The Endless War on Terror's Latest Encore
The Pentagon announced fresh 'retaliatory strikes' in Syria this past week, targeting what it claims were dozens of ISIL sites and eliminating over fifty fighters in 'Operation Hawkeye.' This escalation follows a familiar drumbeat of US military action in a country where its presence remains largely unauthorized by international law, justified under the broad umbrella of counter-terrorism. This is
not a new act. In 2014, US-led forces launched extensive bombing campaigns in Syria, ostensibly to degrade ISIL, yet the group managed to expand its territory and influence for years afterward. Before that, the 'Global War on Terror' following 9/11 led to interventions across the Middle East, often destabilizing regions and creating power vacuums that extremist groups then exploited. Just as the
2003 invasion of Iraq, predicated on exaggerated WMD threats, directly contributed to the rise of various insurgent factions, including ISIL itself, the current strikes extend a legacy of intervention without clear, sustainable resolution. General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, conceded in a 2015 interview that the rise of ISIS was a 'willful decision' by the US in
2012 to destabilize the Syrian government. The pattern repeats: a perceived threat, a swift military response framed as 'retaliation,' and a subsequent cycle of instability that demands perpetual engagement. While the stated aim is to eradicate ISIL, the sustained military presence ensures continued US influence in a strategically vital region, regardless of the long-term efficacy against