.

I am simply basing this off of what has been the entire 21st century as the first 20% comes to a close. We see this best by that the Mainstream Media has been ramping up attempts and hoping maybe one of them will stick. I already mentioned Venezuela, but what about North Korea? A country they tried to get the Trump administration to strike before an attack by them had been carried out. And who could forget the long campaign by those on MSNBC to invade Russia?

To quote Smedley Butler, “War is a racket.”

Twitter: @EphromJosine1